Archive for the ‘Constitutional’ Category

Patronymic Paralogy

May 16, 2017

Patronymic Paralogy
Your Name Under Their Law – 137 pages
http://www.ptshamrock.com/your_name_under_the_law.pdf

The United States Citizen General immunities pertaining to prosecutors, judges and government agents
1.)
Prosecutor may violate civil rights
in initiating prosecution and presenting case.
– United States Supreme Court in
Imbler v. Pachtman
z
424 U.S.
409 (1976)
2.)
Immunity extends to all activities closely associated with litigation or potential
litigation.
– Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Davis v. Grusemever, 996 F.2d 617
(1993)
3.)
Prosecutor may knowingly use false testimony and suppress evidence. – United
States Supreme Court in
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)
4.)
Prosecutor may file charges without any investigation.
– Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1337 (1986)
5.)
Prosecutor may file charges outside of his jurisdiction.
– Eighth Circuit Federal Court of appeal in
Myers v. Morris, 840 F.2d 1337 (1986)
6.)
Prosecutor may knowingly offer perjured testimony.
– Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 1310
(1987)
7.)
Prosecutor can suppress exculpatory evidence. (Exculpatory defined: Evidence
showing one innocent)
– Fifth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Henzel v. Gertstein, 608 F.2d 654 (1979)

8.)
Prosecutors are immune from lawsuit for conspiring
with judges to determine
outcome of judicial proceedings.
– Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Ashelman v. Pope, 793 E.2d 1072 (1986)
9.)
Prosecutor may knowingly file charges against innocent persons for a crime that
never occurred.
– Tenth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Norton v. Liddell, 620 F.2d 1375 (1980)
Ignorantia juris non excusat or
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat
(Latin for
“ignorance of the law does not excuse” or “ignorance of the law excuses no one”) is a
legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for
violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

Article I Section 8 Powers Of Congress

May 9, 2017

Article I Section 8 – Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

So they established and created their taxing power. Because the true purpose of managing a Nation/State Corporate entity occupying a country is a very lucrative business. Obviously it is for a profit, theirs.. Their Compact say’s what happens in case of impeachment and “disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” [Article I section 3] So the Corporation Nation-State is a profit generating business. And it is a privately owned business. This is why everything is and always has been from day one when agreed upon in 1783 became CORPORATE.
Article I Section 8 – Powers of Congress

~ To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What is “necessary and proper”? Obviously anything they want it to mean. There is cannot be an unconstitutional law because if the Congress passed it, the new law had to be “necessary and proper”.
Article VI – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

~ All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

Obviously there is no disputing the debts of the United States Corporation, Congress Assembled because it’s their Business manged from their boardroom..

~ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Apparently they knew they were going to be passing more taxation over the coming years, making various other laws and signing numerous Business Contracts otherwise known as Treaties with other privately owned Nation/States around the world, and all of these contractual agreement treaties would be done based upon international law, Which that COTUS declares shall be the supreme “Law of the Land”, and the black robed Judges are upholding international law and upholding the Private Compact Political Charter recognized by the International Community Constitution when they do.

Sovereigns Rights Superior Over Citizens

May 9, 2017

“Ye Can Be As Gods”.. Thats what Nation state builders owners do, play god..

CHAP. IV.
OF THE SOVEREIGN, HIS OBLIGATIONS, AND HIS RIGHTS.
§ 38. Of the sovereign.

THE reader cannot expect to find here a long deduction of the rights of sovereignty, and the functions of a prince. These are to be found in treatises on the public law. In this chapter we only propose to show, in consequence of the grand principles of the law of nations, what a sovereign is, and to give a general idea of his obligations and his rights.

We have said that the sovereignty is that public authority which commands in civil society, and orders and directs what each citizen is to perform, to obtain the end of its institution. This authority originally and essentially belonged to the body of the society, to which each member submitted, and ceded his natural right of conducting himself in every thing as he pleased, according to the dictates of his own understanding, and of doing himself justice. But the body of the society does not always retain in its own hands this sovereign authority: it frequently intrusts it to a senate, or to a single person. That senate, or that person, is then the sovereign.
§ 39. It is solely established for thesafety and advantage of society.

It is evident that men form a political society, and submit to laws, solely for their own advantage and safety. The sovereign authority is then established only for the common good of all the citizens; and it would be absurd to think that it could change its nature on passing into the hands of a senate or a monarch. Flattery, therefore, cannot, without rendering itself equally ridiculous and odious, deny that the sovereign is only established for the safety and advantage of society.

A good prince, a wise conductor of society, ought to have his mind impressed with this great truth, that the sovereign power is solely intrusted to him for the safety of the state, and the happiness of all the people; that he is not permitted to consider himself as the principal object in the administration of affairs, to seek his own satisfaction, or his private advantage; but that he ought to direct all his views, all his steps, to the greatest advantage of the state and people who have submitted to him.1 What a noble sight it is to see a king of England rendering his parliament an account of his principal operations — assuring that body, the representatives of the nation, that he has no other end in view than the glory of the state and the happiness of his people — and affectionately thanking all who concur with him in such salutary views! Certainly, a monarch who makes use of this language, and by his conduct proves the sincerity of his professions, is, in the opinion of the wise, the only great man. But, in most kingdoms, a criminal flattery has long since caused these maxims to be forgotten. A crowd of servile courtiers easily persuade a proud monarch that the nation was made for him, and not he for the nation. He soon considers the kingdom as a patrimony that is his own property, and his people as a herd of cattle from which he is to derive his wealth, and which he may dispose of to answer his own views, and gratify his passions. Hence those fatal wars undertaken by ambition, restlessness, hatred, and pride; — hence those oppressive taxes, whose produce is dissipated by ruinous luxury, or squandered upon mistresses and favourites; — hence, in fine, are important posts given by favour, while public merit is neglected, and every thing that does not immediately interest the prince is abandoned to ministers and subalterns. Who can, in this unhappy government, discover an authority established for the public welfare? A great prince will be on his guard even against his virtues.

Let us not say, with some writers, that private virtues are not the virtues of kings — a maxim of superficial politicians, or of those who are very inaccurate in their expressions. Goodness, friendship, gratitude, are still virtues on the throne; and would to God they were always to be found there! But a wise king does not yield an undiscerning obedience to their impulse. He cherishes them, he cultivates them in his private life; but in state affairs he listens only to justice and sound policy. And why? because he knows that the government was intrusted to him only for the happiness of society, and that, therefore, he ought not to consult his own pleasure in the use he makes of his power. He tempers his goodness with wisdom; he gives to friendship his domestic and private favours; he distributes posts and employments according to merit; public rewards to services done to the state. In a word, he uses the public power only with a view to the public welfare. All this is comprehended in that fine saying of Lewis XII.: — “A king of France does not revenge the injuries of a duke of Orleans.”
§ 40. Of his representative character.

A political society is a moral person (Prelim. § 2) inasmuch as it has an understanding and a will, of which it makes use for the conduct of its affairs, and is capable of obligations and rights. When, therefore, a people confer the sovereignty on any one person, they invest him with their understanding and will, and make over to him their obligations and rights, so far as relates to the administration of the state, and to the exercise of the public authority. The sovereign, or conductor of the state, thus becoming the depositary of the obligations and rights relative to government, in him is found the moral person, who, without absolutely ceasing to exist in the nation, acts thenceforwards only in him and by him. Such is the origin of the representative character attributed to the sovereign. He represents the nation in all the affairs in which he may happen to be engaged as a sovereign. It does not debase the dignity of the greatest monarch to attribute to him this representative character; on the contrary, nothing sheds a greater lustre on it, since the monarch thus unites in his own person all the majesty that belongs to the entire body of the nation.
§ 41. He is intrusted with the obligations of the nation, and invested with its rights.

The sovereign, thus clothed with the public authority, with every thing that constitutes the moral personality of the nation, of course becomes bound by the obligations of that nation, and invested with its rights.
§ 42 His duty with respect to the preservation and perfection of the nation.

All that has been said in Chap. II. of the general duties of a nation towards itself particularly regards the sovereign. He is the depositary of the empire, and the power of commanding whatever conduces to the public welfare; he ought, therefore, as a tender and wise father, and as a faithful administrator, to watch for the nation, and take care to preserve it, and render it more perfect; to better its state, and to secure it, as far as possible, against every thing that threatens its safety or its happiness.
§ 43. His rights in this respect.

Hence all the rights which a nation derives from its obligation to preserve and perfect itself, and to improve its state, (see §§ 18, 20, and 23, of this book); all these rights, I say, reside in the sovereign, who is therefore indifferently called the conductor of the society, superior, prince, &c.
§ 44. He ought to know the nation.

We have observed above, that every nation ought to know itself. This obligation devolves on the sovereign, since it is he who is to watch over the preservation and perfection of the nation. The duty which the law of nature here imposes on the conductors of nations is of extreme importance, and of considerable extent. They ought exactly to know the whole country subject to their authority; its qualities, defects, advantages, and situation with regard to the neighbouring states; and they ought to acquire a perfect knowledge of the manners and general inclinations of their people, their virtues, vices, talents, &c. All these branches of knowledge are necessary to enable them to govern properly.
§ 45. The extent of his power.

The prince derives his authority from the nation; he possesses just so much of it as they have thought proper to intrust him with. If the nation has plainly and simply invested him with the sovereignty, without limitation or division, he is supposed to be invested with all the prerogatives, without which the sovereign command or authority could not be exerted in the manner most conducive to the public welfare. These are called regal prerogatives, or the prerogatives of majesty.
§ 46. The prince ought to respect and support the fundamental laws.

But when the sovereign power is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws of the state, those laws show the prince the extent and bounds of his power, and the manner in which he is to exert it. The prince is therefore strictly obliged not only to respect, but also to support them. The constitution and the fundamental laws are the plan on which the nation has resolved to labour for the attainment of happiness; the execution is intrusted to the prince. Let him religiously follow this plan; let him consider the fundamental laws as inviolable and sacred rules; and remember that the moment he deviates from them, his commands become unjust, and are but a criminal abuse of the power with which he is intrusted. He is, by virtue of that power, the guardian and defender of the laws: and while it is his duty to restrain each daring violator of them, ought he himself to trample them under foot?2
§ 47. He may change the laws not fundamental.

If the prince be invested with the legislative power, he may, according to his wisdom, and when the public advantage requires it, abolish those laws that are not fundamental, and make now ones. (See what we have said on this subject in the preceding chapter, § 34.)
§ 48. He ought to maintain and observe the existing laws.

But while these laws exist, the sovereign ought religiously to maintain and observe them. They are the foundation of the public tranquility, and the firmest support of the sovereign authority. Every thing is uncertain, violent, and subject to revolutions, in those unhappy states where arbitrary power has placed her throne. It is therefore the true interest of the prince, as well as his duty, to maintain and respect the laws; he ought to submit to them himself. We find this truth established in a piece published by order of Lewis XIV., one of the most absolute princes that ever reigned in Europe. “Let it not be said that the sovereign is not subject to the laws of his state, since the contrary proposition is one of the truths of the law of nations, which flattery has sometimes attacked, and which good princes have always defended, as a tutelar divinity of their states.”3
§ 49. In what sense he is subject to the laws.

But it is necessary to explain this submission of the prince to the laws. First, he ought, as we have just seen, to follow their regulations in all the acts of his administration. In the second place, he is himself subject, in his private affairs, to all the laws that relate to property. I say, “in his private affairs;” for when he acts as a sovereign prince, and in the name of the state, he is subject only to the fundamental laws, and the law of nations. In the third place, the prince is subject to certain regulations of general polity, considered by the state as inviolable, unless he be excepted in express terms by the law, or tacitly by a necessary consequence of his dignity. I here speak of the laws that relate to the situation of individuals, and particularly of those that regulate the validity of marriages. These laws are established to ascertain the state of families: now the royal family is that of all others the most important to be certainly known. But, fourthly, we shall observe in general, with respect to this question, that, if the prince is invested with a full, absolute, and unlimited sovereignty, he is above the laws, which derive from him all their force; and he may dispense with his own observance of them, whenever natural justice and equity will permit him. Fifthly, as to the laws relative to morals and good order, the prince ought doubtless to respect them, and to support them by his example. But, sixthly, he is certainly above all civil penal laws, The majesty of a sovereign will not admit of his being punished like a private person; and his functions are too exalted to allow of his being molested under pretence of a fault that does not directly concern the government of the state.
§ 50. His person is sacred and inviolable.

It is not sufficient that the prince be above the penal laws: even the interest of nations requires that we should go something farther. The sovereign is the soul of the society; if he be not held in veneration by the people, and in perfect security, the public peace, and the happiness and safety of the state, are in continual danger. The safety of the nation then necessarily requires that the person of the prince be sacred and inviolable. The Roman people bestowed this privilege on their tribunes, in order that they might meet with no obstruction in defending them, and that no apprehension might disturb them in the discharge of their office. The cares, the employments of a sovereign, are of much greater importance than those of the tribunes were, and not less dangerous, if he be not provided with a powerful defence. It is impossible even for the most just and wise monarch not to make malcontents; and ought the state to continue exposed to the danger of losing so valuable a prince by the hand of an assassin? The monstrous and absurd doctrine, that a private person is permitted to kill a bad prince, deprived the French, in the beginning of the last century, of a hero who was truly the father of his people.4 Whatever a prince may be, it is an enormous crime against a nation to deprive them of a sovereign whom they think proper to obey.5
§ 51. But the nation may curb a tyrant, and withdraw itself from his obedience.

But this high attribute of sovereignty is no reason why the nation should not curb an insupportable tyrant, pronounce sentence on him (still respecting in his person the majesty of his rank) and withdraw itself from his obedience. To this indisputable right a powerful republic owes its birth. The tyranny exercised by Philip II. in the Netherlands excited those provinces to rise: seven of them, closely confederated, bravely maintained their liberties, under the conduct of the heroes of the House of Orange; and Spain, after several vain and ruinous efforts, acknowledged them sovereign and independent states. If the authority of the prince is limited and regulated by the fundamental laws, the prince, on exceeding the bounds prescribed him, commands without any right and even without a just title: the nation is not obliged to obey him, but may resist his unjust attempts. As soon as a prince attacks the constitution of the state, he breaks the contract which bound the people to him; the people become free by the act of the sovereign, and can no longer view him but as a usurper who would load them with oppression. This truth is acknowledged by every sensible writer, whose pen is not enslaved by fear, or sold for hire. But some celebrated authors maintain, that if the prince is invested with the supreme command in a full and absolute manner, nobody has a right to resist him, much less to curb him, and that naught remains for the nation but to suffer and obey with patience. This is founded upon the supposition that such a sovereign is not accountable to any person for the manner in which he governs, and that if the nation might control his actions and resist him where it thinks them unjust, his authority would no longer be absolute; which would be contrary to this hypothesis. They say that an absolute sovereign completely possesses all the political authority of the society, which nobody can oppose; that, if he abuses it, he does ill indeed, and wounds his conscience; but that his commands are not the less obligatory, as being founded on a lawful right to command; that the nation, by giving him absolute authority, has reserved no share of it to itself, and has submitted to his discretion, &c. We might be content with answering, that in this light there is not any sovereign who is completely and fully absolute. But in order to remove all these vain subtleties, let us remember the essential end of civil society. Is it not to labour in concert for the common happiness of all? Was it not with this view that every citizen divested himself of his rights, and resigned his liberty? Could the society make such use of its authority as irrevocably to surrender itself and all its members to the discretion of a cruel tyrant? No, certainly, since it would no longer possess any right itself, if it were disposed to oppress a part of the citizens. When, therefore, it confers the supreme and absolute government, without an express reserve, it is necessarily with the tacit reserve that the sovereign shall use it for the safety of the people, and not for their ruin. If he becomes the scourge of the state, he degrades himself; he is no better than a public enemy, against whom the nation may and ought to defend itself; and if he has carried his tyranny to the utmost height, why should even the life of so cruel and perfidious an enemy be spared? Who shall presume to blame the conduct of the Roman senate, that declared Nero an enemy to his country?

But it is of the utmost importance to observe, that this judgment can only be passed by the nation, or by a body which represents it, and that the nation itself cannot make any attempt on the person of the sovereign, except in cases of extreme necessity, and when the prince, by violating the laws, and threatening the safety of his people, puts himself in a state of war against them. It is the person of the sovereign, not that of an unnatural tyrant and a public enemy, that the interest of the nation declares sacred and inviolable. We seldom see such monsters as Nero. In the more common cases, when a prince violates the fundamental laws; when he attacks the liberties and privileges of his subjects; or (if he be absolute) when his government, without being carried to extreme violence, manifestly tends to the ruin of the nation; it may resist him, pass sentence on him, and withdraw from his obedience; but though this may be done, still his person should be spared, and that for the welfare of the state.5 It is above a century since the English took up arms against their king, and obliged him to descend from the throne. A set of able, enterprising men, spurred on by ambition, took advantage of the terrible ferment caused by fanaticism and party spirit; and Great Britain suffered her sovereign to die unworthily on a scaffold. The nation coming to itself discovered its former blindness. If, to this day, it still annually makes a solemn atonement, it is not only from the opinion that the unfortunate Charles I. did not deserve so cruel a fate, but, doubtless, from a conviction that the very safety of the state requires the person of the sovereign to be held sacred and inviolable, and that the whole nation ought to render this maxim venerable, by paying respect to it when the care of its own preservation will permit.

One word more on the distinction that is endeavoured to be made here in favour of an absolute sovereign. Whoever has well weighed the force of the indisputable principles we have established, will be convinced, that when it is necessary to resist a prince who has become a tyrant, the right of the people is still the same, whether that prince was made absolute by the laws, or was not; because that right is derived from what is the object of all political society — the safety of the nation, which is the supreme law.6 But, if the distinction of which we are treating is of no moment with respect to the right, it can be of none in practice, with respect to expediency. As it is very difficult to oppose an absolute prince, and it cannot be done without raising great disturbances in the state, and the most violent and dangerous commotions, it ought to be attempted only in cases of extremity, when the public miseries are raised to such a height that the people may say with Tacitus, miseram pacem vel bello bene niutari, that it is better to expose themselves to a civil war than to endure them. But if the prince’s authority is limited, if it in some respects depends on a senate, or a parliament that represents the nation, there are means of resisting and curbing him, without exposing the state to violent shocks. When mild and innocent remedies can be applied to the evil, there can be no reason for waiting until it becomes extreme.
§ 52. Arbitration between the king and his subjects.

But however limited a prince’s authority may be, he is commonly very jealous of it; it seldom happens that he patiently suffers resistance, and peaceably submits to the judgement of his people. Can he want support, while he is the distributor of favours? We see too many base and ambitious souls, for whom the state of a rich and decorated slave has more charms than that of a modest and virtuous citizen. It is therefore always difficult for a nation to resist a prince and pronounce sentence on his conduct, without exposing the state to dangerous troubles, and to shocks capable of overturning it. This has sometimes occasioned a compromise between the prince and the subjects, to submit to the decision of a friendly power all the disputes that might arise between them. Thus the kings of Denmark, by solemn treaties, formerly referred to those of Sweden the differences that might arise between them and their senate; and this the kings of Sweden have also done with regard to those of Denmark. The princes and states of West Friesland, and the burgesses of Embden, have in the same manner constituted the republic of the United Provinces the judge of their differences. The princes and the city of Neufchatel established, in 1406, the canton of Berne perpetual judge and arbitrator of their disputes. Thus also, according to the spirit of the Helvetic confederacy, the entire body takes cognisance of the disturbances that arise in any of the confederated states, though each of them is truly sovereign and independent.
§ 53. The obedience which subjects owe to a sovereign.

As soon as a nation acknowledges a prince for its lawful sovereign, all the citizens owe him a faithful obedience. He can neither govern the state, nor perform what the nation expects from him, if he be not punctually obeyed. Subjects then have no right, in doubtful cases, to examine the wisdom or justice of their sovereign’s commands; this examination belongs to the prince: his subjects ought to suppose (if there be a possibility of supposing it) that all his orders are just and salutary: he alone is accountable for the evil that may result from them.
§ 54. In what cases they may resist him.

Nevertheless this ought not to be entirely a blind obedience. No engagement can oblige, or even authorize, a man to violate the law of nature. All authors who have any regard to conscience or decency agree that no one ought to obey such commands as are evidently contrary to that sacred law. Those governors of places who bravely refused to execute the barbarous orders of Charles IX. on the memorable day of St. Bartholomew, have been universally praised; and the court did not dare to punish them, at least openly. “Sire,” said the brave Orte, governor of Bayonne, in his letter, “I have communicated your majesty’s command to your faithful inhabitants and warriors in the garrison; and I have found there only good citizens and brave soldiers, but not a single executioner: wherefore both they and I most humbly entreat your majesty to be pleased to employ our hands and our lives in things that are possible, however hazardous they may be; and we will exert ourselves to the last drop of our blood in the execution of them.”7 The Count de Tende, Charny, and others, replied to those who brought them the orders of the court, “that they had too great a respect for the king, to believe that such barbarous orders came from him.”

It is more difficult to determine in what cases a subject may not only refuse to obey, but even resist a sovereign, and oppose his violence by force. When a sovereign does injury to any one, he acts without any real authority; but we ought not thence to conclude hastily that the subject may resist him. The nature of sovereignty, and the welfare of the state, will not permit citizens to oppose a prince whenever his commands appear to them unjust or prejudicial. This would be falling back into the state of nature, and rendering government impossible. A subject ought patiently to suffer from the prince doubtful wrongs, and wrongs that are supportable; the former, because whoever has submitted to the decision of a judge, is no longer capable of deciding his own pretensions; and as to those that are supportable, they ought to be sacrificed to the peace and safety of the state, on account of the great advantages obtained by living in society. It is presumed, as matter of course, that every citizen has tacitly engaged to observe this moderation; because, without it, society could not exist. But when the injuries are manifest and atrocious, — when a prince, without any apparent reason attempts to deprive us of life, or of those things the loss of which would render life irksome, who can dispute our right to resist him? Self-preservation is not only a natural right, but an obligation imposed by nature, and no man can entirely and absolutely renounce it. And though he might give it up, can he be considered as having done it by his political engagements since he entered into society only to establish his own safety upon a more solid basis? The welfare of society does not require such a sacrifice; and, as Barbeyrac well observes in his notes on Grotius, “If the public interest requires that those who obey should suffer some inconvenience, it is no less for the public interest that those who command should be afraid of driving their patience to the utmost extremity.”8 The prince who violates all laws, who no longer observes any measures, and who would in his transports of fury take away the life of an innocent person, divests himself of his character, and is no longer to be considered in any other light than that of an unjust and outrageous enemy, against whom his people are allowed to defend themselves. The person of the sovereign is sacred and inviolable: but he who, after having lost all the sentiments of a sovereign, divests himself even of the appearances and exterior conduct of a monarch, degrades himself: he no longer retains the sacred character of a sovereign, and cannot retain the prerogatives attached to that exalted rank. However, if this prince is not a monster, — if he is furious only against us in particular, and from the effects of a sudden transport or a violent passion, and is supportable to the rest of the nation, the respect we ought to pay to the tranquility of the state is such, and the respect due to sovereign majesty so powerful, that we are strictly obliged to seek every other means of preservation, rather than to put his person in danger. Every one knows the example set by David: he fled, — he kept himself concealed, to secure himself from Saul’s fury, and more than once spared the life of his persecutor. When the reason of Charles VI. of France was suddenly disordered by a fatal accident, he in his fury killed several of those who surrounded him: none of them thought of securing his own life at the expense of that of the king; they only endeavoured to disarm and secure him. They did their duty like men of honour and faithful subjects, in exposing their lives to save that of this unfortunate monarch: such a sacrifice is due to the state and to sovereign majesty: furious from the derangement of his faculties, Charles was not guilty: he might recover his health, and again become a good king.
§ 55. Of ministers.

What has been said is sufficient for the intention of this work: the reader may see these questions treated more at large in many books that are well known. We shall conclude this subject with an important observation. A sovereign is undoubtedly allowed to employ ministers to ease him in the painful offices of government; but he ought never to surrender his authority to them. When a nation chooses a conductor, it is not with a view that he should deliver up his charge into other hands. Ministers ought only to be instruments in the hands of the prince; he ought constantly to direct them, and continually endeavour to know whether they act according to his intentions. If the imbecility of age. or any infirmity, render him incapable of governing, a regent ought to be nominated, according to the laws of the state: but when once the sovereign is capable of holding the reins, let him insist on being served, but never suffer himself to be superseded. The last kings of France of the first race surrendered to government and authority to the mayors of the palace: thus becoming mere phantoms, they justly lost the title and honours of a dignity of which they had abandoned the functions. The nation has every thing to gain in crowning an all-powerful minister, for he will improve that soil as his own inheritance, which he plundered whilst he only reaped precarious advantages from it.

1. The last words of Louis VI. to his son Louis VII. were — “Remember, my son, that royalty is but a public employment of which you must render a rigorous account to him who is the sole disposer of crowns and sceptres,” Abbe Velley’s Hist. of France, Vol. III. p. 65.

Timur-Bec declared (as he often before had done on similar occasions) that “a single hour’s attention devoted by a prince to the care of his state, is of more use and consequence than all the homage and prayers he could offer up to God during his whole life.” The same sentiment is found in the Koran. Hist. of Timur-Bec, Book II. ch. xli.

2. Neque enim se princeps reipulicae et singulorum dominum arbitrabitur, quamvis assentatoribus id in aurem insusurrantibus, sed rectorem mercede a civibus designata, quam augere, nisi ipsis volentibus, nefas existimabit. Ibid. c. v. — From this principle it follows that the nation is superior to the sovereign. Quod caput est, sit principi persuasum totius reipulicae majorem quam ipsius unius auctoritatem esse: neque pessimis hominibus credat diversum affirmantibus gratificandi studio; quae magna pernicies est. Ibid.

In some countries, formal precautions are taken against the abuse of power. — “Reflecting among other things (says Grotius), that princes are often found to make no scruple of violating their promises under the state pretext of the public good, the people of Brabant, in order to obviate that inconvenience, established the custom of never admitting their prince to the possession of the government without having previously made with him a covenant, that, whenever he may happen to violate the laws of the country, they shall be absolved from the oath of obedience they had sworn to him, until ample reparation be made for the outrages committed. The truth of this is confirmed by the example of past generations, who formerly made effectual use of arms and decrees to reduce within proper bounds such of their sovereigns as had transgressed the line of duty, whether through their own licentiousness or the artifices of their flatterers. Thus it happened to John the Second; nor would they consent to make peace with him or his successors, until those princes had entered into a solemn engagement to secure the citizens in the enjoyment of their privileges.” Annals of the Netherlands, Book II. note, edit A.D. 1797.

3. A treatise on the right of the queen to several states of the Spanish monarchy, 1667, in 12 mo. Part II. p. 191.

4. Since the above was written, France has witnessed a renewal of those horrors. She sighs at the idea of having given birth to a monster capable of violating the majesty of kings in the person of a prince, whom the qualities of his heart entitle to the love of his subjects and the veneration of foreigners. [The author alludes to the attempt made by Damien to assassinate Louis XV.] Note, edit a.d. 1797.

5. In Mariana’s work, above quoted, I find (chap. vii. towards the end) a remarkable instance of the errors into which we are apt to be led by a subtle sophistry destitute of sound principles. That author allows us to poison a tyrant, and even a public enemy, provided it be done without obliging him, either by force or through mistake or ignorance, to concur in the act that causes his own death, — which would be the case, for instance, in presenting him a poisoned draught. For (says he), in thus leading him to an act of suicide, although committed through ignorance, we make him violate the natural law which forbids each individual to lake away his own life; and the crime of him who thus unknowingly poisons himself redounds on the real author, — the person who administered the poison. — No cogatur tantum sciens aut imprudens sibi conscire mortem; quod esse nefas judicamus, veneno in potu aut cibo, quod hauriat qui perimendus est, aut simili alia retemperato. A fine reason, truly! Was Mariana disposed to insult the understandings of his readers, or only desirous of throwing a slight varnish over the detestable doctrine contained in that chapter? — Note, edit. A.D. 1797.

5. Dissimulandum censeo quatenus salus publica patiatur, privatimque corruptis moribus princeps continagat; alioquin si rempublicam in periculum vocat, si patriae religionis contemptor existit, neque mediciniam ullam recipit, abdicandum judico, alium substituendum; quod in Hispania non semel fuisse factum scimus: quasi fera irritata, ominium telis peti debet, cum, humanitate abdicata, tyrannum induit. Sic Petro rege ob immanitatem dejecto publice, Henricus ejus frater, quamvis ex impari matre, regnum obtinuit. Sic Henrico hujus abnepote ob ignaviam pravosque mores abdicato procerum suffragiis, primum Alfonsus ejus frater, recte an secus non disputo, sed tamen in tenera actate rex est proclamatus: deinde defuncto Alfonso, Elisabetha ejas soror, Henrico invito, rerum summam ad se traxit, regio tantum nomine abstinens dum ille vixit. Mariana, de Rege et Regis Institut. Lib. 1. c. iii.

To this authority, furnished by Spain, join that of Scotland, proved by the letter of the barons to the pope, dated April 6, 1320, requesting him to prevail on the king of England to desist from his enterprises against Scotland. After having spoken of the evils they had suffered from him. they add — A quibus malis innumeris, ipso juvante qui post vulnera medetur et sanat, liberati sumus per serenissimum principem regem et dominum nostrum. dominum Robertum, qui pro populo et haereditate suis de manibus inimicorm liberandis, quasi alter Maccabaeus aut Josue, labores et taedia, inedias et pericula laeto sustinuit animo. Quem etiam divina dispositio, et (juxta leges et consuetudines nostras, quas usque ad mortem sustinere volumus) juris successio, et debitus nostrorum consensus et assensus nostrum fecerunt principem atque regem: cui, tanquam liii per quem salus in populo facta est, pro nostra libertate tuenda, tam jure quam meritis tenemur, et volumus in omnibus adhaerere. Quem, si ab inceptis desistet, regi Anglorum aut Anglis nos aut regnum nostrum volens subjicere, tanquam inimicum nostrum et sui nostrique juris subversorem, statim expellere nitemur, et alium regem nostrum, qui ad defensionem nostram sufficiet, faciemus: quia quamdiu centum viri remanserint, numquam Anglorum dominio aliquatenus volumus subjugari, Non enim propter gloriam, divitias, aut honores pugnamus, sed propter libertatem solummodo, quam remo, bonus nisi simul eum vita amittit.

“In the year 1581” (says Grotius, Ann. Book III.) “the confederated provinces of the Netherlands — after having for nine years continued to wage war against Philip the Second, without ceasing to acknowledge him as their sovereign — at length solemnly deprived him of the authority he had possessed over their country, because he had violated their laws and privileges,” The author afterwards observes, that “France, Spain herself, England, Sweden, Denmark, furnish instances of kings deposed by their people; so that there are at present few sovereigns in Europe whose right to the crown rests on any other foundation than the right which the people possess of divesting their sovereign of his power when he makes an ill use of it,” Pursuant to this idea, the United Provinces, in their justificatory letters on that subject, addressed to the princes of the empire and the king of Denmark — after having enumerated the oppressive acts of the king of Spain, added — “Then, by a mode which has been often enough adopted even by those nations that now live under kingly government, we wrested the sovereignty from him whose actions were all contrary to the duty of a prince.” Ibid. — Note, edit A.D. 1797.

6. Populi patroni non pauciora neque mis ora praesidia habent. Certe a republica, unde ortum habet regia potestas, rebus exigentibus, regens in jus vocari potest, et, si sanitatem respuat, principatu spoiliari; neque ita in principem jura potestatis transtuilit, ut non sibi majorem reservârit potestatem. Ibid. cap. vi.

Est tamen salutaris cogitatio, ut sit principibus persuasum, si rempublicam oppresserint, si vitiis et foeditate intolerandi erunt, ea se conditione vivere, ut non jure tantum, sed cum laude et gloria, perimi possint. Ibid. — Note. edit. A.D. 1797.

7. Mezeray’s History of France, vol. ii. p. 1107.

8. De Jure Belli & Pacis. lib. i. cap. lv. § 11, n. 2

The Paper And Ink Of No Authority

September 30, 2016

The U.S. Constitution itself is a product of a vast conspiracy:

“The U.S. Constitution was prepared in secret, behind locked doors that were guarded by sentries.”

http://constitutioncenter.org/learn/educational-resources/historical-documents/constitution-fast-facts

“From these two acts, it appears, 1st, that the object of the convention was to establish, in these States, a firm national government; 2d, that this government was to be such as would be adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union

Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.”~Madison – The Federalist No. 40

. . . . . . . . . . .
The error of this treatise in realpolitik is that a “national government” is a central government depositing imbalance by the force of weight as the pinnacle of a system of hierarchical structure. The ‘authority of last resort’ is inevitably the head of a general government over it’s parts.

The proof of my assertion that the reasoning put by Madison is ultimately unsound is in the history of the ensuing period when this national government was formed. In the panoramic, large arc of history is the steady trajectory to tyranny and despotism.
And this can be predicted by a deeper grasp of realpolitik, and the dictum; “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And the rational consequence of this prescient point is that, it is the ‘interpretation’ of the written law that holds as policy, not the intent of the author of the written law. So it is those with the power of interpretation who are the masters of the moment, not the written law.

This is why as a matter of practical politics, ie; Realpolitik, that ‘government’ is nothing but a racket, a circus of hawkers, shysters and con-men.

The summation of Madison’s, Federalist No.40:

“The sum of what has been here advanced and proved is, that the charge against the convention of exceeding their powers, except in one instance little urged by the objectors, has no foundation to support it; that if they had exceeded their powers, they were not only warranted, but required, as the confidential servants of their country, by the circumstances in which they were placed, to exercise the liberty which they assume; and that finally, if they had violated both their powers and their obligations, in proposing a Constitution, this ought nevertheless to be embraced, if it be calculated to accomplish the views and happiness of the people of America. How far this character is due to the Constitution, is the subject under investigation.”~PUBLIUS {James Madison}

. . . . . . . . . .
Let us consider this deeply:
“if they had violated both their powers and their obligations, in proposing a Constitution, this ought nevertheless to be embraced…” – in other words it matters not what the written and understood to be law is; if it is “practical” it is right; Realpolitik, the Machiavellian ‘rule by practical man’, not written law.

Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/yates.asp

The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner:
http://jim.com/treason.htm

“The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

We, the people of the United States (that is, the people THEN EXISTING in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”~Spooner

“So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their “posterity” was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend “to secure to them the blessings of liberty.” The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their “posterity” to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not “to secure to them the blessings of liberty,” but to make slaves of them; for if their “posterity” are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.”~Ibid

“The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.:
1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.
2. Dupes — a large class, no doubt — each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities.
3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution.”~Ibid

“Still another reason why the payment of taxes implies no consent, or pledge, to support the government, is that the taxpayer does not know, and has no means of knowing, who the particular individuals are who compose “the government.” To him “the government” is a myth, an abstraction, an incorporeality, with which he can make no contract, and to which he can give no consent, and make no pledge. He knows it only through its pretended agents. “The government” itself he never sees. He knows indeed, by common report, that certain persons, of a certain age, are permitted to vote; and thus to make themselves parts of, or (if they choose) opponents of, the government, for the time being. But who of them do thus vote, and especially how each one votes (whether so as to aid or oppose the government), he does not know; the voting being all done secretly (by secret ballot). Who, therefore, practically compose “the government,” for the time being, he has no means of knowing. Of course he can make no contract with them, give them no consent, and make them no pledge. Of necessity, therefore, his paying taxes to them implies, on his part, no contract, consent, or pledge to support them — that is, to support “the government,” or the Constitution.

All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a “government”; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.”~Spooner
__________
Spooner’s entire essay should be read, it is absolutely brilliant.

“The constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.

It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still “make his mark,” before he is bound by a written contract. This custom was established ages ago, when few men could write their names; when a clerk — that is, a man who could write — was so rare and valuable a person, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to pardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his services. Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men who could not write, either “made their mark,” or signed their contracts by stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their contracts were written. Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has continued to this time.”~Ibid

“It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution — NOT AS I INTERPRET IT, BUT AS IT IS INTERPRETED BY THOSE WHO PRETEND TO ADMINISTER IT — the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be “questioned” as to any disposal they make of them.

Thus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, “for any speech or debate (or vote), in either house, they (the senators and representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place.”

The whole law-making power is given to these senators and representatives (when acting by a two-thirds vote); [1] and this provision protects them from all responsibility for the laws they make. [1] And this two-thirds vote may be but two-thirds of a quorum — that is two-thirds of a majority — instead of two-thirds of the whole. The Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute them.

Thus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?

It is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under oath to use their power only within certain limits; for what care they, or what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly provided, by the Constitution itself, that they shall never be “questioned,” or held to any responsibility whatever, for violating their oaths, or transgressing those limits?

f, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress, the members of Congress are nobody’s agents. And if they are nobody’s agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts, and for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are exercising is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of nature — the highest of all laws — anybody injured by their acts, anybody who is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same right to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold any other trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right to resist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other trespassers.”~Ibid

APPENDIX.

“Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”~Lysander Spooner
http://jim.com/treason.htm

No More Eugenics and Genocide You Claim? I Beg To Differ!

March 2, 2016

The corporate controlled opposition environmentalism groups, such as the Sierra Club and all offshoot affiliated groups are supporting the fortune 500 corporations and their false claims and criminal actions in every state and across the nation in this massive takeover of all resources public and private. A deep forensic analysis into the authors of the documents these groups are advocating for, those very idealisms are the intellectual property of these large fortune 500 multinational corporations. This leads us to the IMF, the World Bank, The Club of Rome, UNICEP, UNIDROIT, UNEP. Agenda 2100, for the purpose of Sacrificing the American citizenry on the Altar of the Bankers Lie of Economy for a Pretended Exchange of Sustainable Stability through The UNEP and Agenda 21’s Genocidal, Depopulating, Impoverishment and Enslavement New Green Order programme through economic strife, scarcity and financial ruination. All of these environmentalists are liars.

Thanks goes out to There Is No Debt and Six Honest Men;

Obama signs executive order, bypasses Congress, and legalizes all BLM land grabs
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=40858
We read –
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
28 U.S. Code § 3002 – Definitions
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
Reference material providing for clear, obvious and simple full disclosure to the ownership of the US:
OWNERSHIP OF LAW
Ownership of Law
The link to the WIPO database showing the US as copyrighted property has been deactivated. Its archived record on the internet has also been deactivated –
WIPO database constitution of US
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5395
Archived record of WIPO database link of US constitution
https://web.archive.org/web/20151224204248/http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5395
Nevertheless, its copyrighted constitution is made available in pdf form –
The Constitution of the United States of America
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/us/us181en.pdf
Of further interest with regards to the USA that the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents provides, as background to the USA’s legal position, is that its constitution is over-ridden by international treaties, when we read, pages 13 and page 14 respectively –
page 13
U.S. CONST. ART. VI, CL. 2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the
United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all
treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of
any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
page 14
Treaties are expressly declared to be “the
supreme law of the land.”
Source:
International Privilege Issues: A United States View
WIPO Standing Committee on Patents
5 November 2014
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_21/scp_21_ref_lewis.pdf
Definition of Notwithstanding
In spite of
Example for Educational Purposes Only
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,notwithstanding (in spite of) anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary.
Source:
notwithstanding
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/notwithstanding
The treaties under which the US abides to, as well as all other countries and regional bodies that are a member, are those of the United Nations. And as far as the ownership of the United Nations is concerned, its ownership can be discovered by reading the proofs below;

70 years ago after the Second World War –
Commemorating the UN charter
http://unsdn.org/commemorating-the-un-charter/
Charter of the United Nations
San Francisco, 26 June 1945
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cun/cun.html
We read –
“The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister…representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom…”
Source:
Atlantic Charter, jpeg

Atlantic Charter
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/atlantic.asp
~
Definition of And
Used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly:
‘bread and butter
they can read and write
a hundred and fifty’
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/and
~
Note.-
Both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister are representing His Majesty
We read –
” In the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, the Allies pledged adherence to this charter’s principles.”
“The Atlantic Charter set goals for the post-war world and inspired many of the international agreements that shaped the world thereafter.”
The policy was issued as a statement; as such there was no formal, legal document entitled “The Atlantic Charter”.
Source:
Atlantic Charter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter
Note.-
The United Nations “pledges” adherence to the Atlantic Charter, means that the United Nations“allegiance” is to the Atlantic Charter. It is therefore the Atlantic Charter that is in ownership of the United Nations and it, the Atlantic Charter, is in turn in the ownership of the Office titled His Majesty, which Office of Monarchy will pass to the Heirs of that Office.
How interesting that we read, that even before the end of the Second World War, the Atlantic Charter ‘somehow’ prophetically determined the ‘designs’ of the post-war world.
~
The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) forms the central coordinating core instrument and forum of the United Nations, representing as ‘plenipotentiary’, the direct will of the Office of Monarch:
We read, second paragraph –
‘The ECOSOC serves as the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues, and for formulating policy recommendations addressed to member states and the United Nations system.’
Source:
United Nations Economic and Social Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Economic_and_Social_Council
Under the title heading, ‘ECOSOC at a Glance’, we read –
‘The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is the United Nations’ central platform for reflection, debate, and innovative thinking on sustainable development.’
Source:
About ECOSOC
http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/about/
From Encyclopaedia Britannica, we learn –
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)…responsible for the direction and coordination of the economic, social, humanitarian, and cultural activities carried out by the UN. It is the UN’s largest and most complex subsidiary body…ECOSOC was established by the UN Charter (1945)…The council was designed to be the UN’s main venue for the discussion of international economic and social issues. ECOSOC conducts studies; formulates resolutions, recommendations, and conventions for consideration by the General Assembly; and coordinates the activities of various UN organizations…Most of ECOSOC’s work is performed in functional commissions on topics such as human rights, narcotics, population, social development, statistics, the status of women, and science and technology; the council also oversees regional commissions for Europe, Asia and the Pacific, Western Asia, Latin America, and Africa…At the ECOSOC World Summit in 2005, it was mandated that the council convene annual ministerial reviews, designed to monitor progress on internationally agreed development goals, and a biennial Development Cooperation Forum.
Source:
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Economic-and-Social-Council
From the United Nations Environment Programmes (UNEP) office in New York, we read and learn –
‘The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), established in 1972, is the voice for the environment within the United Nations system…UNEP acts as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment. To accomplish this, UNEP works with a wide range of partners, including United Nations entities, international organizations, national Governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector and civil society.’
Source:
ABOUT UNEP
http://www.unep.org/newyork/AboutUNEP/tabid/52259/Default.aspx
We learn under the subheading, Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) –
‘The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the UN General Assembly in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit.’
Source:
UNEP Office New York
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ECOSOC
http://www.unep.org/newyork/IntergovernmentalPolicyCoordination/EconomicandSocialCouncil/tabid/52272/Default.aspx
NGO Branch, Department of Economic and Social Affairs
About ECOSOC and its Subsidiary Bodies
http://csonet.org/?menu=123
~
Are we to understand the Atlantic Charter to be law, given to mean that it is the will and wish as personally owned private law, through that of the Office of His Majesty, and not that of a legal document constituting a bilateral offer.
From the preceding, it perhaps could be seen that the Atlantic Charter constitutes, in effect, a unilateral offer that brings into employment as employee’s, those that wish to accept ‘acting out their lives’ through continued employment to it. Then from there, it could be said and seen that the Offeror, having fulfiled an obligation to perform in making available the written instrument through which acceptance can be made to it, would have honoured his bargain. As with all else in line with ‘political charters’.
~
Definition of Unilateral Offer

unilateral offer

Definition of Unilateral Contract
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unilateral-contract.asp
Definition of Unilateral Contract
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unilateral_contract
What’s the Difference Between Bilateral and Unilateral Contracts?
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/whats-the-difference-between-bilateral-and-unilateral-contracts.rl
~
Under the subheading, ‘Drafting the Declaration’, we read –
“One major change from the Atlantic Charter was the addition of a provision for religious freedom, which Stalin approved after Roosevelt insisted.”
Source:
Declaration by United Nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations
Declaration by United Nations

We read –
“The Governments signatory hereto,
Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint
Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dated August 14, 1941, known as the
Atlantic Charter.”
Declaration by the United Nations (January 1, 1942)
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wggray/Teaching/His300/Handouts/1942-1-UN-Declaration.pdf
~
The Rothschilds’ Financing of Stalin
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/rothschilds-financing-stalin/
Stalin researched the Rothschilds and Venetian Aristocracy

Stalin researched the Rothschilds

Francisco Lopes Suasso
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Lopes_Suasso
~
1 January 1955 – Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations: original manuscript prepared for printing.

26 June 1945
The United Nations Charter open to the signatory page.

Historic Archives – photo
Charter of the United Nations
San Francisco, 26 June 1945
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cun/cun.html
Sourced:
International Organizations
Charter of the United Nations, 1945
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/instruments.html
~
Under the subheading, ‘Charter Provisions’, we read beneath the subtitle, ‘Preamble’, the words –
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined”
Source:
United Nations Charter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter
Note.-
A perculiar phrasing given the word, peoples, since the word, ‘people’, on its own is both singular and plural in number in its description of those individuals to be found in the physical world.
Whereas the term, peoples, cannot be of the physical world since the term, people, caters for that territory, and therefore, peoples is a description relating to someone’s personally owned private fictitious noun of their own making, within the territory of their imagination.
Furthermore, for the perculiar people to find themselves within the house of the United Nations, as the phrasing mis-leads us to believe, they would need to agree to accept an offer to be able to enter such a house and only then could they be found within its walls; setting aside the notions of personally owned private fictitious intellectual copywritten jurisdictional territory presented here as, the United Nations.
Charter of the United Nations (1945)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#Chapter_I_-_Purposes_and_Principles
The United Nations System – Principal Organs

Source:
5.3 The United Nations and the Impact on Trade
http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/challenges-and-opportunities-in-international-business/s09-03-the-united-nations-and-the-imp.html

The impact of human activity on biodiversity means human beings (indirect drivers) must be eliminated with the supporting justification of the climate change lie –
Biodiversity

Where the buck stops – The Club of Rome
http://www.agendatwentyone.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-club-of-rome-where-the-buck-stops/

Understanding the present in the light of the future by President Mikhail Gorbachev

Rio+20: understanding the present in the light of the future.

U.N.’s Shocking Millennium Agenda (21)

The U.N.’s Shocking Millennium Agenda (21)

We read –
Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”
Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister: “A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.”
Expose Agenda 21

A quote taken from, Expose Agenda 21, facebook page –
“The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will
in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”
– Maurice Strong
The Earth Charter – Humanity’s Covenant with the Earth
http://www.green-agenda.com/earthcharter.html

WILDLANDS
TOWARDS A WILDER EUROPE DEVELOPING AN ACTION AGENDA FOR WILDERNESS AND LARGE NATURAL HABITAT AREAS
http://www.europarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2012_Wild_Europe_European_Commission_Towards_a_wilder_Europe.pdf
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
A Little Background History of Pedigree
TOWARDS A WILDER EUROPE DEVELOPING AN ACTION AGENDA FOR WILDERNESS AND LARGE NATURAL HABITAT AREAS
It may do us good, to investigate a little more closely one of the participants, in league with the others, sponsoring the rewilding publication.
The participant in question is the, “Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts (UK)”, whose name is included, among others, at the bottom of the publications pages (acting as its back-cover), to which, together with the other participants, they so lavishly helped to facilitate its sponsorship, in drawing attention to the ambitions of Agenda 21’s Depopulating Programme of Rewilding Europe.
It is not here proposed that an in-depth analysis of this organizations philanthropic pursuits are examined, which unquestionably have done much good, but what is proposed, is to be made aware of the background connections behind these organizations, and their far reaching interests in influencing much of human progress, or as the individual is free to determine for themselves, their far reaching influence in deceivingly stifling human progress.
The case to be presented, is one of providing a sequence of openly available information in the form of website links, that admittedly show that ‘the owners’ behind various philanthropic organizations as ‘their founders’ to them, and not forgetting that that which is ‘founded’ by you is clearly owned by you, surely have strong ties to the contribution of Agenda 21’s ambitions of, ‘harmonising humanities numbers to the earth’s ability of providing sustenance for sustainability to be viable’.
“The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts or RSWT…was previously known by the names Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves and Royal Society for Nature Conservation.”
History –
“The forerunner of the RSWT, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, was established by Charles Rothschild in 1912. It aimed initially to draw up a list of the country’s best wildlife sites with a view to purchase for protection as nature reserves, and by 1915 it had drawn up a list of 284, known as Rothschild Reserves.”
Source:
Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_Wildlife_Trusts
~
Nathaniel Charles Rothschild (9 May 1877 – 12 October 1923), known as “Charles”, was an English banker and entomologist and a member of the Rothschild family.
Family –
Charles Rothschild worked as a partner in the family bank NM Rothschild and Sons in London.
Nature conservation –
He was concerned about the loss of wildlife habitats, and in 1912 set up the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, the forerunner of The Wildlife Trusts partnership. In 1915 the Society produced a schedule of the best wildlife sites in the country, some of which were purchased as nature reserves.
Marriage –
In 1907 Charles Rothschild married Rozsika Edle von Wertheimstein (1870 – 30 June 1940), a Hungarian baroness and descendent of…one of the wealthiest families in Europe and had made their fortune over a century before the Rothschilds.
Source:
Charles Rothschild
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rothschild
~
The Rothschild Reserves –
In 1912 Charles Rothschild founded the ‘Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves’ (SPNR).
More on the Rothschild Reserves –
“What was new about this approach to preserving ‘wild life’ was that it focussed on the habitatrather than just the individual species within it. It highlighted a growing belief that places needed protection from development and other damage. It showed a desire for an ordered and reasoned approach to acquiring nature reserves, in the face of increasign pressure on the natural world and culminated in a ‘shopping list’ of ideal sites – the Rothschild Reserves.”
“…the SPNR always established who the landowner was. The intention at this time was to purchase the land, turn it into a nature reserve and then hand it over to the National Trust to manage under special conditions.”
“It was believed that it was better to fence off nature and leave it to its own devices, rather than practically manage it…”
“The elite conservation crusaders could be seen to have inhabited a moral high ground where, from a lofty height, they shook their fists at progress in their quest for ‘primeval country’ and their desire to shut it off.”
Source:
The Wildlife Trusts, The Rothschild Reserves
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/rothschildreserves
~
Climate Change & Wildlife –
“Climate change is a significant threat to the UK’s wildlife. The Wildlife Trusts believe thatnature should be central to both climate change adaptation (e.g. through the use of natural processes to reduce flood risk) and mitigation (e.g. through the protection and restoration of peat and peatlands to store and sequester carbon).”
“However there is now widespread agreement among scientists that we are living in an era of accelerated climate change, much of which can be attributed to increased human activity (for example through increased carbon emmissions from air pollution).”
Note.-
The words in the phrase, ‘widespread agreement among scientists’, are words that can only be attributed to ‘conflict-of-interest’ based political consesus science, and NOT ‘factual science’.
“Climate change means that there are complex demands being placed on land for food, wildlife, recreation and development. Wildlife has adapted to climate change in the past but our modern landscapes – full of buildings, transport links and intensively managed farmland and fragmented natural habitats – present a new challenge to species. It is vital that we manage and use land sustainably, so it allows plants and animals to move and adapt to new conditions for survival as the climate changes. The Wildlife Trusts’ vision for A Living Landscape is working to bring about landscape scale restoration of the natural environment and adaptation to climate change, realising and using the multiple benefits provided by nature.”
“Protecting and restoring our natural environment and ecosystems is important in its own right…Flood prevention, crop pollination, carbon absorption, clean and healthy water sources – these benefits of our natural environment must all be considered and maximised as we prepare for the effects of climate change. Critically, we need to restore healthy, Living Landscapes that help to alleviate floods, control pollution and help us cope with extremes of temperature.”
“Many of The Wildlife Trusts’ Living Landscape schemes have been designed with climate change adaptation at the forefront. At the heart of Living Landscape approach is habitat restoration and connectivity.”
Source:
Climate Change & Wildlife
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/climate-change
The Wildlife Trusts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wildlife_Trusts
~
Giammaria Ortes:
The Decadent Venetian Kook Who Originated The Myth of “Carrying Capacity”
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/ortes.htm
Recruiting the military for Agenda 21’s depopulation genocidal murder
Sustainbilities justification for depopulation, is that there are too many people to harmonise with the earth’s environment, and therefore depopulation is an absolute necessity. Of course, with the fraudulent excuse of false ‘climate change’ science as the driving force behind the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy’s ambitions for mass genocidal murder, it comes as no surprise that the Self-Ennobling Ones law enforcement and in particular their military are now positioning and prioritising their role towards sustainablities climate change depopulation ‘development’ agenda, to have the military engage in excused mass murder, on behalf of the Self-Ennobling Ones, covertly presented under a ‘new energy security strategy’ –
PENTAGON PREPARES FOR CENTURY OF CLIMATE EMERGENCIES AND OIL WARS
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Pentagon_prepares_for_century_of_climate_emergencies_and_oil_wars/45538/0/38/38/Y/M.html
~
GB 2293 SPNC
Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts
This catalogue was digitised by The National Archives as part of the National
Register of Archives digitisation project
The National Archive
National Registar of Archives – NRA 24457
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies University of Birmingham and Institute of Agricultural History
University of Reading
A list of the historical records of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation
Compiled by Philippa Bassett as part of a research project funded by the Social Science Research Council
August 1980
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/download/GB2293%20SPNC
~
World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF (formerly named the, World Wildlife Fund, WWF)
World Wildlife Fund / World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
Founders –
Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld
Julian Huxley
Max Nicholson
Peter Scott
Guy Mountfort
Godfrey A. Rockefeller
“The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international non-governmental organizationfounded on April 29, 1961, and is working on issues regarding the conservation, research and restoration of the environment. It was formerly named the World Wildlife Fund… It is theworld’s largest conservation organization with over 5 million supporters worldwide, working in more than 100 countries, supporting around 1,300[5] conservation and environmental projects. WWF is a foundation,[6] in 2010 deriving 57% of funding from individuals and bequests, 17% from government sources (such as the World Bank, DFID, USAID) and 11% from corporations.”
“The group’s mission is “to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.”[7] Currently, much of its work focuses on the conservation of three biomes that contain most of the world’s biodiversity: oceans and coasts, forests, and freshwater ecosystems. Among other issues, it is also concerned withendangered species, pollution and climate change.”

Note.-
It is recommended that the entire page is read to acquire a brief working understanding and background to the WWF
Source:
World Wide Fund for Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature
~
There is nothing cuddly about the WWF
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100030769/there-is-nothing-cuddly-about-the-wwf/
____
Use of the Glass Prism of Doublespeak to De-mystify Meaning
It becomes clear what the Self-Ennobling Ones agenda really is, for which they have worked diligently towards over a great deal of time, and how in the use of understanding “doublespeak”, they convey that agenda to each other worldwide, as well as to their mis-guided minions.
With a serious appreciation of “doublespeak”, we can come to see it in use for ourselves with negative events around the world demonstrably at odds with official explanations for them, given as one of a ‘rosy outlook’ for the future, when quite obviously the real situation on the ground points to ‘a planned grim outlook’ for the future.
The information to follow then must be interpreted through the light prism of “doublespeak”, through which wording is shone to separate its material for the purpose of seeing true meaning conveyed. That is to say, the opposite of what is presented.
This will no doubt mean, perhaps that given all the accompanying evidence, what is seen before us is not ‘crisis management’ to avert disaster and to ensure continuity for a ‘rosy outlook’ into the future, but through the prisim of doublespeak, what is seen before us are the Self-Ennobling Ones as gods at play, with their preplanned “games” devised for ‘managed controlled rehearsals’ to ensure discontinuity and great suffering through their devices and mechanisms of control.
REFERENCE MATERIAL:
Defininition of Doublespeak
– language that can be understood in more than one way and that is used to trick or deceive people
– language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth
Sourced:
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doublespeak
Definition of Doublespeak
Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words…It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war “peace”).
Sourced:
Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
From the description given of “doublespeak”, the agenda behind the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy becomes clear –
‘Sustainablility and its development’, is a cruel deception in which a vast majority of people in the world, as victims of its ‘doublespeak hidden agenda’, work towards their own elimination, with the enslavement of the surviving few, housed in concentration camp ‘smart growth’ community dwellings, serving the rest of their miserable lives as serfs to the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy.
The prevailing mental condition then is controlled insanity –
Doublespeak is saying one thing and meaning another, usually its opposite.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/dblspkthennow.shtml
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/doublethink.shtml
Reader – doublethink
http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerdoublethink.shtml
Doublespeak publications –
United Nations Publications
PDF Publications
https://unp.un.org/Browse80b2.html?pdf=1
Control of Raw Materials –
The Hunger Games (2012)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/
Note.-
What is of particular interest in the movie, The Hungar Games, is the backdrop through which the movie and the characters are framed. This backdrop of infrastructure is a future sustaiable development environment.
FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY
The Real Hungar Games (Sustainable Development post 2015) –
Ensuring Discontinuity through Management Game Play –
Food Chain Reaction: A Global Food Security Game
1250 24th Street, NW | Washington, DC 20037
info@foodchainreaction.org | © 2015 World Wildlife Fund, Inc.
http://foodchainreaction.org/
Note.-
We read –
About the Organizers
Food Chain Reaction is being produced by World Wildlife Fund and the Center for American Progress, with game design from CNA. Funding and technical support for Food Chain Reaction has been provided by Cargill with major support from Mars, Inc. Additional funding has been provided by Sealed Air Corporation.
Source:
Food Chain Reaction – A Global Food Security Game
About
http://foodchainreaction.org/index.php/about/
~
Organisational Structural Chart for the Control of Raw Material

Source:
The Windsors’ Global Food Cartel: Instrument for Starvation
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_windsor_food.html
Primary Sourcing:
Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_food_intro.html
Alternative Sourcing:
Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu38.htm
Hinting towards an arm of sustainable developments preplanned depopulation agenda –
How would your nearest city be affected by a bomb the size of that dropped on Hiroshima?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/11786876/How-would-your-nearest-city-be-affected-by-a-bomb-the-size-of-Hiroshima.html?frame=3399391
~
Note.-
To understand the necessity for war, using manufactured antagonism between countries as a veil to set about eliminating the true enemy (people), particularly timed for the need to distract from discovering the bankers lie of economy, and providing for the bonus of killing two birds with one stone, when it comes to meeting the requirements of obedience and Agenda 21’s depopulation goals.
SPECULATIVE DATES GIVEN FOR WORLD WAR III
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/speculative-dates-given-for-world-war-iii/
WHEN DID WORLD WAR III BEGIN ?
The prelude to war can be traced as far back as 2008, when we look at the information under the subtitle heading,
‘PRECAUTIONS TO TRAGEDY TAKE LITTLE TIME IN READING SIMPLY PRESENTED SOLUTION’,
to be found part way down the document –
VACCINES
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/vaccines/
_______
Archive for Club of Rome
http://thearrowsoftruth.com/tag/club-of-rome/
~
The 1001: A Nature Trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1001:_A_Nature_Trust
The 1001 Club
http://www.truedemocracy.net/hj32/05.html
The 1001 Club
Bankers, Intelligence Agents, and Raw Materials Executives Striving for a Sustainable Future
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_1001club01.htm
Sourced:
* pre-December 2014 archived version of the site – Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics
https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/index.html
Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics
http://isgp.nl/
ISGP
https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=ISGP&redirect=no
1001 Club – Incomplete Membership List
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_1001club02.htm
The ‘1001 Club’ – a nature trust
http://canadianpatriot.org/archives/1133
~
Transnational Classes and International Relations
By Kees Van der Pijl
https://books.google.pl/books?id=dk4JBjkYCIIC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Prince+Bernhard+%2B+club+of+rome&source=bl&ots=B1w0Os4QeH&sig=ltIb9MTkTUJipCMsFLv0AQ_4EvA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCGoVChMI4ZPavcfvxgIVBf1yCh2-sgMT#v=onepage&q=Prince%20Bernhard%20%2B%20club%20of%20rome&f=false
~
For Educational Purposes Only –
Dr. Claude Martin, Switzerland – Board Member, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Former Director General of WWF
http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=802
~
We read –
The department was separated from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1997
* Department for International Development (DFID)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_International_Development
~
We read –
The Duke of Edinburgh is the patron of many organisations, including WWF and the Duke of Edinburgh Award. The Duke was the first President of WWF-UK from its foundation in 1961 to 1982, and President of WWF-International from 1981 to 1996. He is now President Emeritus for WWF.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/borneo_forests/about_borneo_forests/borneo_prince_phillip.cfm
~
We read –
Their Patron is HRH The Prince of Wales.
The Wildlife Trusts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wildlife_Trusts
~
Our mission
To protect and sustainably manage natural ecosystems of the world; to conserve their biodiversity, with emphasis on threatened habitats and endangered species
How We Work –
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/about/how-we-work
~
World Conservation and Wildlife Trust
http://www.wcwtinternational.org/
~
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development
International Development United States Agency For
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue Nw
Washington, DC 20004
Web: http://www.usaid.gov
A privately held company in Washington, DC
http://www.manta.com/c/mb4n0yg/international-development-united-states-agency-for
International Development United States Agency For
Usaid M/Oaa/Cas
1300 Penn Avenue Nw Room 824-C
Washington, DC 20004 – View Map
Phone: (212) 713-4320
Web: http://www.usaid.gov
Own This Business?
A privately held company in Washington, DC
http://www.manta.com/c/mr4ry0l/international-development-united-states-agency-for
USAID Acronym List
http://www.usaidalumni.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/USAID-Acronym-List-020413.pdf
~
“Bernhard helped found the World Wildlife Fund (later renamed World Wide Fund for Nature), becoming its first President in 1961, and in 1970 establishing the WWF’s financial endowment “The 1001: A Nature Trust”. In 1954, he was a co-founder of the international Bilderberg Group, which has met annually since then to discuss corporate globalization…”
The Prince eventually went to work for the German chemical giant IG Farben, then the world’s fourth-largest company (which survives today as BASF, AGFA, and Bayer). After training, Bernhard became secretary to the board of directors at the Paris office in 1935.
“Prince Bernhard was a member of the “Reiter-SS”, a mounted unit of the SS and joined the Nazi party.[7] He later also joined the National Socialist Motor Corps.”
“With his global contacts, Bernhard in May 1954, was a key figure in organising a meeting at the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands for the business elite and intellectuals of the Western World to discuss the economic problems in the face of what they characterized as the growing threat from Communism. This first meeting was successful, and it became an annual gathering known as the Bilderberg Group. The idea for the European Union, first proposed by Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950, was encouraged at Bilderberg.”
Note.-
It is recommended that the entire page is read
Source:
Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bernhard_of_Lippe-Biesterfeld
~
Anton Rupert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Rupert
~
Sir Julian Huxley is brother to Aldous Huxley
Souce:
Huxley, Arnold Family Tree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley#/media/File:Huxley-Arnold_family_tree.svg
“Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS[1] (22 June 1887 – 14 February 1975) was a British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and internationalist.”
“He was secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund and the first President of the British Humanist Association.”
“In 1959 he received a Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood – World Population. Huxley was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society and its president from 1959–1962.”
Later career –
“Huxley, a lifelong internationalist with a concern for education, got involved in the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and became the organization’s first director-general in 1946.”
“In a fortnight he dashed off a 60-page booklet on the purpose and philosophy of UNESCO, eventually printed and issued as an official document. There were, however, many conservative opponents of his scientific humanism. His idea of restraining population growth with birth control …”
“Huxley’s internationalist and conservation interests also led him, with Victor Stolan, Sir Peter Scott, Max Nicholson and Guy Mountfort, to set up the WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature under its former name of the World Wildlife Fund).”
Note.-
Recommended that the entire page is read
Source:
Julian Huxley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley
~
UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy – The Task of Unifying the World Mind
https://orwelliania.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/unesco-its-purpose-and-its-philosophy-the-task-of-unifying-the-world-mind/
World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Pt 1

World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Pt 2

Global Depopulation and the Eugenics Agenda (Full)

~
UNESCO –
The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (French: Organisation des Nations unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture; UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN). Its purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.[1] It is the heir of the League of Nations’International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation.
Source:
UNESCO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO
~
UNESCO – It’s Evil Purpose and Philosophy

~
“He was then married to Margaret “Margo” Kuhn Rockefeller for fifty three years.”
Godfrey A. Rockefeller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_A._Rockefeller
~
Margaret Kuhn Rockefeller daughter of Richard Parker Kuhn
Source:
Caroline Parker Kuhn
b. 26 January 1925, d. 30 April 2011
http://www.woodvorwerk.com/vorwerk/g0/p611.htm
Richard P. Kuhn 1916
1916 Class Crest
Cullum No. 5528 • Jun 28, 1963 • Died in Bedford Hills, New York
Interred in St. Matthews Churchyard, Bedford Hills, NY
https://apps.westpointaog.org/Memorials/Article/5528/
Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
http://www.nndb.com/company/062/000124687/
In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.
http://barefootsworld.net/docs/fedchart.txt
Source:
Who Is Running America ?
http://barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html
~
For Educational Purposes Only –
We note UNESCO’s founding influence in the settlement of the Self-Ennobling Ones intellectual copyright institutional agrrangements in securing inheritance rights, between themselves as gods, towards their successor-assigns as beneficiaries, when we read –
1. Introduction, page 533
“This essay returns to such an “old” conflict in the development of international copyright dating back to the signing of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works on 9 September 1886. Translation, a constant “ pierre d’achoppement” in the evolutionary history of the Berne Convention, caused problems from the outset. These returned with full force at the fourth conference for the revision of the Berne Convention in Stockholm on 11-14 June 1967. Described by one participant as “the worst experience in the history of international copyright conventions”, Stockholm marked the culmination of several years’ discussion on the viability of the international copyright regime to accommodate the needs of developing nations.”
2. Brussels, June 1948, page 534
“The Bureaux Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (BIRPI), located in Berne, was the administrative seat from the inception of the treaty, and oversaw revision conferences in Berlin (1908), Rome(1928) and then Brussels (1948).”
subtitle, 2. Brussels, June 1948, page 535
“The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),played an important role in trying to redress a situation in which, in copyright terms, the world emerged from the war “virtually split into two entirely separate and independent parts”. Launched in 1945 as successor to the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC), UNESCO anchored its copyright policy in the 1948 Declaration on Human Rights.”
TIND Comment.-
UNESCO’s strategic deceptive foil of cover as camouflage, in the use of its development of “collectivist” terms for a “Declaration on Human Rights”, won them the approval of their competing proposals for the Self-Ennobling Ones to accept, as the best means of providing for an excuse to convince the victims of designed eugenicist wars, to relegate their ‘freedoms of independence’ to closer cooperation, or corporation, by compelling acquiescence of the general populace to such terms, out of “fear” of a repeat performance of world war, in it being said, that closer cooperation would quell the brutal urges of man.
They, the general populace at large, having no inkling whatsoever, that their compulsion to accept these copywritten terms had been by design, would also have no inkling, that UNESCO’s proposals had the further advantage of completely blinding them into not coming to an understanding that what was copywritten by them in turn, through the Self-Ennobling One’s instruments of deception, (without qualification under registration of ‘noncommital-to-contract’ to copywritten-countries, but merely to record), would effectively provide the means for the Self-Ennobling Ones agencies to ‘collectively’ interfere in the ownership of their intellectual property.
Interfere as superior authorities to a now admitted subordinate position of a registrant, and that through copyright registration ‘without qualificaiton’, it was an admission that registrants were mentally incapable of maintaining their own affairs, in the same way a child lacked the mental capacity to provide for themselves, by demonstrably not understanding the requirements of speaking-up in their own self-interests, as an adult would understand to do, given their circumstances in the world as being functionally independent, and with the recognition that that independence brings, of having the cognition to voice that independence in line with their self-interests and circumstances.
Failure to speak-up, would no doubt reflect on their mental capacities as being immature and in need of assistance by rightly remaining in the charge of an adult parental figure providing for stewardship, to guide and decide what would be in their best interests. Such arrangements, of course, could find their victims intellectual rights the subject of ‘profitable confiscation’ by any number of ‘seemingly’ legitimate means.
The reader to the preceding may remain unperturbed, since as it ought to be well known, any formal relationships entered into, calls for honesty in the interests of fairness for obvious, fair and full disclosure to be provided – for the very reason that genuine ‘fairness’ can only be the basis of authenticity and therefore legitamcy – otherwise, whatsoever arrangements were entered into without full disclosure made known as to the true nature of the operations of the parties to a relationship, would justly render those arrangements ‘null and void’. And that being the case, without having even to speak of ‘the requirements of justice’.
Continuing, page 535
“Prior to the Brussels conference, UNESCO had already noted how copyright was a “barrier” to the “free flow of culture among all the peoples of the world”. In the next few years, UNESCO instigated a number of copyright initiatives culminating in 1952 with The Universal Copyright Convention(UCC).
In sum, the UCC offered an international multilateral convention with lower levels of protection than Berne, thus providing a vehicle for the US to come into the fold of multilateral international copyright agreements. Several specificities in national legislation kept the US outside Berne until 1989; these were primarily the compulsory registration of copyright and the controversial manufacturing requirement, which afforded English-language books copyright protection in the US only if manufacturedon American soil. As a compromise between the formal registration required by US law and the no formalities-Berne framework, the UCC introduced the use of a ©symbol, making it possible for the US and other countries to sign the UCC without having to change their national legislation.”
Source:
Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS :THE BERNE CONVENTIONAND THE 1967 STOCKHOLM DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE REVISITED
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén
http://www.academia.edu/432552/_Colonial_Copyright_Postcolonial_Publics_the_Berne_Convention_and_the_1967_Stockholm_Diplomatic_Conference_Revisited_
United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_International_Bureaux_for_the_Protection_of_Intellectual_Property
World Intellectual Property Organisation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization
Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world:
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
http://www.geneva.quno.info/pdf/WIPO(A4)final0304.pdf
~
We read –
“It is the heir of the League of Nations’ International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation.”
Source:
UNESCO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO
Of course, the League of Nations was the first fictitious global corporate institution, ready in waiting, to ‘tranisition’ the people of the world into ‘the idea of global governance’ after the scare tactics of fear in World War One (WWI), soon to be replaced with its permanent successor, after the follow up of WWII to ‘secure’ the establishment of the strategy of fear in bringing about an immovable seat for the readiness of permanent global governance in the form of the United Nations –
League of Nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations
~
In developments further unifying and solidifying the Self-Ennobling Ones fictitious interests in stealthly centralizing the means with which to confiscate the physical realm, we read, they have superseded and made obsolete the Universal Copyright Convention for that of the World Trade Organisation’s ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)’ –
“Since almost all countries are either members or aspiring members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and are thus conforming to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS), the UCC has lost significance.”
Source:
Universal Copyright Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention
Again, we note the understandings reached concerning issues of creative intellectual property rights, when we learn of those acting on behalf of the authors to creative property, organizing their interests through their forums to settle on agreement, when we read, 1. Introduction, page 1, of, ‘Selling Books: The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights in the 1930s’ –
After a series of bilateral agreements the main European book trading countries enacted in cooperation with culturally aware publishers and authors a multilateral agreement, the Berne Convention, in 1886. Although the American states passed the first Inter-American copyright agreement at the same time, the Convention of Montevideo in 1889, it was the Berne Convention, which proofed to be a reliable political instrument in the course of the twentieth century pointing the way ahead when intellectual property rights were institutionalized on a global scale first with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1967 followed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994.
Source:
Selling Books: The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property
Rights in the 1930s
Isabella Löhr, University of Leipzig
http://www.ebha.org/ebha2007/pdf/Loehr.pdf
~
But wait, returning to the excellent writings from COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS, those who don’t understand the dangers fictions can pose, are to be further deluded into thinking that they matter, with this –
7. Epilogue: Geneva, October 2007, page 549
“In October 2007, the WIPO Development Agenda was established by the WIPO General Assembly. Scholars have hailed it as a possible new departure for the international intellectual property regime, which has been completely dominated since 1994 by the trade-based rationales of WTO and the infamous Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS has eclipsed and helped render the UCC “wholly peripheral to the current international copyright framework” and is targeted for critique by developing nations, echoing concerns already articulated already in 1967. The Stockholm Protocol, a satellite “disconnected from its orbit”, is another instrument relegated to the cemetery where intellectual property texts go to die. Yet, each of these texts is part of the historical foundation from which the Development Agenda draws inspiration.
Although it remains to be seen what clout the Development Agenda will have to redress past wrongs and more recent sins in the power relations between developed and developing nations, it proposes substantial changes in both its general direction and WIPO governance. In 1884, 1885, and 1886 only a handful of nations were present to formulate the original Berne Convention, and they represented a diplomatic elite. Fifty-seven states and more than 400 inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations were present in Stockholm. At present, WIPO counts 184 member nations and over 250 NGOs among those who participate in Geneva deliberations. NGOs now out weigh states in total number, greatly accelerating the presence of civil society in these global arenas, suggesting, to Ruth Okediji, that states are not as important in setting the agenda as they used to be.”
Source:
Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS :THE BERNE CONVENTIONAND THE 1967 STOCKHOLM DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE REVISITED
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén
http://www.academia.edu/432552/_Colonial_Copyright_Postcolonial_Publics_the_Berne_Convention_and_the_1967_Stockholm_Diplomatic_Conference_Revisited_

World Network of Biosphere Reserves in Europe and North America
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Network_of_Biosphere_Reserves_in_Europe_and_North_America
Further history bringing sustainable development’s Agenda 21 into being –
* UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme in the mountains of Central and Eastern Europe:
past experiences and future possibilites
Martin F. Price
Environmental Change Unit,
University of Oxford,
United Kingdom
http://www.npsumava.cz/gallery/8/2426-sg1_price.pdf
About the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB)
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/about-mab/
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/

Doublespeak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak
Acquiring acceptance through double-speak to micro-manage every single aspect of the lives of the people of the world on the bases of climate-change fraud for total full-spectrum targeted depopulation and enslavement –
The New Climate Economy Report 2016
http://2014.newclimateeconomy.report/
Note.-
Scroll down to bottom to view climate economy’s advocates. Sample descriptions of a couple of these advocates and their affairs surrounding sustainable developments climate economy and depopulation is given:
Global Green Growth Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Green_Growth_Institute
UN Partners with Global Green Growth Institute
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/un-partners-with-global-green-growth-institute-on-climate-action/
World Resources Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Resources_Institute
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._and_Catherine_T._MacArthur_Foundation
We note with particular interest the remarks made under the title heading, ‘Support to eugenics on past’ –
The article forgets the support of this foundation to eugenics on past and to ecology and abortion today.Agre22 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22
Talk:John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJohn_D._and_Catherine_T._MacArthur_Foundation
And of course, we can see under the subtitled heading, ‘The Bellagio Center’, that the foundations MacArthur Fellows have ties with the Rockefeller Foundation –
Rockefeller Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation
The US Science Czar who allegedly holds extreme views on genocidal depopulation has strong ties with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation –
The Triumph of Environmental Alarmism: Science ‘Czar’ John Holdren and the Woods Hole Research Center

The Triumph of Environmental Alarmism: Science ‘Czar’ John Holdren and the Woods Hole Research Center

Webster Tarpley & Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination (FULL VIDEO)

Obama’s Science Czar John P. Holdren Confronted on Population Control

Population Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Council
In the 3rd paragraph we find that among its partners striving for depopulation and permanent enslavement with the shackles of sustainable developments climate economy, the Self-Ennobling Ones United Nations also counts on the assistance it recieves from the Population Council –
Population and Women Programme
http://www.un.org/partnerships/YPAPopulationAndWomen.htm
The fourth bullet point in, BY THE NUMBERS, sees the Population Council willingly involved in demographics issues for what ‘appears’ to be a good cause –
WOMEN & POPULATION
http://www.unfoundation.org/who-we-are/impact/by-the-numbers/women-population.html?referrer=https://www.google.pl/
Case 24
Curbing Global Population Growth: Rockefeller’s Population Council
Rockefeller Foundation, 1952
Steven Schindler
http://www.cspcs.sanford.duke.edu/sites/default/files/descriptive/rockefellers_population_council.pdf
Commission on Population and Development
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/commission/index.shtml
Commission on Population and Development
Forty-eighth session
http://www.papersmart.unmeetings.org/ecosoc/cpd/48th-session/agenda/
Strengthening the demographic evidence base for the post-2015 development agenda
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/commission/sessions/2016/index.shtml
Leading World Bank Demographer: Vaccination Campaigns Part Of Population Reduction Policy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/leading-world-bank-demographer-vaccination-campaigns-part-of-population-reduction-policy/5307235
Population control on the Swiss agenda
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/no-room-at-the-inn_population-control-on-the-swiss-agenda/34609710
Who runs the show? Article documents how U.S. (globalist) foundations don’t just fund Canadian environmentalist groups – they help fund the Canadian government!

Who runs the show? Article documents how U.S. (globalist) foundations don't just fund Canadian environmentalist groups – they help fund the Canadian government!

Alex Jones and his guest brilliantly expose succintly the plans of the Self-Ennobling Ones and their High Priest self-validating clergy of Amon Ra’s depopulating and enslaving programme without having to wade through volumes of text –
The Roots of Technocracy with Expert Patrick M. Wood

Source:
The World Depopulation Agenda
http://www.depopulation.newworldorderuniversity.com/Wordpress/
Note.-
What Alex Jones’ and Patrick Wood’s discussion lacks is ‘genuine true solution’ to the mind-paralysing information they provide that gives, simply and easily, a means to understand how to counter the elites provocations and attacks to no longer fall into the traps of their schemes that have people running around in circles and relying on others to save them:
Genuine Simple Solution Begins With Simply Presented Factual Understanding
What is that key-knowledge that amiable providers of news never ever seem to provide with a few exceptions. Take a look for yourselves –
HOW TO STOP PLAYING THE ELITIST’S MATRIX THROUGH A SIMPLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANICS OF THE MATRIX
Firstly, know thyself –
Rule Thyself Lest Ye Be Ruled
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/rule-thyself-lest-ye-be-ruled/
Secondly, understand where it is that the matrix happens –
Read the simply presented information titled, ‘OF FICTIONS (The world of the imagination)’, approximately 1/2 way down the link given as –
OWNERSHIP OF LAW
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/ownership-of-law/
Thirdly, understand how you’re bought and your livelihood confiscated in being used to work towards your own eugenicist self-destruction –
MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY vs USURY PLAY LIST
https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4F0FC0AC39B3086A

Primer:
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/wake-up-youre-being-taken-for-a-fool-deconstructing-terms/
Fourthly, stand back and take a look at how it all comes together –
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/the-business-of-knowing-your-place/
And finally, understand how the ‘renaming’ of eugenics has come into operation today –
Quote:
This 1926 Eugenics Exhibit Sums Up What the Elite Think About You and Your Family
http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/09/28/this-1926-eugenics-exhibits-sums-up-what-the-elite-think-about-you-and-your-family/
“Again, eugenics didn’t end when it fell out of favor during World War II; it was simply forced to go underground. It got renamed and buried in what they hope would sound like more benign scientific areas, like genetics, human ecology, and bioethics. The Rockefeller Foundation and other elite family foundations quietly continued their quest for population control of the general “riff raff” through different means.”
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/the-final-curtain-learning-to-see-and-know-of-the-unimaginable-or/

JURISDICTION & THE FIRST JUDICIARY ACT

July 8, 2014

The following is taken from the Harvard Law Review, Vol. XXXVII, 1932-1924 with my comments in brackets if any. This is not the complete Review but only portions.

The Federal Judiciary of September 24, 1789, was Senate Bill No. 1, in the First Session of the First Congress. No adequate account of this famous legislation has ever been written; and Ellsworth’s latest able and careful biographer stated in 1905 that “no complete history of the bill, can now be written.” [The authors go on to say that the original draft and bills have been found since that statement in 1905] The disclosure of this new evidence now makes it possible, by comparison with the statute as finally enacted, to write, for the first time, an accurate history of the progress of the Act through the Congress, and of the variations of the final Act from the original Draft Bill. Such a comparison reveals certain legal and historical surprises, and makes it certain that Madison was wrong in stating, in 1836 (when he was eighty five years of age and probably of failing memory), that “it was not materially changed in its passage into a law.” William Garret Brown stated “There is enough in the Journals of the two Houses and in the debates of the House of Representatives to sustain Madison’s impression that it went through without any radical change.” The new facts disprove this statement.

Four of the great changes may be particularly mentioned at this point. First, it appears that the United States District and Circuit Courts were intended to take jurisdiction over common law crimes, instead of being confined to crimes specifically defined by Congress, as the Draft Bill when introduced provided, and as later erroneously held by the courts. Second, the jurisdiction of the Circuit Courts in controversies between citizens of different States was made far more restrictive than the Draft Bill intended. Third,– a surprising feature –The Draft Bill contained no such provision as was contained in the much litigated Section 34 of the Act, which provided that “the laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the Courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.” [Do you have that, they did not exist. Who and why did they put them there?] This Section 34 was inserted as a Senate Amendment. Fourth — a fact of still greater consequence — it is apparent, from the manner in which the original draft of this Senate amendment constituting Section 34 was altered by its proposer before its proposal, that the word “laws” in this Section 34 was not intended to be confined to “statute laws,” as Judge Story held in the famous case of Swift v Tyson, but was intended to include the common law of the State as well as the statute law. Had Judge Story seen this original draft of the amendment, it is almost certain that his decision would have been the reverse of what it was. All these points are discussed at greater length later on in this article.

In view of these new sources of information, it seems that a revised history of the Judiciary Act is warranted, since knowledge of the additions, subtractions, deletions and amendments relating to the original draft may possibly afford assistance to Federal Courts in future interpretations of the Act. [People, they do not want to change it for to do so would overturn every case based on the Judiciary Act including Swift v Tyson and the Erie case]

[Rather than going into all 83 pages I will point out one flaw that about which no one in the patriot community has any idea and neither do 98 percent of the lawyers, A.K.A. Judges, etc, etc.

Section 10 of the Draft Bill (Section 9 of the Act) relating to the jurisdiction of the District Courts was changed in several important features. No one of all the changes in the Draft Bill was more significant than the following. The Draft Bill gave to the District Courts, “cognizance of all crimes and offences that shall be cognizable under the authority of the United States and defined by the laws of the same.” The italicized words make it clear that the framers of the Bill meant to confine criminal jurisdiction to crimes specifically defined by Congress, and to them only. In Other words, the framers clearly intended to exclude the Federal Courts from jurisdiction over common law crimes, and crimes under the law of nations. It will be recalled that, for many years after the passage of the Act, there was a heated political contest between the Federalist and the Jeffersonian parties as to whether the Federal Courts possessed such jurisdiction — a contest finally decided in the negative, as urged by the Jeffersonians, supported by the authority of the Federalist Judge, Samuel Chase. Yet many eminent Judges and lawyers maintained at the outset and continued long to maintain, that such jurisdiction over crimes at common law and under the law of nations was intended to be vested in the Federal Courts. It is a singular thing that no one appears to have investigated or cited the action of Congress on the original Draft Bill; for such action would seem to afford the strongest argument in favor of such a jurisdiction. It now appears, on comparison of the Draft Bill with the Act as passed, that by an amendment introduced in and adopted by the Senate, the restrictive clause–” and defined by the laws of the same” – was deliberately stricken out, thus leaving the District Courts with jurisdiction over crimes “cognizable under the authority of the United States,” without any limitation. The only rational meaning that can be given to this action striking out the restrictive words is, that Congress did not intend to limit criminal jurisdiction to crimes specifically defined by it. Had the Supreme Court consulted these Senate Files, it is probable that the decisions in United States v. Hudson,(55) in I812, and United States v. Coolidge,(56) in I816, might have been otherwise than they were.

55 7 Cranch (U.S.) 32 (1812). 56 1 Wheat. (U.S.) 415 (I816).

The jurisdiction of the District Courts contained in the Draft Bill was increased by the Senate by adding the words: “and shall also have jurisdiction exclusively of the Courts of the several States of all suits against consuls, or vice consuls, except for offences above the description aforesaid.” (57),

An interesting addition to the District Court jurisdiction was made by another amendment. The Draft Bill gave “exclusive original cognizance of all civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, including all seizures under laws of impost, navigation or trade of the United States, where the seizures are made on waters which are navigable by the sea by vessels of ten or more tons burthen, within their respective districts, as well as upon the high seas.” In view of the extreme fears expressed by opponents of the Federal system lest the right of jury trial should ‘be impaired, the jurisdiction thus granted to the District Courts, in the clause beginning with the words “including all seizures,” was extraordinary. For in England, the admiralty jurisdiction did not extend to such “seizures under laws of import, navigation or trade,” which, consequently, were triable, in that country, in a common law Court by a jury. Although in some of the Colonies, trials of such cases had been had in the Colonial Admiralty Courts without jury, it seems curious that the framers of this Bill should have deliberately included such cases of seizure within the admiralty jurisdiction of the new Federal Courts and should thus have deliberately enlarged the scope of such Courts and consequently the scope of trials without jury, beyond the scope then existent in England. But such was the effect of the phraseology of this portion of the Act, as the Supreme Court later held, Judge Samuel Chase saying that “the reason for putting seizures of this kind in admiralty side of the Court was the great danger to the revenue if such cases should be left to the caprice of juries “–a rather insufficient explanation, in view of the insistence on jury trial shown by the Congress throughout other portions of the Act. [As I have always said any revenue case of any nature be it IRS, driver license etc. is all admiralty and maritime in nature. Maybe now some of the skeptics will believe me if they haven’t already read Matthew P Benders, Benedict on Admiralty and the numerous cases I have cited in the past, which again you will see in the footnotes. I have maintained that State courts had admiralty jurisdiction but many a lawyer argued against me on this so now they eat crow by reading this from The Harvard Law Review. Here is an excerpt from “Benedict on Admiralty” —
.7-22 SOURCE OF LAW AND JURISDICTION 109

…….. maritime legislation generally.(6) The Constitution, however, is a document which must be construed as a whole and it has always been interpreted(7) as investing the paramount legislative power in the Congress whether such power was sought to be derived from one or other of the express powers above mentioned, or as a necessary concomittant of and inherent in the grant of the judicial power.
“Commentators took that view, Congress acted on it, and the Courts including this Court [the Supreme Court] gave effect to it. Practically, therefore, the situation is as if that view were written into the provision.”(8) This interpretation was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co.(9) in these words:

“Article III, Section 2, cl. 1 (3d provision) of the Constitution and section 9 of the Act of September 24, 1789, have from the beginning been the sources of jurisdiction in litigation based upon federal maritime law. Article III impliedly contained three grants. (1) It empowered Congress to confer admiralty and maritime jurisdiction on the ‘Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court’ which were authorized by Art. I, Section 8, cl. 9. (2) It empowered the federal courts in their exercise of the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction which had been conferred on them, to draw on the substantive law ‘inherent in the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction,’ Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 55, 52 S.Ct. 285, 76 LEd. 598 (1956), and to continue the development of this law within constitutional limits. (3) It empowered Congress to revise and supplement the maritime law within the limits of the Constitution. See Crowell v. Benson, supra, at 55.

“Section 9 of the First Judiciary Act granted the District Courts maritime jurisdiction. This jurisdiction has remained unchanged in substance to the present day.”

When the Constitution was adopted, the existing maritime law became the law of the United States subject to the power in Congress to modify or supplement it as experience or changing conditions might require. Congress thus has the paramount and undisputed power to fix, determine, alter and revise the maritime law which shall prevail throughout the country; and federal statutes, if constitutional, are paramount to any judicially fashioned rules of admiralty.H
Whatever may be necessary to the complete exercise of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction is in the covenant of the Union, and Congress may pass all laws which are necessary and
(6) Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086 (1917), is perhaps the only case which relies solely on the combination of the granting of judicial power and the eighteenth power of Article 1, section 8 as general authority to legislate in respect of maritime law.

(7) Detroit Trust Co. v. Steamer Thomas Barlum, 293 U.S. 21, 55 S. Ct. 31, 79 L. Ed. 176 (1934); Panama Railroad Co. v. Andrew Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 44 S. Ct. 391, 68 L. Ed. 718, 1924 A.M.C. 554 (1924).
(8) Panama Railroad Co. v. AndrewJohnson, N. 7, supra.
(9) Romero v. International Terminal Operating Co., 358 U.S. 354, 79 S. Ct. 468, 3 L. Ed. 2d 368, 1959 A.M.C. 832 (1959).

(10) Waring v. Clarke, 48 U.S. (5 How.) 441, 12 L. Ed. 226 (1847); The Lottawanna, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 558, 22 L. Ed. 654 (1875); Butler v. Boston & S.S.S.C., 130 U.S. 527, 9 S. Ct. 612, 32 L. Ed. 1017 (1889); Ex parte (jarneff, 141 U.S. 1, 11 S. Ct. 840, 35 L. Ed. 631 (1891); The Hamilton (Old Dominion S.S. Co. v. Gilmore), 207 U.S. 398, 28 S. Ct. 133, 52 L. Ed. 264 (1907); Atlantic Transp. Co. v. Imbrovek, 234 U.S. 52, 34 S. Ct. 733, 58 L. Ed. 1208 (1914); Southern P. Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205, 37 S. Ct. 524, 61 L. Ed. 1086 (1917); Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149, 40 S. Or. 438, 64 L. Ed. 834 (1920); Washington v. W.C. Dawson & Co., 264 U.S. 219, 44 S. or. 302, 68 L. Ed. 646 (1924); Panama R. Co. v. Johnson, 264 U.S. 375, 44 S. Ct. 391, 68 L. Ed. 748 (1924); Crowell v. Bensen, 285 U.S. 22, 52 S. Ct. 285, 76 L. Ed. 598 (1932); U.S.v. Flores, 289 U.S. 131, 53 S. Ct. 580, 77 L. Ed. 1086, 933 A.M.C. 649 (1933); Detroit Trust Go. v. Steamer Thomas Barlure, N. 7, supra; Swanson v. Marra Bros., 328 U.S. 1, 66 S. Ct. 869, 90 L. Ed. 1045 (1946). In Panama Ry. Co. v. Johnson, supra, the court said, “[T]here are boundaries to the maritime law and admiralty jurisdiction which inhere in those subjects and cannot be altered by legislation …” The limitation refers to Congress’ power to alter admiralty jurisdiction, not to the substantive law. Lucas v. “Brinkness” Schiffahrts (]es. Franz Lange, 387 F. Supp. 440, 1975 A.M.C. 1684 (E.D. Pa. 1974), appeal dismissed, (3d Cir. April 30, 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 866 (1975). Congress may not bring under the jurisdiction of the federal admiralty court a completely land-based accident or transaction, or remove from admiralty jurisdiction those types of accidents which occur on navigable waters.
(11) Royal Netherlands Steamship Co. v. Strachan Shipping Co., 301 F.2d 741 (5th Cir. 1962); and see Wilburn Boat Co. v. Fireman’s Fund Ins. Co., 348 U.S. 310, 75 S. Ct. 368, 99 L. Ed. 337 (1955).

[and for those that say Driver laws are not maritime read this from Benedict, it tells you something without an-in- your-face description under the chapter Maritime Crimes]
9-34 MARITIME CRIMES § 114

the recent Supreme Court decision of United States v. Villamonte-Marquez, (a) in which the majority of the Court concluded that the action of customs officials in boarding and stopping a vessel without any “reasonable suspicion of a law violation” was indeed “reasonable” and consequently not violative of the fourth amendment. The Court articulated several factors upon which it based its decision:

1.19 U.S.C. § 1581(a), which authorizes customs officers to examine the manifest and other documents and papers by hailing and stopping the vessel is a “lineal ancestor” to section 31 of the Act of August 4, 1790, ch. 35, i Stat. 145, in which the First Congress clearly authorized the suspicionless boarding of vessels. This fact naturally led the Court to conclude that such boardings do not run afoul of the fourth amendment;
2. While random stops of automobiles away from borders are not allowable under the protections of the fourth amendment, stops at fixed checkpoints or at roadblocks are allowable. However, where commerce at sea provides clear access to the open waters and is quite different from highway traffic, alternative methods of searching vessels which differ from the “stop” approach are less likely to accomplish the government’s objective of deterring criminal activity;
3. The system of marking automobiles utilized by the states is considerably less complex than the types of documentation and external marking that the federal government requires for vessels at sea. Indeed, the government has a substantial interest in making sure that the vessel documentation requirements are complied with, especially where there is a great need to frustrate and apprehend smugglers.

Therefore, the Court concluded that while the intrusion made in vessel search cases might not realistically be termed “minimal, “it is indeed “limited” when balanced against the “substantial” state interest involved.
As a practical matter, most border searches are conducted pursuant to informer’s tips and the instinct of the experienced customs official in discerning nervousness in a suspected traveller. If probable cause or proof of the reliability of an informer were a necessary pre-requisite to customs searches, protection of the national borders would be difficult if not impossible without a more sophisticated surveillance system than is now used. While the search of a person’s body is not specifically contemplated by the present statutes authorizing border [also see 19 U.S.C. 482].

Back to Harvard Law Review
But while jurisdiction over such seizures on the seas was given by the Draft Bill to the District Courts sitting in admiralty, no jurisdiction over seizures by the Federal Government made elsewhere than on the high seas was vested in any Federal Court, and hence such cases were left entirely to the State Courts. (59) The Senate, however, now added greatly to the scope of Federal jurisdiction by inserting the following words: “and shall also have exclusive original cognizance of all seizures on land, or other waters than as aforesaid, made, and of all suits for penalties and forfeitures incurred, under the laws of the United States.”(6o) These cases, however, were not included within the admiralty jurisdiction of the District Court, but were left as suits at common law to be tried by a jury.

The anxiety to preserve the right of jury trial was shown by the insertion by the Senate, at the end of Section 9 of the Act: “and the trial of issues in (sic) fact in the District Court, in all causes, except civil causes of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, shall be by jury.” (61) An amendment, drafted by Maclay, and favored by Grayson and Bassett, to provide that” no District Judge shall give a vote in any case of appeal or error from his own decision, but may assign the reason of such his decision,” was adopted by the Senate(62)

Section 10 of the Act was a new Section, introduced by the Senate in order to make special provision as to Federal Courts
(58) See The Vengeance, 3 Dall. (U.S.) 297 (1796); United States v. Schooner Sally,: Cranch (U.S.) 406 (1805); United States v. Schooner Betsy, 4 Cranch (U.S.) 443 (1808); Whelan v. United States, 7 Cranch (U.S.) 112 (1812:); Ship Octavia, I Wheat. (U.S.) 20 (I816); Woodbury, J., dissenting, Waring v. Clarke, S How. (U.S.) 441, 483 {1847); The Eagle, 8 Wall. (U.S.) I5 (1869). See I Kent, Comm, 367. See also R. W. Greene, arguing in New Jersey Steam Nav.. Co. v. Merchants’ Bank, 6 How. (U.S.) 344, 376 (I848), and see Daniel, J’., dissenting, ibid., 409, 414.
(59) See The Sarah, 8 Wheat. (U.S.) 391 (I823).

(60) This amendment, in the Senate Files, is probably in Ellsworth’s handwriting.

(61)See Senate Files.. The Draft Bill had a clause substantially the same (but which was not broad enough, after the Senate had decided to insert its Amendments to Section 9) as follows: “And the trial of facts in both cases last mentioned shall be by jury.” It is to be noted that the District Court was given no equity powers. United States v. Nourse, 6 Pet. (U.S.) 470, 496 (I832).
(62) : See MaClay July 7.

[You will love this next section for those that argue you are a non citizen. You can use the federal courts and bring up this information from Harvard.]

The chief and only real reason for this diverse citizenship jurisdiction was to afford a tribunal in which a foreigner or citizen of another State might have the law administered free from the local prejudices or passions which might prevail in a State Court against foreigners or non-citizens. The Federal Court was to secure to a non-citizen the application of the same law’ which a State Court would give to its own citizens, and to see that within a State there should be no discrimination against a-citizens in the application of justice(79) There is not a trace any other purpose than the above to be found in any of the amendments made in I787-I789 as to this jurisdiction. The idea that a Federal Court in a State was to administer any other than the law of that State or were to discriminate in favor of a non-citizen, and against a citizen, or to administer law as an :entirely free and independent tribunal, never appears to have entered the mind of any one. But to make it perfectly certain that the Federal Courts were simply to administer State law, (79) Marshall, C. J., in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux, 5 Cranch (U.S.) 87 (i8o9): “The judicial department was introduced into the American Constitution under impressions, and with views, which are too apparent not to perceived by all. However true the fact may be, that the tribunals of the States will administer justice as impartially as those of the Nation, to parties of every description, it is not less true that the Constitution itself either entertains apprehensions on this subject, or views with such indulgence the possible’ fears apprehensions of suitors, that it has established National tribunals for the decision of controversies between aliens and a citizen, or between citizens of different States.” Wayne, .]’., in Dodge v. Woolsey, 18 How. (U.S.) 33I, 354 55): “The foundation of the right of citizens of different States to sue each other in the Courts of the United States, is not an unworthy jealousy of the impartiality of the State tribunals. It was a higher aim and purpose. It is to make the people think and feel, though residing in different States of the Union, their relations to each other were protected by the strictest justice, administered in Courts independent of all local control or connection with the subject matter of the controversy between the parties to a suit.” Pitney, J’., in Lankford v. Platte Iron Works Co., 235 U.S. 46I, 478 (1915): it “was established for the very purpose of avoiding the influence of local opinion.” Bradley, J, in Burgess v. Seligman, 107 U.S. 20, 34 (1882): its object ,” to institute independent tribunals which it might be supposed would be unaffected by local prejudices and sectional views…. ”

See Curtis, J., dissenting in Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. (U.S.) 393, 580 (1856): “Its purpose was to extend the judicial power to those controversies into which local feelings or interests might so enter as to disturb the course of justice, give rise to suspicions that they had done so, and thus possibly give occasion jealousy or ill will between different States. . .”
End footnotes.

the Senate amended the Draft Bill by adding Section 34, which in its final form read as follows: “The laws of the several States, except where the Constitution, treaties, or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the Courts of the United States in cases where they apply.” Unquestionably the addition of this Section was intended to remove the objections of those who had opposed the Constitution and which had been expressed in 1787 by a prominent Massachusetts man as follows:

“Causes of all kinds between citizens of different States are to be tried before a Continental Court. The Court is not bound to try it according to the local laws where the controversies happen; for in that case it may as well be tried in the State Court. The rule which is to govern the new Courts must therefore be made by the Court itself, or by its employees, the Congress …. Congress, therefore, have the right to make rules for trying all kinds of questions relating to property between citizens of different States …. The right to appoint such Courts necessarily involves in it the right of defining their powers and determining the rules by which their judgment shall be regulated… It is vain to tell us that a maxim of common law required contracts to be determined by the law existing where the contract was made; for it is also a maxim that the Legislature has the right to alter the common law.” (80)
[Isn’t that nice, Congress can change the common law and you people traded one King for another that is worse because the King could not change common law like Congress can. This is why the anti-federalist was so dead set against a Congress and their con-stitution. Just think, you elect these same criminals year after year and is it any wonder they will not respond to Schultz or anyone else? They are god]
Until Judge Story, in 1842, in Swift v. Tyson,81 decided that the word “laws” in this section did not include the “common law” of the State, and that the Federal Courts in a State were free to decide questions of general commercial law for them-selves, it had never been held that there was even any doubt about the matter. The sole object for which this jurisdiction is vested in the Federal Courts, Judge Johnson had said in 1820, “is to secure to all the administration of justice upon the same principles upon which it is administered between citizens of the same State.” The object, Chief Justice Taney had said in 1838, “was to make the rules of decisions in the Courts of the United States, the same with those of ‘the States, taking care to preserve (80) ,, Letters of Agrippa ,, (James Winthrop), Massachusetts Gazette, Dec. 11, 14, I787. (81) 16 Pet. (U.S.) 1 (I842). the rights of the United States by the exception contained in the same Section …. Justice to citizens of the several States required this to be done.” If this was so, then as has been said, Judge Story’s construction was “hardly possible, unless the purpose of the provision is ignored “; (82) but Story’s decision has been affirmed and extended by the Supreme Court from 1842 to the present day, with the result that, as to a large class of cases, that which was feared in 1787 has virtually taken place.(83) [ In other words, we, the men and woman in the states have been screwed if you haven’t already realized this.] The application of Story’s doctrine has resulted in the total reversal of the purposes for which Sections 11 and 34 were originally enacted. Diverse citizenship jurisdiction in the Federal Courts now, in many cases, instead of preventing a discrimination against a non-citizen, results in discrimination in their favor and against the citizen; and instead of making one law for all in a State, makes different law for citizen and non-citizen.

It now appears from an examination of the Senate Files, however, that if Judge Story and the Court had had recourse to those Files in preparing the decision in Swift v. Tyson, it is highly probable that the decision would have been different. and that the word “laws” in Section 34 would have been construed to include the common law of a State as well as the statute law. This conclusion will probably be reached by anyone who examines the original slip of paper on which the amendment containing Section 34 was written, and which is, with little doubt, . in Ellsworth’s handwriting.

(82) J.. B. Heiske, “Conflict between Federal and State Decisions.” 16 Am. L. Rev. 743, 747. “It remained for Mr. Justice Story to construe ‘ laws ‘ as ‘ statute laws,’ and so to defeat a great part of the object contemplated by the Constitution. If the reason for the grant of jurisdiction had been kept in view, it is inconceivable that such a construction could have been adopted.” GEORGE WHARTON ‘PEPPER, THE BORDERLAND OF FEDERAL AND STATE DECISIONS. See also William Trickett, “The Non-Federal Law Administered in Federal Courts,” 40 Am. L. Rev. 819.

(83) As an example of this, see the long line of municipal bond cases, in which the Federal Courts administer the law in one way in favor of a non-citizen, and the State Courts the law in another way, in favor of a citizen. “It is to be observed that the parties were to have been put on terms of equality- a construction which favors a non-resident brings about an evil as great as that which exists when bias is exerted in favor of a resident. A construction which makes a common carrier liable to non-residents in cases where it is not liable to residents brings about a state of affairs as unjust as if the reverse of that condition were true.” GEORGE WHARTON PEPPER,supra
[Not so today people – we are discriminated to the hilt, citizen and non citizen, to satisfy the fascist government, of which it truly is when looking at the private banking cartel operating the country via its purse strings. Then there are all the other corporations like the phone companies, drug companies etc etc. that actually make and collect taxes that the government cannot legally impose. Read the Cases of Importance on the atgpress web page to see what I mean as only one example. Do pull this Harvard Law Review and read and weep as you go along as there are 83 pages to read containing so much more info that you have to rethink and redo all your beliefs in the courts, and always remember the constitution was for them and not you. They just like you to think that so you can slide right into their trap when saying “I want my constitutional rights”. Well there are no constitutional rights and never have been, so your words are what kill your arguments. Your so-called “constitutional rights are mere privileges that a subject is given and called a right. The constitution is a charter of corporate powers, nothing more, nothing less, and it tells them what they can do and what they can’t do. And for them to have power over you, you must concede to their jurisdiction and you do by mouthing those mythical words “I want my constitutional rights,” for only subjects of the Corporate board can have anything to say on “constitutional (privileges) Rights.” That United States, is only Congress assembled and does not mean the executive or judiciary departments. That they are, departments of Congress Assembled. That’s why the Judiciary did not write the 1789 Judiciary Act, Congress did and you see it in the Harvard Law Review. One final thing I have to say on Admiralty and Revenue and that is for you to pull two cases that flat out states IRS revenue matters are based on Maritime.

They are United States v. $3,976.62 in Currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon Serial No. 0C66W145329 347, Federal Rules Decisions 564. Head note #1 states “Although, presumably for purposes of obtaining jurisdiction for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) § 7323 (a); 40 U.S.C.A. § 304i; Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. Rules 55 and (c), 60 and (b), 81(a)(2), 28 U.S.C.A. Admiralty Rules 2, 10, 21, 28 U.S.C.A.; 28 U.S.C.A. § 1355”

And this case;
United States of America v ONE 1966 CHEVROLET PICKUP TRUCK et al. Civ. A. No. 526 cited at 56 Federal Rules Decision 459 where in they state the controlling laws are, 26 U.S.C.A. (I.R.C. 1954) §§ 7325 (3); Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Rules A, C (4,6), 28 U.S.C.A..; Federal Rules Civ. Proc. Rule 60 (b) (1,2) Fed. Rules, Civ Proc. Rules 55 (b), (1,2), 60, 28 U.S.C.A.
Yes, Title 28 is totally based on Admiralty and is the admiralty law Title for the Congress to operate under their 1789 Judiciary Act and the process is Civil, when you are hit with a “Revenue crime”. Now how many knew that revenue crimes are a Civil Matter? You have a lot to learn dear reader.

As Always The Informer June 1, 2003

How the government got you in its clutches, slave

July 8, 2014

You did it to yourself through citizenship that you claimed because you were told to be a citizen all your life by the public fools system, or what they call the public school system.

Little known to most people, but practiced every day in the public fool system by the children, till they knew it by heart is the pledge of allegiance. At all ceremonies outside the school people recite the pledge of allegiance by rote and frown on anyone near by that don’t. It is so ingrained in the people, I call them slaves, and rightly so. To be polite, you/they are servants of the Master no doubt about that.

I had written many articles on atgpress on why, but very few heed what is written and yet they still whine and complain and say how they (government) can do that to us because we have God given rights, that they can’t do that. MY and I cap MY, for a reason. It’s MY (your) constitution because I (past lineage) created government and we are the rulers. Well sadly that myth has been fostered on us by those in power and no “we” did not create any government nor did the people ever create any written document called a constitution and I do go into that in atgpress articles. I made it more evident in my book called “The New History of America”. The last article I wrote on citizenship had reference to allegiance. I will wager that went right over peoples’ heads whether educated or not. It’s not something people have in the back of their minds. Well let me say that it is a big deal and should be in the back of every ones minds. Here is an article that came across the Internet today that will bring into perspective what you are about to read from Black’s Law 2 nd Ed. The small portion of the government propaganda from Statement of Nathan J. Hochman, Tax Division’s Assistant Attorney General, Announcing Creation of the National Tax Defier Initiative WASHINGTON April 8, 2008- are these few sentences—130 million Americans voluntarily engage in this ritual every year. These individuals participate because they know that with the privileges (what privileges?) that the United States has given them come the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship. Former Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ saying states it best: “Taxes are what we pay for a civilized society.”

Now how did you get privileges and where did those God given right go? Well we shall see below what you did to yourself. Now if you will, find the passage in the bible where the people wanted a King and the Lord, who was their King said; if you leave me and cling to a King I cannot help you . Or close to that. He said you can’t have two Masters, it’s Me or Mammon. What did the Lord Almighty want? He wanted Allegiance. That’s it, plain and simple. So let’s see why you no longer have any “God given rights” you claim to have, right from the government’s own Law book and if you don’t think so, you are sadly mistaken. I do highlight these words that enslave you and the god given rights you tossed out the window when taking away allegiance to the Lord and gave it to your new master, willingly I might add. And if this WAS REALLY a Christian Nation, why did we give up total allegiance to the Lord Almighty and let a bunch of Mammon creates a new religion, give it a constitution and say Join us as we are your new savior. Give us the allegiance when becoming a member of our church and we will give you all the privileges (because we can’t give you rights the Lord gave you, under their breath) that you will ever need and protect you, but it will bear a huge cost laid upon you. We will create so many laws you won’t know what to do when we attack you for wanting out of your slavery you so willing entered into that our con job which we wrote won’t help you out of your willing slavery in your total allegiance we request of you.

Blacks Law 2 nd Edition
ALLEGIANCE . By allegiance Is meant the obligation of fidelity and obedience which the individual owes to the government under which he lives, or to his sovereign in return for the protection he receives. It may be an absolute and permanent obligation, or it may be a qualified and temporary one. The citizen or subject owes an absolute and permanent allegiance to his government or sovereign, or at least until, by some open and distinct act, he renounces it and becomes a citizen or subject of another government or another sovereign. The alien, while domiciled in the country, owes a local and temporary allegiance, which continues during the period of his residence . Carlisle v. U. S. , 16 Wall. 154, 21 L. Ed. 426; Jackson v. Goodell, 20 Johns. (N. Y.) 191; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark , 169 U. S. 649, 18 Sup. Ct 456, 42 L. Ed. 890; Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 501.
“The tie or ligamen which binds the subject [or citizen] to the king [or government in return for that protection which the king [or government] affords the subject, [or citizen.” ] 1 Bl. Comm. 366. It consists in “a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his sovereign.” 7 Coke, 4&. Allegiance is the obligation of fidelity and obedience which every citizen owes to the state. Pol. Code Cal. § 55.

In Norman French. Alleviation; relief; redress. Kelham.

— Local allegiance. That measure of obedience which is due from a subject of one government to another government, within whose territory he is temporarily resident.—

Natural allegiance. In English law. That kind of allegiance which is due from all men born within the king’s dominions, immediately upon their birth, which is intrinsic and perpetual, and cannot be divested by any act of their own. 1 Bl. Comm. 369; 2 Kent, Oomni. 42.

In American law. The allegiance due from citizens of the United States to their native country, and also from naturalized citizens, and which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law . 2 Kent , Comm. 43—49. It differs from local allegiance, which is temporary only, being due from an alien or stranger born for so long a time as he continues within the sovereign’s dominions and protection. Fost. Cr. Law, 184.

Now do you all see how you are mere slaves, serfs, subjects, whatever you want to call yourselves? Your questions are all answered here. Now all the religions and their preachers are in on this because they all know we were supposed to owe complete allegiance to the Lord Almighty and none other. That’s why the preachers are serving the state and mammon with being false preachers that The Lord mentioned in the Bible. No one reading this is then a true Christian despite your rants and raves you are. If you have a Constitution, if you created government, if you are a citizen of the State or United States, then you are not a citizen of the household of the Lord Eph 2-19, and abide by His Laws, are you? To whom do you owe allegiance, The Lord or the master called the US or state? Don’t you say you are a citizen of so and so state even if you don’t claim US citizenship? Well let me tell you the states are mere territories of the United States and as such it makes no difference you owe no allegiance to the Lord Almighty. Don’t believe me? Try renouncing very publicly your allegiance to either State or United States and see what happens as stated in Black’s definitions above. Don’t they say “ which cannot be renounced without the permission of government, to be declared by law .”

The Informer April 2008

Contrary to all beliefs that you, the slave, yes you are still in bondage to the original corporation your corporate citizenship is based on. Your corporate citizenship was determined by Treaty of 1783 and other treaties. After reading the words of this treaty document, which by the way is well over 1400 pages, you can see why slaves/subjects/serfs/citizen classification of man and woman are not sovereign and never were, even under Roman law. I say this because being a corporate citizen is subject of the actions of corporate sovereigns, law makers, internationalists that make international agreements.

The evidence found in these documents such as the Treaty of 1783 was violated by both the United States and Britain and required the 1792 Jay Treaty to compensate for the breach of the contract ( Treaty) and that was also breached by both parties. Even that did not work and hence the Treaties were absolved and the Secret Treaty of Varona came into play as the controlling Treaty affecting all of us. So much for believing that you, the man and woman, were ever sovereign and that you created this god forsaken criminal organization passing itself off as “your government”.

If you can obtain this document you will learn a lot about your slavery and why they ( so called government) want you to accept citizenship status as all debtors in possession having no rights and no claim to any land as you are all tenants on the land expected to pay all debts they cause/create/establish. You see what I mean Brian? the point is if we are the people of the people by the people, why have we bee standing in the opposite legal position of that status ever since these treaties supposedly settled the Kings hash back then? Citizens are slaves no sovereigns. Now we have a crime scene here, we have perps, my point I’ve tried to get across to you is the investigation cannot stop with the thugs you see at the crime scene, we have to connect them to the rest of the syndicate so to speak or those orchestrating these crimes get off scott free. They left a legal paper trail in all of their international agreements.

The reason it is important to comprehend the real history behind all of this deception, say from the Concession of King John of 1213 to the Pope forward through all of the international agreements at least to the end of the constitutional convention is because once we know the truth of what is taking place before our eyes, we lose the anger. We find some peace of mind.

America never stopped being a British Colony and those documents prove it. I really dig LAW LIBRARIES because its all in there.

The common man never created the U.S. Constitution nor was the Bill of Rights for him.

June 23, 2014

Since 1990 I have been preaching that the Constitution was never mine and the People in “We the People” was not the common man on the street, but rather the aristocracy of Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Jay and others. Lysander Spooner is another man in the 1800’s that had the same sentiments. He too showed that the constitution was not only NOT a contract with the people, but that none of the signers signed it with any conviction and it is evident that they only signed in a witness capacity, check it out for yourself by looking at how they signed the constitution and bound no one unless they agreed to the terms in the alleged contract called a constitution that they drafted.

The following is from the Cases in Constitutional law. I had used the John Barron case to prove my point that the common man on the street had nothing to do with creating the constitution quite a few years back.. The majority of the people put the constitution even before the word of the LORD ALMIGHTY, because they revere it so much they will say they will defend it. What they do not know is that the constitution gives unlimited power to those men who assume the power and jurisdiction over them and offers them no protection whatsoever. The hoopla of the government spin doctors have led the common man to believe the common man has protections built in to protect him. Nothing could be further from the truth. The lie is so big that people, even when shown, still revert back to the constitution as if it were GOD himself. It is only because of the teachings they had that was passed down from generation to generation. Just like the little boy believes in the big lie you tell him for the fist 5 to 7 years of his life that there is a Santa, Tooth fairy and Easter bunny. Small lies but still lies. He won’t believe there is none of the above when you tell him. It is more serious in real life, the lies that have been fed your relatives all the way back to 1776, and now when we researchers tell you the truth, you still want to believe in the Big Lie, just like the 5 year old wants to believe in Santa. I want to point out that what you read is not one word of mine, except where I make comments. I will bold those words that will draw your attention and make you see the light that I saw over 10 years ago. It is a slow process, to come to the realization that in order to control the people, they must be made to believe in (government) lies. Please note how the courts, after the John Barron case, have changed the meaning so that they can start changing what the genesis of the constitution was all about. They had to do this to keep the people 10 steps behind in figuring out what Patrick Henry warned, that the constitution was a document to enslave the people of America. So I start with the book, which is the same book I used describing the 16th Amendment, Direct and Indirect taxes. Remember it is what the enemy (government State and Federal) says that counts. Sometimes they tell us things in court cases that go right over our heads. They can’t say that we were not warned.

Chapter 16
The Nationalization of the Bill of Rights
Early Efforts To Extend the Bill of Rights to the States
BARRON v. BALTIMORE
7 Peters 243; 8 L. Ed. 672 (1833)

One of the bitter criticisms urged against our federal Constitution as it came from the hands of the Convention was that it contained no bill of rights. It was feared that without specific guarantees the civil rights and liberties of the people and the states would be at the mercy of the proposed national government. Ratification was secured, but with a tacit understanding that a bill of rights should promptly be added which should restrict the national government in behalf of individual liberty. That the early statesmen thought of a federal bill of rights only in terms of restrictions on national power is emphasized by Hamilton’s ingenious argument in The Federalist (No. 84) that since the proposed central government was one which possessed only the powers delegated to it, it would be not only unnecessary but unwise to prohibit it from doing things which were clearly outside the scope of its delegated authority.

When the First Congress convened, the House of Representatives proposed seventeen amendments in the nature of a bill of rights. One of these, the fourteenth, provided that “no state should infringe the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, nor the rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press. This amendment, which was the only one restricting the powers of the states, was rejected by the Senate. The substance of the others was consolidated into twelve amendments, ten of which were finally ratified by the states.

The First Amendment indicates by its own language that it is directed only against the federal government, for it begins, “Congress shall make no law …. ” The other amendments are couched in terms of general prohibition; and in spite of the perfectly clear historical evidence as to the intention of those who framed them, it came to be argued that these guarantees of civil liberty ought to be construed as restrictions upon state and federal governments alike. Whether this view is correct is the issue involved in Barron v. Baltimore, the last constitutional decision in which Mr. Chief Justice Marshall participated.

While paving its streets, the city of Baltimore had diverted from their natural courses certain streams, with the result that sand and gravel were deposited near Barron’s wharf. The wharf, which had previously enjoyed the deepest water in the harbor, was rendered practically useless, for the deposits prevented the approach of vessels. A verdict of $4500 for Barron had been reversed by the state court of appeals, and a writ of error was taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. It was alleged by Barron that this action upon the part of the city constituted a violation of that clause of the Fifth Amendment which forbids taking private property for public use without just compensation. He insisted that this amendment, being a guarantee in behalf of individual liberty, ought to be construed to restrain the states as well as the national government.

The decision in Barron v. Baltimore has left an indelible impression on the development of civil rights in this country. While today Barron would have brought his case under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (which does restrict the states), the process of change by which parts of the Bill of Rights have come to be applicable to the states has been slow, uncertain, and confusing. While most rights in the Bill of Rights now do apply to the states, they do so only because they are essential to due process of law. The ruling in the present case that the Bill of Rights does not apply directly to the states has never been overruled.

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall delivered the opinion of the court:
The judgment brought up by this writ of error having been rendered by the court of a State, this tribunal can exercise no jurisdiction over it unless it be shown to come within the provisions of the twenty-fifth section of the Judicial Act.

The plaintiff in error contends that it comes within that clause in the fifth amendment to the Constitution which inhibits the taking of private property for public use without just compensation. He insists that this amendment, being in favor of the liberty of the citizen, ought to be so construed as to restrain the legislative power of a State, as well as that of the United States. If this proposition be untrue, the court can take no jurisdiction of the cause.

The question thus presented is, we think, of great importance, but not of much difficulty.

The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. . . . .

But it is universally understood, it is a part of the history of the day, that the great revolution which established the Constitution of the United States was not effected without immense opposition. Serious fears were extensively entertained that those powers which the patriot statesmen who then watched over the interests of our country, deemed essential to union, and to the attainment of those invaluable objects for which union was sought, might be exercised in a manner dangerous to liberty. In almost every convention by which the Constitution was adopted, amendments to guard against the abuse of power were recommended. These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government–not against those of the local governments.

In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in Congress, and adopted by the States. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the State governments. This court cannot so apply them.
We are of opinion that the provision in the fifth amendment to the Constitution, declaring that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, is intended solely as a limitation on the exercise of power by the government of the United States, and is not applicable to the legislation of the States. We are therefore of opinion that there is no repugnancy between the several acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, given in evidence by the defendants at the trial of this cause in the court of that State, and the Constitution of the United States.

This court, therefore, has no jurisdiction of the cause, and [it] is dismissed.

Informer’s Comment: Ever wonder why the federal judges say, “don’t bring the constitution in my court?” Now you know why. So now we see the progression to hide this fact from the people in the states, who had no say whatsoever in drafting and creating the U.S. Constitution, by the courts dictating change by their decisions. Remember also, that the constitution of each of the states was never created or ratified by the common man either, for the same reasons the U. S. Constitution was never drafted nor ratified by the common man. So why do you all claim it is your constitution and Bill of Rights when it clearly is stated by the court that it is not?

In the next case please see if you can see RIGHTS mentioned. First the government granted “privileges” and after they were granted, they became rights under statute, only at the whim of the Congress. Today that is called “statutory rights” and NOT God given rights. That is why it was always a “privilege” to vote, because of the original restrictions, having property and money was the only criteria allowing those to vote. History has shown this to be so. That left the common man, who had no property or money in excess of 100 dollars silver, who you believe to have drafted both the Constitution and Bill of Rights, could not vote.

THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES 16 Wallace 36; 21 L. Ed. 394 (1873)
In the years prior to the Civil War the individual relied almost entirely on the constitution of his state for the protection of his rights and liberties. The Supreme Court had ruled in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) that the Bill of Rights limited only the national government, and with the exception of the Alien and Sedition Acts, Congress had passed no law which anyone seriously believed had violated these limitations. The ordinary citizen looked to the state legislature to protect his person and property from private interference, and to the state bill of rights for protection against injury by his state government. Certainly he did not, and could not, expect the national government to step in and protect him either from his neighbor or from his state government.

At the close of the Civil War it seemed clear that without the intervention of the federal government the Southern states would by legislative restrictions strip the newly freed Negro of most of the ordinary rights and immunities of free citizens. To place the civil rights of the Negro upon a firm basis Congress proposed the Fourteenth Amendment authorizing the national government to step in and protect the Negro against actions by his own state government. The states were forbidden to take life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or to deny anyone the equal protection of the laws. The amendment defined United States citizenship in terms which included the Negro, and the states were forbidden to make laws abridging the privileges and immunities of that citizenship.

Exactly what the framers of the amendment intended to include in the phrase “privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States” is not altogether clear, and there is evidence to indicate that it was not clear even to the framers. Some apparently believed that the clause would include within its protection those basic rights enjoyed by all persons–such as the right to marry, to own property, to do business, and to move about freely. Others thought that it would include all or part of the protections listed in the federal Bill of Rights. In the Slaughter-House Cases the Court held that the privileges and immunities clause protected none of these rights, and from this decision the Court has never retreated.

The Slaughter-House Cases were the first cases brought under the Fourteenth Amendment, and they had nothing whatever to do with the rights of freedmen. The case arose on the following facts: the Reconstruction or “carpetbag,’ government in Louisiana, unquestionably under corrupt influence, had granted a monopoly of the slaughterhouse business to a single concern, thus preventing over one thousand other persons and firms from continuing in that business. The validity of the law was attacked under the Fourteenth Amendment. The case was argued before the Supreme Court twice and was decided by a majority of five to four.

The importance of the case can hardly be overestimated. By distinguishing between state citizenship and national citizenship, and by emphasizing that the rights and privileges of federal citizenship do not include the protection of ordinary civil liberties such as freedom of speech and press, religion, etc., but only the privileges which one enjoys by virtue of his federal citizenship, the Court averted, for the time being at least, the revolution in our constitutional system apparently intended by the framers of the amendment and reserved to the states the responsibility for protecting civil rights generally. Nor has the Court been willing to expand the scope of the privileges and immunities clause beyond this early, limited interpretation. Five years before the Slaughter-House Cases the Supreme Court had held void, in Crandall v. Nevada (1868), a state tax on transporting persons out of the state, on the ground that such a tax would obstruct the citizen in his inherent federal right to come to the seat of his government. Two members of the Court, while concurring in the judgment, held the tax to be a violation of the commerce clause. In his opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Mr. Justice Miller cites this freedom of movement as an example of the privileges and immunities of United States citizens, and in 1941 in Edwards v. California, four members of the Court strongly urged that the California “anti-Okie” law should be held invalid on this ground. The majority had rested their decision, as had the minority in the Crandall case, upon the commerce power.

Had the Slaughter-House Cases been decided 25 years later, the Louisiana statute would in all probability have been invalidated as a deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law and a denial of the equal protection of the laws. But the majority of the Court disposed rather summarily of these clauses by holding in substance that the due process of law clause was not a limitation on the state’s police power and that the equal protection of the laws clause, equally inapplicable, would probably never be invoked except for the protection of the Negro. It is important to bear in mind that Mr. Justice Miller’s comments about the due process and equal protection clauses no longer state the law. The Court has long since given those clauses the broadest possible applicability. There have, in fact, been more cases interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment than on any other phase of constitutional law.

It looked for a time (1935-1940) as though the Court might also broaden the scope and applicability of the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Colgate v. Harvey (1935) the Court held void a provision of a Vermont income tax law which taxed income from money loaned outside the state at a higher rate than that loaned inside the state. Besides denying the equal protection of the laws, this act was held to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.

The right to carry on business freely across state lines was declared to be a privilege or immunity of federal citizenship, a doctrine sharply differing from the rule of Slaughter-House Cases. In 1939, in Hague v. CIO, involving the validity under the Fourteenth Amendment of various repressions of free speech, assembly, etc., in Jersey City, two justices of the Supreme Court from the majority held that the right of citizens to assemble and discuss their rights under the National Labor Relations Act was a privilege or immunity of citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. There was also speculation as to whether protection against unreasonable searches and seizures was also a privilege and immunity of federal citizenship, but no decision was made on that point. There was sharp dissent in both cases against this tendency to enlarge the scope of the privileges and immunities clause; and in Madden v. Kentucky (1940), in a case similar to Colgate v. Harvey, the Court specifically overruled that case and returned to the timeworn narrow construction of the privileges and immunities clause embodied in the Slaughter-House Cases.

Mr. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the Court, saying in part:
The plaintiffs in error accepting this issue, allege that the statute is a violation of the Constitution of the United States in these several particulars:

Informer’s comment: The Plaintiffs lost because the constitution of the United States did not apply to them and the amendments did not apply to the states. The part of the decision of Miller states, “But with the exception of these and a few other restrictions, the entire domain of the privileges and immunities of citizens of the states, as above defined, lay within the constitutional and legislative power of the states, AND WITHOUT that of the federal government.” Emphasis mine.

Now I hope all you understand that the Bill of Rights, as originally adopted, DID NOT belong to the people that lived in the states and they did not, contrary to the big lie they are led to believe, create the Bill of Rights, just like they did not create the Constitutions of the United States, much less the state constitution where they live. The common man never ratified any constitution.

Now in Nebbia v New York 291 U.S. 502, Justice Roberts stated, “So far as the requirement of due process is concerned, and in the absence of other constitution restriction, a state is free to adopt whatever economic policy may reasonably be deemed to promote public welfare, and to enforce that policy by legislation adopted to its purpose. The courts are without authority either to declare such policy, or, when it is declared by the legislature, to override it. . . .

Informer’s Comment: People, “public welfare” means government welfare, NOT your welfare. How many believe when they say “public,” that it means you and me? Probably 95 percent of you think this way. Not so, the government is termed public. Ever hear the term “public office?” That is easy to understand it means government office. Why is it so difficult to understand the “public welfare clause “means government welfare and not your welfare? Therefore, as stated by the Nebbia court, the federal courts are without authority to override the state’s domain.

BUT, the problem has completely gone away and with the advent of the War Powers the Congress and the President now control all states and actually throws out all these court arguments because “Public Policy” (Government AKA Congress’s Policy) over rules all law except what they drafted after the Reconstruction Acts. The enemy, that is the common man, has no rights, State or otherwise under emergency power control. And, even if we were to revert back to peace time and be under no emergency rule, the Constitution would still not protect you nor the Bill of Rights against State control. Now that blows the 2nd Amendment right out of the water because it only applies to the People of the United States and NOT to the people of the States. Go an Pull the entire John Barron case to see where they addressed every item in the Bill of Rights and how they do not pertain to the people in the states, with the exception of one.

Have a nice day. Sincerely, The Informer

THE REAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

May 23, 2014

QUESTIONS for the Interrogatories

By Rebekah Sutherland at becworks@gmail.com

Part One

Who funded the grants for the land development in the Colonies?
What were the names, founding dates, and connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies?
Who owned the colonies
Did each colony have its own form of government?
Did the colonies have laws?
Did Christopher Columbus discover and claim any of the original 13 colonies for Spain or Portugal?
What is a Commodity Exchange?
Did the colonies have connections to a Commodity Exchange in England?
Does the word “plantation” mean a large farming enterprise?
Did the King of England operate on his own as a free agent in the creation of the colonies?
Did the Treaty of 1213 actually affect the ownership of the colonies?
What did the Treaty of 1213 actually say?
Part Two

Who were the members of the Board of Trade?
Were Jews allowed on the Board?
Did the original 13 colonies have a court system?
What were the types of jurisdiction assigned to the courts in the colonies?
What is the legal meaning of the word “federal?”
Did Commercial Contracts in the United States evolve from something else?
Is there a difference between Government commerce and Private commerce in law?
Do Admiralty courts still exist today?
Why is there paper money, if the Constitution does not allow it?
Did the British International Bankers have other names in history?
Part Three

Legally DEFINE: Contract, Charter, Compact and Constitution?
Was the United States Constitution a charter, compact, constitution or contract?
In legal terminology, is there a difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people?”
In 1776, who was “We, the People” as is written on the U.S. Constitution?
Why did the aristocrats meet in secret to discuss the constitution?
Who actually wrote the Constitution?
How did the Constitution protect The Crown’s investments in America?
When did the United States come into existence?
What were the terms of the Treaty of 1783?
Who was the “most holy and undivided Trinity” that is mentioned in the declaration paragraph of the Treaty of 1783?
What is the legal definition of the word “church”?
What is the legal definition of the word “business”?
Is the United States actually a church organization, an extension of the Vatican?
Part Four

Was the U.S. Constitution ‘ratified’ or ‘adopted’?
What is the difference between “ratified” and “adopted” in legal terminology?
Why did the wealthy aristocrats choose to adopt the compact called “the Constitution for the United States”, which was sent to them by the Vatican via the King of England on behalf of The Crown?
Part Five

What are the divisions of American Jurisprudence?
What is the difference between Tort Law and Contract Law?
What are the three main parts of a binding contractual agreement?
Is there a legal difference between “signing” and “witnessing” a document?
Was The United States Constitution “signed” or was it “witnessed?”
Did the men who “witnessed” The United States Constitution participating in the beginning of a “con job” for the colonists which continues today?
Part Six

What are the legal jurisdictions mentioned by the United States Constitution and what is involved in each?
Is there a difference between Admiralty Law and Maritime Law?
How did Admiralty Law become the jurisdiction in the Federal Courts?
How does one become financially entangled in the Admiralty Law system in the USA?
What is Statutory Law?
What happened in 1938 that revolutionized American jurisprudence?
Why did the USA judges abandon Public Law and switch to Public Policy for decisions?
For what are the international bankers waiting, if the nation is bankrupted?
Constitutional Consternation Part 1

by R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

July 10, 2010

Presented to the Americans for Constitutional Government

Sugar Creek Club House – Annual picnic

DISCLAIMERS

1. This author loves government so much that she desires three branches of government; and all three operating in a check-and-balanced manner. I am pro-government when it protects the individual.

2. I am not an attorney, nor do I hand out legal advice. I am an American who was educated in the public school system, which taught “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” Therefore, I have performed my duty, studied what is available to me, used whatever talents my Creator assigned to me, and the following are my observations based upon knowledge, which the federal government mandated that I develop on my own.

3. This author is not anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-Protestant, or anti-anything else. This author is Pro-Factual, Pro-Truth, and Pro-Freedom. Everything shared with you is open to your own investigation and interpretation. You are free to “believe” anything you wish.

4. This author is not interested in Conspiracy Theories. A conspiracy by definition must be (1) hidden and (2) illegal. Instead, this author is focused on items that have been written in the legal documents of Record and the legislation by which our freedoms have disappeared. This author is only interested in being extremely correct.

5. My work is not finished. It is entirely selfish. I have no hope, nor any reason, to expect others to accept what I am learning. Forgive me for saying this, but I do not care if you reject it. This investigation is for me. I do not wish to save the world; instead, I must save my own sanity. I must understand why things are happening which appear un-American. I am hunting. You are welcome to read the answers to my questions. I am compiling huge amounts of research into a streamlined format to increase cognitive comprehension and to enhance discussion for further research. My hope is that you will not place yourself in jeopardy to defend the Constitution.

INTRODUCTION

I am a scientist and a teacher with a love for investigative journalism. My love for research was first discovered while sitting on my living room floor surrounded by encyclopedias, magazines, and books, writing a health report in the fifth grade. The love for research is innate. The search for answers to the questions “why” and “how” have created an incredible journey for this soul, which appears to be leading right smack into the center of the prophetic Book of Revelations, the Mayan calendar, the I Chi, and most prophetic works through the ages.

I do not create an opinion, and then find facts to support it. Instead, I find facts, and they lead me to more questions. That is the Scientific Method. When facts are true, then they can be used to predict outcomes with accuracy. That is the only real proof of factual certainty.

PROLOGUE

FACT: The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance [TCD] was developed by Leon Festinger and published by Stanford University Press ( 1957) The theory says that the mind involuntarily rejects information that is not in line with previous thoughts/or actions. Festinger observed: “A person can deal with the pressure generated by changing the dissonance of the old behavior to harmonize with information. But if the person is committed to the old behavior and way of thinking, he simply rejects the new information.” That explains why so many Americans say, “I don’t believe it” when they are presented with new information, and why the Left-leaning agenda is able to brand thinkers as “conspiracy nuts” and “extremists.”

I apologize to many of you today, because you are going to learn things that rearrange the molecules of your brain. When things that we thought were true, are proven false, then it can be traumatic. Do not hide from new realities; instead, embrace them. Make a paradigm shift and go on. Individual responsibility for facts and truths leads one to freedom and independence.

INVESTIGATION

FACT: About 30 years ago, a team of men came together with the sole purpose of going back through the historical legal paperwork to find out why judges were rendering the decisions they were making. The documents and original books filled up a warehouse. Today, most of the team is dead. They were ridiculed for their discoveries, because they had tapped into the real power behind the government. Nonetheless, they discovered the Truth, and one of the team successfully implemented that Truth for himself. He is the only real free Man in the country. I interviewed him five hours and read his works. His knowledge when combined with the other research in my files, led to incredible disclosures and understanding about our government.

CONCLUSION: The United States of America has been locked into a Babylonian economic system the extends from the blend of pagan Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church in 382 A.D., which is under the control of the King of England, who is owned by the Vatican per the Treaty of 1213. In 1611, King James had the Bible translated into an official English version. King James happened to be the most powerful Freemason in history, because he ruled Scotland and England at the same time. In 1776, the rebellion in the colonies was halted and the aristocrats were placed into “checkmate” by the Vatican, whose message was delivered by the King’s agents. From that point until today, Americans have been taught a Myth about their own history, which holds them in slavery to the most powerful corporation on earth which resides in Rome, Italy. Americans have been deliberately kept ignorant of the Truth.

QUESTION: Is the United States Constitution in effect today?

FACT: President Bush II told the GOP leadership during a meeting about the Patriot Act in November of 2005: QUOTE:”Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

FACT: Citizens feel like they are under siege from all branches of government. They must pay taxes and fees that consume over 50% of their earned wages. They formed the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America to prevent the government from taking away firearms, which are supposedly protected under the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. There is an invasion from Mexico that is ignored by the federal level, yet it is constitutionally mandated to protect the borders.

QUESTION: Where are the Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution physically located?

ANSWER: The Declaration of Independence is missing.

QUOTE: In the Woman’s Day magazine, July 7, 2009, there is a box entitled, “Independence Day by the Numbers” which states: “25 = Number of copies of the Declaration of Independence known to exist. (No originals with the famous signatures are known to remain.) END QUOTE

ANSWER: The original handwritten copy of The United States Constitution, according to the National Archives and records Administration, QUOTE: “ . .. Is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.” END QUOTE

QUESTION: Can Americans access all of their pubic documents?

ANSWER: No.

QUOTE: “2006 controversy over reclassification– In March 2006, it was revealed by the Archivist of the United States in a public hearing that a memorandum of understanding between Collins and various government agencies existed to ‘reclassify’, (i.e., withdraw from public access), certain documents in the name of national security, and to do so in a manner such that researchers would not be likely to discover the process. [SOURCE: gwu.edu (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060411/index.htm) (2006-04-11)]

QUESTION: Was the entire creation of the United States of America a con job?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE from Edmond Burke in March 22, 1775 with his Speech on Conciliation with America:

“. . . Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government–they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation–the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces toward you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have; they can have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”

QUESTION: Is there legal evidence that the Constitution did not apply to the American people at large from the very beginning?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE:

The Padleford Case

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach in the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. States are the parties to it.

Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor & Aldermen of the City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438, 520, S.C. Georgia (1854)

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law
By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part One

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. Seek the Truth, and then you will become aware of the shackles on your ankles and the blinders on your eyes.

NOTE: This author has chosen to use well known academic sources for the concepts commonly taught at the high school level. As the answers become more complicated, the more analytical and legal sources will be used. This is an attempt to keep a difficult subject as simple as possible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

QUOTE: “The reason why [deception cannot be forced on an Individual] is because deception has to be first created, then conveyed, and then accepted by others – then only can deception succeed. Deception can only find fertility in a human mind to the extent that mind is receptive to it; similarly, in a sense, it actually takes two people to manufacture a successful lie: the first to utter the lie, and the second to accept it as such.” –1985, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier.

1. Who funded the grants for the land development in the original 13 Colonies?

ANSWER: There were several entities involved in exploring America, but the King of England was the point of contact. Other countries said that they had claim to lands; however, they were not clever enough to get the paperwork straight, nor were they strong enough to defend their legal Claim; hence, they lost both the legal and physical battle for occupation of America.

2. What were the names, founding dates, and connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies?

[SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

ANSWER:
1067-Virginia – Charter by King to the Virginia Company of London
1620-Massachusetts – Charter granted by the King to the Puritans
1623-New Hampshire – King appointed Council of New England for settlement
1624-New York – Charter by King to Duke of York
1622-Connecticut – Charter by King to John Winthrop
1634-Maryland – Charter by King to Lord Baltimore
1636-Rhode Island – King granted “Charter of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations”
1638-Delaware – Charter by King to Duke of York
1643-Pennsylvania – Grant by King to William Penn
1653-North Carolina – Grant by King to Sir Robert Heath
1660-New Jersey – Grant by King to Duke of York
1670-South Carolina – Grant by King to Eight “Lords Proprietors”
1733-Georgia – Grant by King to a Corporation entitled: “Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America

3. Who owned the colonies?

ANSWER: The legal contracting documents for the colonies were of three types, but all of them were under the direction of the King of England:

(a) royal – under the direct control of the King
(b) proprietary-under the control of a Proprietor, an appointed by the King
(c) corporate-under a charter obtained from the King of England by a company with stockholders. [SOURCE: WBE]

4. Did each colony have its own form of government?

ANSWER: Each colony had a governor and a legislature; however, the King of England appointed the governor over the royal colonies. In proprietary colonies, the King appointed the Proprietor, who appointed the governor. In Connecticut and Rhode Island the people elected the governor; however, Connecticut was under the Fundamental Orders until it received a royal charter in 1662 and Rhode Island was under the English charter of 1663, which served as its constitution. [SOURCE: WBE]

5. Did the colonies have laws?

ANSWER: The laws that were passed by any of the colonial legislatures had to be approved by the English government. Governors appointed by the King had the responsibility of carrying out his orders. The King expected them to enforce the laws of England, especially acts of Parliament that regulated colonial trade. [SOURCE: WBE]

6. Did Christopher Columbus discover and claim any of the original 13 colonies for Spain or Portugal?

ANSWER: No. Columbus traveled around the areas of Jamaica, Costa Rica, Panama, etc. [SOURCE: WBE]

7. What is a Commodity Exchange?

ANSWER: “Commodity exchanges are voluntary trade associations. They are called organized markets, because all members must follow certain trading rules. All business, for example, must be conducted on the trading floor within certain hours. Rules set the commission (fee) that may be charged in a transaction, and the time within which payment must be made.” [SOURCE: WBE]

8. Did the colonies have connections to a Commodity Exchange in England?

ANSWER: Yes, It was called the Board of Trade (1621-1970)
QUOTE:
URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
“The1621 Privy Council, directed by the King, ‘to take into their consideration, the true causes of the decay of trade and scarcity of coin within the Kingdom and to consult the means for the removing of these inconveniences.’ As a result a committee of inquiry was set up named ‘The Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations’ (this is still the formal title of the ‘Board of Trade’) and this committee can be regarded as the germ of the Board of Trade.”

“Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, trade matters remained the responsibility of Privy Council Committees. In 1696 William III set up a body of eight paid Commissioners ‘for promoting the trade of our Kingdom and for inspecting and improving our plantations in America and elsewhere.’”

9. Does the word “plantation” mean a large farming enterprise?

ANSWER: No. The definition found in Burke on Conciliation of the Colonies stated, “Plantations–colonies; the plantings of a new society or race. The term is regularly so used in Acts and Charters, and has no reference whatever to cultivation of the soil.”

10. Did the King of England operate on his own as a free agent in the creation of the colonies?

ANSWER: No. The King of England was bound to the Treaty of 1213. The following brief history explains who was actually in charge of the colonies.

QUOTE:
[ INTRO: The King refused to accept Stephen Langton as the Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Innocent III in 1208, and the King was excommunicated from the Catholic Church by the Pope for his disobedience to contractual agreements to the Crown. The Pope and the King owed money to the Crown bankers, so the Pope had to reign in a naughty King in order to avoid default to The Crown.]

“Faced with defeat by the forces aligned against him by the Vatican, King John ran for cover, and sought to regain the support of the Pope. He returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope, as vassals, swore submission and loyalty to him, accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal’s bond of fealty and homage, an annual tribute of 1,000 marks (equivalent to a bit more than 666 pounds sterling) and the return of the Church property he had seized when he had rebelled against it.

“Two months later, in July 1213, King John was: absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the return Arch Bishop of Canterbury Langton.

“Three months later, on October 3, 1213, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, who by virtue of his position as Vicar of Christ claims ownership of everything and everyone, on earth in the tradition of the Nazarene-Communist supercapitalist superdictatorship that is true fundamentalist Christianity.

“On April 21, 1214, the Pope, in Rome, formally accepted King John’s surrender of his kingdoms and his pledge of vassal (together with the moneys paid in tribute); and three months later, in July 1214, Pope Innocent III raised the interdict against the English.

“Thus the Pope assured the English of ‘access to Heaven,’ from which they had been ‘barred’ by their king’s opposition to the church’s Nazarene, or Communist, totalitarianism and denial of civil rights to mankind.”

[SOURCE: British Museum Publication G. R. C. Davis, entitled Magna Carta (211), and American Counsel of Christian Laymen: How Red is The Federal Counsel of Churches.]

11. Did the Treaty of 1213 actually affect the ownership of the colonies?

ANSWER: The Vatican owned the colonies, but let the King serve as the manager for the enterprise. The Vatican was busy fighting Crusades and expanding The Kingdom.

12. What did the Treaty of 1213 actually say?

ANSWER: The original Treaty of 1213 is located in the London Archives and is available to Ph.D.s; however, a copy of a translation has been made available. It remains in power to this day. It states:

QUOTE: “The King’s Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope–“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.” [END QUOTE]

End of Part 1

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events leading up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law
By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 2

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. This is important.

13. Who were the members of the British Board of Trade?

ANSWER: The Board included agents of the King of England, members of the Privy Council (i.e., legislative bodies), and the Archbishop of Canterbury who represented the Church of England. [SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

14. Were Jews allowed on the Board of trade?

ANSWER: No. The Board refused to allow either the Lombards or the Jewish moneylenders onto their Board. They were segregated because their religious rules made them useful for the Board. The following quote is an excellent explanation.

QUOTE: The Federal Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefeller (1952)
By Emanuel Josephson

“Since commerce and money are the livelihoods of nations and their peoples, the control of money is the obvious key to the control of nations and the world. …Rome’s successor the Holy Roman Empire dissimulated its interest in money and its power. This was in accord with its professed tenets of Nazarene, theistic Communism.

“Under ecclesiastic Canon Law, even profits in business transactions were decreed to be the cardinal sin and capital offense of ‘usury’ As late as the sixteenth century, one hundred businessmen were burned at the stake in Geneva, as a penalty under Church law, for making profits in their business transactions. Title to all wealth , as well as to the person and lives of all the earth, are claimed by the Church, on the ground that their ownership is divinely vested in the Pope as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.

“Thus theistic, Nazarene Communism, and the ‘modern’ religion that goes by the name of Communism and is supposedly atheist, both are basically supercapitalist and both mask their grab for money and wealth.

“Title to all wealth was vested in the Church and in its champion ‘knights,’ who at the same time assumed the role of so-called ‘protectors,’ much like the present day labor leaders of their vassals whom they mercilessly enslaved and looted.

“Both Churchmen and lay knights used the despised Jews for the conduct of their usurious financial operations, in order to avoid ‘sinning’ and the death penalty that it involved. The Jews proved very useful and handy for that purpose. Their use was justified by their ‘CHRISTIAN’ masters in a manner that they were taught by their faith was incontrovertible. Jews were damned and doomed by their faith and their failure to accept the divinity of Jesus and the perversion of His teachings by the Jewish merchant, Saul of Tarsus, alias St. Paul, opined the Churchmen; and therefore, it was ‘good work’ to hasten them to damnation.

“This they did by forcing their Jewish serfs to engage, as their pawns, in the ‘sin’ and ‘crime’ of ‘usury’ by which was meant the charging of interest as well as loan sharking and engaging in profitable commerce, for their Christian, ecclesiastical bosses.

“Often the Churchmen barred the Jews, by their orders and laws, from engaging in any other vocation than those to which the stigma of usury was attached, especially loan-sharking, as their agents. This was a particular advantageous set up for the Churchmen. For if the Jew was merciful and failed to extract from the victims everything that they possessed (i.e., the last drop of blood), he was burned at the stake as a ‘heretic.’

“On the other hand, if the Jew mercilessly followed orders of his priestly boss, was honest with his boss and amassed a fortune for him and for himself, there was nothing to bar his Christian master from exercising his cupidity and robbing his faithful loan-shark by charging him with the ‘sin’ of usury, confiscating the fortune he had made in his service, and with great hypocritic show of ‘piety,’ burn him at the stake—‘to ensure his salvation.’

“The victorious Lombard invaders of the Holy Roman Empire changed the financial situation in much the same manner as have the latter day Maffia extortioners and blackmailers. Seizing control of the Church, they gave themselves ‘dispensation’ to disregard the Canon Law on usury. They openly engaged in it from the very steps of the Vatican.

“Dispensation from the Canon on Usury was subsequently granted by the Vatican, in the 15th century, to the German Fuggers, the Rockefellers of that era. Their profits from commerce, usury and the sale of papal dispensations, as agents of the Vatican, grew rapidly, as did their ‘payoff’ to the church. They were heaped with Papal honors. Both their grasping greed and merciless loan-sharking earned for them distrust and terror. When one of their number was elevated to the rank of Cardinal, the Churchmen feared that the Fuggers would reach out and steal the Vatican itself. They then decided that their Jewish pawn were more completely at their mercy, more amenable and safer.

“Trusteeship of the fortune of one of the wealthiest Christian rulers of Europe, whose confidence had been earned by honest and trustworthy dealings during the Napoleonic wars, is the source of the wealth and influence that the Rothechilds acquired in the first decades of the 19th century.

“Subsequently, after making a large loan to the hard pressed Vatican, that no Christian would consider making, they became the fiscal agents of the Vatican, received Papal decorations and preferments, and enforced the policies dictated by the Church. It was largely in this sense that they were ‘international bankers.’ And the policies dictated by them were in effect the policies dictated by the Church. They enforced those policies through their establishments in many lands.

“An amusing story is told of the earliest relations of the Rothschilds with the Vatican. The Vatican found itself short of ready cash after almost half a century of war waged on it for the Jesuit Order by one of its unordained members, Adam Weishaupt, to avenge its abolition, in 1773, as ‘immoral and a menace to the Church and the Faith’ by short lived Pope Clement XIV in his Papal breve Dominus Ac Redemptor.

“Weishaupt and his fellow Jesuits cut off the income to the Vatican by launching and leading the French Revolution; by directing Napoleon’s conquest of Catholic Europe; by the revolt against the Church led by such priests as Father Hidalgo, in Mexico and Latin America; by eventually having napoleon throw Pope Pius Vii in jail at Avignon until he agreed, as the price for his release, to reestablish the Jesuit Order. This Jesuit war on the Vatican was terminated by the Congress of Vienna and by the secret, 1822 Treaty of Verona. . .

“The Rothschilds sought to extend their financial and political dominion to the United States, for themselves primarily to serve their Vatican masters. The Vatican’s interest in the U.S. Republic was clearly revealed in the Treaty of Verona, in which the Jesuit Order pledged itself, as the price of reestablishment, to destroy ‘the works of Satan’ that it had accomplished in setting up, by revolts, representative governments such as republics and so called ‘democracies.’

“Senator Robert Owen pointed out, in the Senate, that the prime target to which the Vatican and the ‘Holy Alliance’ directed the subversive and destructive activities of the Society of Jesus is the United States, [See Congressional Record, April 25, 1916], as well as other republics in the Western Hemisphere. This plot, he related, was the target at which the Monroe Doctrine was directed.

“The Rothschild-Vatican cabal unsuccessfully attempted to gain control over the power of the purse in the U.S. through the First and Second Bank of the United States. They were established under the emergency powers granted the President by the Constitution, as temporary institutions to tide the country through the periods of financial stress occasioned by the Revolutionary and 1812 Wars.” [END QUOTE]

15. Did the original 13 colonies have a court system?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE: “Encyclopedia of American History – “in 1697 the British Board of Trade, under the Navigation Act, established vice-admiralty courts in all the colonies. These courts had jurisdiction over Trade, ordinary maritime cases as well as prize. It even granted jurisdiction by the Act of 1722 over infringements concerning timber. These Admiralty courts, set up under the Townshend Acts, centered final control in America.” [Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 4]

16. What were the types of jurisdiction assigned to the courts in the colonies?

ANSWER: Admiralty and maritime.

QUOTE: “Admiralty, by Benedict, 1850:
“Its necessary effect [the Act] was, however, to start the courts on that system of practice, and really to impose upon them, in admiralty and maritime cases, the civil law practice, as that under which they must continue to administer justice, even after the expiration of that act, until further provision could be made.”

“Section 105–The Purpose of the Constitutional Grant–The Essential Harmony of the Maritime Law. The grand purpose of the Constitution was to unify the several states , the whole people, in their national, international, and interstate relations and all other purposes were subordinate and ancillary to this.

“Section 123 – The commission to the Governor as Vice-Admiral was very full, granting, in language so clear that it cannot be misunderstood, an admiralty jurisdiction as wide and beneficial as the most zealous supporters of the English Admiralty ever claimed for it.”

17. What is the legal meaning of the word: “federal”?

ANSWER: The word “federal” simply put means “contract.”
QUOTES: From The American College Dictionary, 1947:
“Federal – 1. Of or pertaining to a compact or a league, esp. a league between nations or states.”
“Compact–an agreement between parties; a covenant; a contract.”

NOTE: The more modern dictionaries are missing the original definitions as the university professors began to reshape society by gradually changing the definitions of words our students learn and use.

18. Did Commercial Contracts in the United States evolve from something else?

ANSWER: Yes.
QUOTE from Section 065, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier:
“Here in the United States, in a Commercial contract factual setting, the word ‘covenant’ is an Old English Law Merchant origin, and now means only a few clauses within a larger contract. . .”

19. Is there a difference between Government commerce and Private commerce in law?

ANSWER: Yes.
QUOTE from Section 387, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier:
“Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING’S COMMERCE of the High Seas . .. But as for that slice of Commerce going out on the High Seas without the King as a party, that Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and so Maritime is the private Commerce that transpires in a marine environment. At least, that distinction between Admiralty and Maritime is the way things once were, but no more.”

20. Do Admiralty courts still exist today?

ANSWER: Yes, it is the United States Federal Court system.
QUOTE:
“This is the type of court that exists today and why we cannot bring a pure Article of the Bill of Rights argument into a contract [i.e., federal] court of the Law-Merchant in their civil law. As Benedict states at Section 5,” . .. The civil law was held to be the law of admiralty, and the course of proceedings in admiralty, closely resembled the civil law practice.” All maritime revenue cases, whether State or United States, deals in contract. …
[Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 5.]

QUOTE from Section 049, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier.
“In such administrative enforcement proceedings under grievances arising out of privileges and contracts that Congress created, Federal Judges are acting MINISTERIALLY as Legislative Court, functioning as an extension of the agency for the King, and not Judicially as an Article III Court acting like neutral and disinterested referees calling the shots as umpires between adversaries; and so some steps taken by the Judge acting MINISTERIALLY, to shorten the proceedings or otherwise silence the Defendant when irrelevant subject matter is being discussed, are largely non-reversible on appeal. In Northern Pipeline vs Marathon Pipe Line ]458 U.S. 50 (1982)], the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can create non-Article III LEGISLATIVE COURTS in three areas: Territorial Courts, Military Courts Martial, and in disputes involving privileges that Congress created in the first place [MARATHON, id., at pages 64 et seq.]. Participating in that closed private domain of King’s [government] Commerce is very much accepting and benefitting from a privilege created by Congress.

QUOTE:
“A case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.”
American Ins. Co. V Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828).

QUOTE: “We don’t use the word constitution in this court,” said the Aiken Federal Judge during a hearing for a Freedom of Information Act violation in the City of Aiken. This author was the Plaintiff, and was awarded damages for the failure of the city to give information per the FOIA, but no discussion about the constitutional merits of the case were allowed to be discussed..

21. The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power . .. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; . .. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”. So, why is there also paper money if it is not constitutional?

ANSWER: It all began in 1751 with the English Parliament.
QUOTE from Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 7:
“In March of 1751, the British Board of Trade presented Parliament with a Restraining Act, which barred the Colonies, by law, from issuing paper money and letters of Credit. This gave the King’s orders the validity of formal law. The Colonies didn’t buy it, for it destroyed their control of the trade. You see, there was no gold or silver being mined in America. They had to rely on gold and silver from other countries. England had most of the gold.

“On July 10, 1754, the Confederacy was born because of this, so they could issue paper money, only on their joint order. Ben Franklin had long advocated this.

“In March of 1775, the Pennsylvania Assembly borrowed money and issued bills of Credit without authorization of either King or Governor. The Board of Trade tried another ploy and said that Gold and Silver have intrinsic value, and therefore, should be used by the Colonies. Because of ‘them’ issuing ‘paper money’ it ‘ruins the Colonies,’ so said the Tories.

“Now get this people, Franklin replied to the contrary saying that paper money served as a medium of exchange and credit had made possible the growth of the Colonies and their trade. He told the Board of Trade that the Tories argued that the paper money issued by the colonies was a dilution of their control of wealth.

“This explains why the federal government is denied the power to issue currency other than coin or to set up or charter banks. But they do it under ‘emergency power.’ This is why the present day private Federal Reserve System, counterpart of the British Board of Trade, runs this country today.

“Now you know why the Crown initiated the coin only clause in the Constitution, so the private bankers could control the paper credit. Paper is NOT money.”

QUOTE from Section 390, “Invisible Contracts,’ by George Mercier:
“However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: the beneficial use and reticulation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King [government] an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.”

End of Part 2. To be continued …

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law

By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 3

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. This is important.

22. What other names were given to the British International Bankers in history?

ANSWER: They were called Fruggers, Knights Templar, Gisors, Tuscans, etc., and today they are called The Crown. [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 6]

23. Legally DEFINE: Contract, Charter, Compact and Constitution?

ANSWER:

Contract: “An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. . . A legal relationship consisting of the rights and duties of the contracting parties; a promise or set of promises constituting an agreement between the parties that gives each a legal duty to the other and also the right to seek a remedy for the breach of those duties. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Charter: “An instrument emanating from the sovereign power, in the nature of a grant, either to the whole nation, or to a class or portion of the people, to a corporation, or to a colony or dependency, assuring to them certain rights, liberties, or powers . .. A charter differs from a constitution, in that the former is granted by the sovereign, while the later is established by the people themselves. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Compact: “. . .A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. . .” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Constitution: “ . . . A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed. The written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union, or a particular states, . .. In a more general sense, any fundamental or important law or edict; as the Novel Constitutions of Justinian; the Constitutions of Clarendon.” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

24. Was the United States Constitution a charter, compact, constitution or contract?

ANSWER: It was a compact between the Vatican, who controlled the King of England, and the aristocrats of the thirteen colonies. [The New History of America, by The Informer, Page 20]

QUOTE: John C. Calhoun, in 1831 said, “The Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party.” [SOURCE: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 20.]

QUOTE: Thomas Jefferson in 1789 stated, “To this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party.”

QUOTE: “Patrick Henry said he was ‘no longer a Virginia, but an American.’ He did not say he was an American citizen, because the compact merged all confederate states as if one, and you couldn’t tell the difference.” [SOURCE: The New History of America, by The Informer, Page 20]

QUOTE: “United States is a place within America and it is not a country. Also, what you were not told were the framers signed the Constitution as witnesses only. In law, that is an impossibility to witness a document no one signed . . . The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody’s agent or attorney. It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, than can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered . . . On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which these pretended agents of the people take ‘to support the Constitution,’ are of no validity or obligation. And why? For this, if for no other reason, viz., that they are given to nobody. There is no privity (as the lawyers say) –that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement—between those who take these oaths, and any other persons.” [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, pages 10-13]

25. In legal terminology, is there a difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people?”

ANSWER: Yes. In the phrase, “We, the People” the capitalized word makes it a proper noun, which means that “the People” was a specific group (i.e., the aristocrats). In the phrase, “We, the people” the common noun indicates that the phrase refers to people in a general sense. [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Pages 25-26]

26. In 1776, who was “We, the People” referring to in the U.S. Constitution?

ANSWER: The “People” referenced by the Constitution were the wealthy aristocrats. All of the men held Grants and Charters with the King. They owed him, as well as The Crown, interest on the credit extended to them for planting the new society. They profited very well from their exports all over the world. [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 23]

QUOTE: Patrick Henry said, “ . .. But, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, ‘We, the People? If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the states.” [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, page25.]

27. Why did the aristocrats meet in secret to discuss the Constitution?

ANSWER: The Founding Fathers were in very big trouble. They were wealthy men, who had credit with the King via The Crown. They owed contractual debts, which the King expected them to pay. The Crown fronted the money for the King’s enterprise, so the International Bankers would hold the King responsible for that debt, if the colonists refused to pay their debts. All were obligated to the King with written and signed contracts. The leaders in the colonies were held responsible for the rebellion (i.e., Revolutionary War). They were wealthy aristocrats, who also had large parcels of land, huge estates, and other revenue producing businesses back in the old country. The Vatican controlled King placed the wealthy aristocrats into a political ‘checkmate’. The King sent them a choice. They could lose everything they owned in Europe, or they could quietly go along with a form of government that would allow the King to manipulate the future, on behalf of The Crown, for profit, and the aristocrats would go along with a lie to the people, which was to tell them they won the war. The wealthy men chose to deceive the public. They were told to Witness their agreement on the compact document to pledge that they would cooperate with the King. The compact was called “The Constitution for the United States”, which is duly stated in paragraph number one of the document. [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, pages 22-24]

NOTICE the words “for the United, because these men did something on behalf of unsuspecting fellow countrymen. The public school system and elected officials have created a wonderful myth for us to believe about the derivation of the Constitution, but it was not an honorable meeting.

28. Who actually wrote the Constitution?

ANSWER: The Vatican along with The Crown drafted the constitution, and the King’s agents delivered it to the aristocrats in America for witnessing. [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Pages 22-27.]

29. How did the Constitution protect The Crown’s investments in America?

ANSWER: Article VI of the Constitution states: “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the Confederation. . . ”

30. When did the United States actually come into existence?

ANSWER: The website for the Central Intelligence Agency states: “Britain’s American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris in 1783.”

NOTICE: The USA was not official for seven years after the announced “victory” of the Revolutionary War.

31. What were the terms of the Treaty of Paris in 1783?

QUOTE:

The Ten Articles of the Treaty of 1783

Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration.

Preface. Declares the treaty to be “in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity,” states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to “forget all past misunderstandings and differences” and “secure to both perpetual peace and harmony.”

1. Acknowledging the Thirteen Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;[2]

2. Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America (for an account of two strange anomalies resulting from this part of the Treaty, based on inaccuracies in the Mitchell Map—see Northwest Angle and the Republic of Indian Stream);

3. Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;

4. Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;

5. The Congress of the Confederation will “earnestly recommend” to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands “provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]“;

6. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;

7. Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves);

8. Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;

9. Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation;

10. Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.

* Spain received East and West Florida under the separate Anglo-Spanish peace agreement

[SOURCE: Wikipedia.com]

32. Who was the “most holy and undivided Trinity” that is mentioned in the declaration paragraph of the Treaty of 1783?

ANSWER: The Vatican, the King of England, and The Crown (i.e., international bankers). [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 100]

33. What is the legal definition of the word “church”?

ANSWER: A simple definition of church would be that it is a business.

QUOTE: “Church–In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate His doctrines and ordinances. It may also mean a body of communicants gathered into church order; body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of the same faith and observance of the same ritual and ceremonies; place where persons regularly assemble for worship; congregation; organization for religious purposes; religious society or body; the clergy or officialdom of a religious body.” [Black’s Law Dictionary]

34. What is the legal definition of the word “business”?

QUOTE: “. . . Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett v Burnet, 62 App.D.C. 103, 65 F.2d 191, 194.” [Black’s Law Dictionary]

35. Is the United States actually a church organization, an extension of the Vatican?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE: “If North Carolina is only a geographical place in America in which the State resides along with you, who is supreme? Is not the State a corporate religion? Is the Lord a religion? I think not. Are there many religions in the State? To be recognized as a religion do not those religions have to register with the IRS/FED/STATE team to get a 501c-3 exemption? This goes against what the “government” preaches, that being, church and State separation. Government drones are hypocrites, because to be a church you must be controlled by the very State that boasts that church and State must not mix. This is where logical minds do not prevail in the masses and they have no reasoning or common sense. Who then is the master, if the State will not recognize the religion, if not licensed? So one religion controls all others through license. Shades of merry ole England and the Crown that controlled all religions before the what, revolutionary war? But what if you are under another “church” called government? The Lord said he set His Church upon this Rock, meaning he set His GOVERNMENT upon this earth, NOT some church building or religion . . . you can see why the State is telling you that they can’t mix the Church (Government) of the Lord and the State’s government (church?). How fatuous to believe we are free people and can worship the Almighty and follow His laws without the Crown interfering; paying taxes to a rogue IRS that cannot be proven to be created by the legislature and which operates through fear, extortion, threats, killings, jailing, seizures, suicides and the like to keep everyone in bondage to pay a tribute to the elite integrationists using England as a front since it too went bankrupt before the United States did in 1861. . . [The New History of America, by The Informer, Pages 16-17]

End of Part 3. To be continued …

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law
By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 4

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. Seek the Truth, and then you will become aware of the shackles on your ankles and the blinders on your eyes.
36. Was the U.S. Constitution “ratified” or “adopted”?

ANSWER: It was adopted.

QUOTE: [Preamble to the Bill of Rights – “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution …”

37. What is the difference between “ratified” and “adopted” in legal terminology?

ANSWER:

“Adopt. To accept, appropriate, choose, or select. To make that one’s own (property or act) which was not so originally. To accept, consent to, and put into effective operation; as in the case of a constitution, constitutional amendment, ordinance, court rule, or by-law.”

“Ratify. To approve and sanction; to make valid; to confirm; to give sanction to. To authorize or otherwise approve, retroactively, an agreement or conduct either, expressly or by implication.”

[SOURCE: Black’s Law Dictionary]

38. Why did the wealthy aristocrats choose to adopt the compact called “The Constitution for the United States”, which was sent to them by the Vatican via the King of England on behalf of The Crown?

ANSWER: The King had the leaders of the colonies in a ‘checkmate.’ They owed him money.

QUOTE: “In March of 1775 the Pennsylvania Assembly borrowed money and issued bills of Credit without authorization of either King or [appointed] Governor.” [The New History of America by The Informer, Page 7]

QUOTE from Our Enemy the State, by Albert J. Nock:

“ . . . More than half the delegates to the constitutional convention in 1787 were either investors or speculators in the public funds. Probably sixty percent of the values represented by these securities were fictitious, and were so regarded even by their holders.

QUOTE from The New History of America, by The Informer, Pages 31-33:

“They also had many land holdings and businesses in Europe . . . Well, they won independence from the King until the King wanted all his money he invested in his British colonies, now called the confederate states. If the British Board of Trade was concerned in 1700 about losing wealth, then this was the time for them to take control of the situation. After all, paper money was being printed in just about every confederate state, thereby wiping out the Bank of England’s control of the wealth. The Treaty of 1606 still existed, (see James Montgomery’s work) so the King gave the ultimatum to the ‘men.’ . . .

“America had no navy to defend the waters. It was dependent on the trading with foreign countries of Europe using British trading ships. America was not yet self sufficient. The King knowing this said to the men, I will seize all your property and business in England, under escheat. I will run a blockade on the ocean and allow no trading to be carried on. I will have total control in the amount of time your stores run out due to lack of trade. They knew it was just a matter of time for this to happen, so, they agreed to cut a deal.

“This deal was to make the confederation appear to be very frail so they could draft up a compact. This compact would suck in all the states in which the states would be forbidden to use their own paper money. The corporate States, which you did not create, were bound to pay their debts in silver, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1. But, it cannot extend to the people, they can use anything they want. Now you can understand a little better what I stated near the beginning about the British Board of Trade controlling the whole works. . . As Patrick Henry stated, are you starting to ‘Smell a Rat?’

“ Is it any wonder why the ‘We, the People’ rushed to seal the deal between the King and themselves, leaving us the little people in the dark? . . This would allow the British Board of Trade to use its international banking cartel to again control the trade through the use of its paper notes. In exchange the King would solidify, by two more treaties, under the compact/agreement of the new Constitution, his hold on his property in America. England was very near bankruptcy and had to hold onto its holdings in America. Being business men, the ‘We’s’ jumped at the offer and a ‘new constitution’ was formed. It was formed by “WE the People.” Was the We the People the 75% of the people in America? No! The “We the People” were only those that drafted the Constitution, therefore the need for the capital P in People. …

“So after all the smoke cleared the people had a new King and some vice-admirals called governors of each of the political subdivision. Those in power still ruled the 75% of the masses that didn’t give a darn.”

End of Part 4 . . . to be continued

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events leading up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law

By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 5

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. This is important.

39. What are the divisions of American Jurisprudence?

ANSWER: There are two major divisions: Tort Law and Contract Law. [Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier. Section 013.]

QUOTE: In Section 018, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“In general terms, both American Jurisprudence and Nature that it is modeled after are divided into actions that fall generally under Tort Law and Contract Law.. . . For a presentation of the history of the bifurcation of Law into Tort and Contract going back into 1200 A.D., see C.H.S. Fifoot in HISTORY AND SOURCES OF THE COMMON LAW, TORT AND CONTRACT; [Stevens and Sons, London (1949)].

40. What is the difference between Tort Law and Contract Law?

QUOTE: In Sections 018-021 , Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“Very simply, Contract Law applies to govern a settlement of a grievance whenever a contract is in effect. This means that only certain types of very narrow arguments are allowed to be plead in Contract Law grievances, since only the content of the contract is of any relevance in the grievance settlement . . .”Commercial contracts are born, live and then die, in their own strata, without the Constitution offering any significant restrainment on Legislative intervention . . .In contrast . . . we have Tort Law. Think of Tort Law as being a Judgment Law to settle grievances between persons where there are damages, but without any contract in effect between the parties.”

EXAMPLES of Contract Law: (1) Securities law, (2) Estate Inheritance law, (3) Quasi-Contracts, etc.

EXAMPLES of Tort Law: (1) Civil Rights, (2) Wrongful Death, (3) Product Liability, (4) Aviation law, (5) Personal Injury, (6) Accident Recovery, (7) Professional Malpractice, (8) Unfair Competition, (9) Admiralty and Maritime Torts, (10) Fraud and Anti-Trust actions, etc.

QUOTE: Wigmore, Select Cases on the Law of Torts, page vii (1912 states:

“Never did a Name so obstruct a true understanding of the Thing. To such a plight has it brought us that a favorite mode of defining a Tort is to declare merely that it is not a Contract. As if a man were to define Chemistry by pointing out that it is not Physics or Mathematics.”

41. What are the three main parts of a binding contractual agreement?

ANSWER: The three parts of a binding contract are: Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration.

Explanation: (1) An Offer must be made to someone else, (2) .the Offer must be voluntarily Accepted, and (3) if both parties “voluntarily give, exchange, perform, or promise one another something of value, then you’ve got Consideration. [SOURCE: Law for Dummies, by John Ventura, JD, Page 16]

QUOTE: In Section 013 of, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“ … A perfect, well-rounded contract requires not only a promise and a Consideration, but a participation by each party in both of these elements . . .” – Edward Bennett in Considerations Moving From Third Persons in 9 Harvard law Review 233, at 233 (1895).

QUOTE: In Section 001 of, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“Whenever there is an exchange of benefits and there remains some lingering expectations of some duty between two parties, then an actual INVISIBLE CONTRACT is in effect . . . as it is said that the duty owed back to the party initially transferring the benefits is RECIPROCAL in nature.”

42. Is there a legal difference between “signing” and “witnessing” a document?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE: “Sign –To affix one’s name to a writing or instrument, for the purpose of authenticating or executing it, or to give it effect as one’s act. . . To make any mark, as upon a document, in token of knowledge, approval acceptance, or obligation.”

QUOTE: “Witness – In general, one who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness. . . One who testifies to what he has seen, heard, or otherwise observed. . . A person attesting genuiness of signature to document by adding his signature. .. One who is called upon to be present at a transaction, or the making of a will. . . “ [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

43. Was The United States Constitution “signed” or was it “witnessed?”

ANSWER: Read the document. It states, “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth in Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, . . .”

NOTE: Remember in Part 3, Item 25, one learned the difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people.” The constitution was created for and witnessed by a specific body of men, and it did not apply to the more general population, which is clearly noted in the way it uses capital letters.

44. Did the men who “witnessed” The United States Constitution participating in the beginning of a “con job” for the colonists which continues today?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE from Edmond Burke in March 22, 1775 with his Speech on Conciliation with America:

“. . . Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government–they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another that these two things may exist without any mutual relation–the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces toward you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have; tey can have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”

End of Part 5. To be continued …

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law

By R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Part 6

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going. It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become. This is important.

45. What are the legal jurisdictions mentioned by the United States Constitution and what is involved in each?

ANSWER: Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty/Maritime Law. [Source: UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

Common Law. “In general, it is a body of law that develops and derives through judicial decisions, as distinguished from legislative enactments. The ‘common law’ is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American revolution.” [Source: Black’s Law Dictionary]

LAYMEN definition: There is no Compelled Law. Covers a damages. This is Criminal law.

Equity Jurisdiction. “In a general sense, the jurisdiction belonging to a court of equity..” [Source: Black’s Law Dictionary]

LAYMEN definition: One is compelled to perform to the letter of any contract. This is CIVIL law.

Admiralty law and Maritime Law. Involves commerce on the High Seas and International Contracts. Involves Compelled Performance with Criminal Penalties.

46. Is there a difference between Admiralty Law and Maritime Law?

ANSWER: Yes.

(1) Admiralty Law. Commerce on the high seas that involves the King (i.e., government).

QUOTE: Admiralty is a subdivision of King’s Commerce such that all of King’s Commerce that takes place over waterways and the High Seas . .. Is assigned to be governed by a special set of grievance settlement and evidentiary rules, just custom tailored to Commerce of that nature . . . at least that was the case in the old days when Admiralty was once restricted to govern legitimate business transactions with the King out on the High Seas. . .. On land, assigning fault and making partial recovery by the responsible party is quite common, but not so out on the High Seas. So this special marine jurisdiction (and ‘jurisdiction’ meaning here is simply a special set of rules) was developed organically, piece by piece and sometimes Case by Case . . . Also, some of the other special rules applicable to grievances brought into a Court of Admiralty are that there is no jury in Admiralty–NEVER– everything is handled summarily before a Judge in chronologically compressed proceedings. Also, there are no fixed rules of law or evidence (meaning that it is somewhat like an Administrative Proceeding in the sense that it is a gree-wheeling evidentiary jurisdiction–anything goes). SOURCE: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 383]

(2) Law Merchant. “Commerce on the high seas that does not involve the King (i.e. government).”

QUOTE: “The system of law which particularly relates to marine commerce and navigation, to business transacted at sea or relating to navigation, to ships and shipping, to seamen, to the transportation of persons and property by sea, and to marine affairs generally. “ [Black’s Law Dictionary]

47. How did Admiralty Law become the jurisdiction in the Federal Courts?

ANSWER: Federal Reserve Notes

QUOTE: “Up until the mid-1800s here in the United States, very frequently merchants paid off each other in gold coins and company notes . .. It was infrequent that the King had an involvement with private Maritime Commerce. And there was an easy-to-see distinction in effect back then between Maritime Jurisdiction contracts that involved private parties . . . and Admiralty Jurisdiction, which applied to Commercial contracts where the King was a party. . .. However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into whith each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: The beneficial use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.” [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 390]

QUOTE: “This concept of using Admiralty as a slick tool for Revenue Raising is an important concept to understand, as this procedure to raise revenue through an invisible Admiralty Contract is now surfacing in the United States in the very last place where anyone would think a marine based jurisdictional environment belongs: On your Internal Revenue Service’s 1040 form. . . “ [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 396]

48. How does one become financially entangled in the Admiralty Law system in the USA?

ANSWER: The Birth Certificate combined with the adult who performs Acceptance of Benefits.

QUOTE: “But later through a Federal Judge, I realized that there are special financial benefits that persons documented as being politically enfranchised at birth, experience later on as adults, when they are being shaken down for a smooth Federal looting; and it is this Acceptance of Benefits as adults, in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, that attaches contract tax liability, and not the existence of a Birth Certificate document itself. . . As a point of beginning, one person cannot bind another. But most importantly, all the Birth Certificate and correlative documents in the world will not separate a dime in taxation from you until such time as you, individually, and personally, have started to accept juristic benefits.” [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 411]

QUOTE: “Remember that when benefits are being accepted in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, then there lies a good tight contract.” {Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 412]

49. What is Statutory Law?

ANSWER: Codified Merchant Law.

QUOTE: Statutory Law. “That body of law created by acts of the legislature in contrast to constitutional law and law generated by decisions of courts and administrative bodies.” [Source: Black’s Law Dictionary]

QUOTE: “The word “colorable” means something that appears to be genuine, but is not. Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is “colorable.” If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a “colorable” contract. And “colorable” contracts must be enforced under a “colorable jurisdiction.” So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts, which use them. We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction. It is “colorable” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using “colorable money.” Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 6]

50. What happened in 1938 that revolutionized American jurisprudence?

QUOTE from a judge to an attorney: “Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I’ll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don’t honor those decisions. Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. . . .” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 3]

QUOTE by the attorney: “I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court. It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity. I read the Erie Railroad case . .. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: That this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company . .. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years . .. In the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases would be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law. There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level . .. All our courts since 1938 were merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 4]

51. Why did the USA judges abandon Public Law and switch to Public Policy for decisions?

QUOTE from a Judge: “In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told: America is a bankrupt nation–it is owned completely by its creditors. The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments. Take a silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly. Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction–call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 4]

QUOTE from a Judge: “The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law. In Admiralty, there is no court, which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute. If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached. So you say, just innocently like a lamb, ‘Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists. If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract. What they would have to do is palce the national debt into evidence. They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.”” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

52. For what are the international bankers waiting if the nation is bankrupted?

QUOTE by an attorney: “But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time (i.e., 1980s) to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world. The reason they don’t want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns. There are uncooperative armies and other military forces. So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a World Army and all courts into a single World Court, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating under. . .” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader. All verification is left to the reader. The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America. The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War. The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption. Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.” Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers. LEARN.

No one is a sovereign in this country

March 13, 2012

No one is a sovereign in this country. You cannot be a subject, or an enemy under Military Occupation and claim you are a sovereign, you cannot be a holder of adhesion contracts, mortgages, or debts and be a sovereign.

The Constitution came to an end when Congress re declared War on the South, and then imposed Martial rule, by Military Occupation on the South. Through Military Occupation the Military removed the Republican governments from the States that were lawfully voted into office. Was not a Republican form of government guaranteed to the States by the 1787 Constitution? The same de facto Congress removed the Southern States Representatives from Congress, denying the States suffrage/representation in Congress. Since the Southern States were high Contracting parties to the Trust/Constitution created in 1787, this voided the Corporate Charter. Just as it was not a lawful act for the South to cede from the Union, without the consent of all the State parties, it was not lawful for the Corporation to continue to do business, after removing lawful high Contracting parties from their seats in Congress. Or, how about when Congress went out of session, without a date certain of reconvening, this is called Sine Die.

If that is not enough to remove the 1787 Constitution as a valid document, including the attached Bill Rights, how about the Military Commanders/Generals under direction of the Congress putting in place puppet governments in the States, in order to pass a new federal and State Constitutions. I say Congress not the Commander-in-Chief, because the de facto Congress overrode a lawful Presidents veto, effectively removing and destroying the lawful 1787 Office of President. I say a new Constitution, because the 14th Amendment totally changed the 1787 Constitution. Don’t think so, excuse me, if you and I are sovereigns (I wish it were so), why can’t we challenge the debt the U. S. Congress creates, in the United States courts? I wonder; we can’t sue the government and we do not have the right to question the debt, lets see, sovereign or subject, sounds like a subject to me. Or, how about the fact the Military Occupation and declared Emergency have never come to an end. Military Occupation and its Martial Rule is not a democracy or a republic, it is a Military Dictatorship, with the Commander-in-Chief as the supreme authority of the provisional government.

The definitions included on Military Occupation, Conquest, Martial Law and Law of the Flag. Under Military Occupation and Conquest, it is defined to be the preferred method to change as few laws as possible so you do not alarm the conquered public. I guess they know most people are ignorant of what goes on around them. Under this condition you go and do as the Commanderin-Chief says, or you are locked up or killed. If as I used to believe God Almighty was standing ready to defeat the government on my or any other Christian’s behalf, I would say so be it, I’ll go. However, God Almighty said in 1 Samuel 8: “in that day when you cry out for me, I will not hear you”.

I would say show me how as Americans we can win a War that has been waged against us without an Army? Without an Army the only other way is by gorilla warfare, which would not be possible without public support, which absolutely would not exist. If what took place after the Civil War was not bad enough, in 1933, Americans were declared enemies of the powers at be. Show me how to win this war in a Court system controlled by the occupying force, when in the new Constitution, according to the third section of the imposed 14th Amendment; judges, federal, State and local government officials, police officers, or anyone receiving benefits/paycheck from government, are prohibited from giving aid and comfort to the enemy of the Occupying government? How can a judge give you a remedy, when he would violate the public policy, when he has been told he will be removed from office, in the very Constitution he swore to uphold and protect?

I just do not choose to fight government and God Almighty, or at a minimum fight government without the aid of God Almighty. I also ask you this, do you not fight against God Almighty, when He has declared every jot and tittle of His Word will be fulfilled, and then fight a government that God Almighty is using to fulfill many of His later day Prophesies. We are told how Babylon and the Beast will be destroyed in the book of Revelations and by many of the minor Old Testament Prophets, that deal with this subject. If change were possible, because of the slumber most of America is under, it would have to be done by education, after a financial collapse etc. etc. Just because the facts dictate this conclusion, does not mean I like it, but it is the hand we have been dealt.

===

All you have to do in your State or any other State after the Civil War, is ask yourself a couple of questions.
1. Does your State Constitution prohibit the possibility of leaving/ceding from the United States?
2. Does your State Constitution guaranty 14th Amendment protection to it’s citizens?
3. Just to add another: Does your State receive federal money/benefits?

Keep in mind I don’t ask these questions without knowing the answers. The answer is yes, to all three. Once you determine this then the following applies. Any State of the United States, and I point you to the definition of “of”, is under the United States control. One, by contract/treaty, and two, by Executive control, via. Military Occupation, as a result of the conquest which took place, AFTER the Civil War. This was a political take over by a de facto Congress who is guilty of destroying the 1787 Constitution, and a Military Occupation enforced by the Judge Advocate General of the Army.

Now I have made the claim that not only has the 1787 Constitution been destroyed, along with it’s Bill of Rights, but that the U.S. government now in place is a Military government, a provisional government, as a result of the Reconstruction Acts. Yes in xistence today, not just 128 years ago, completely unnoticed by the American people. My claims and the Informer’s claims of this condition existing in this country are true. Because they are true, any State, Country, local municipality, inhabitant, Citizen, citizen, individual, Person, person, resident or declared freeman, Sui Juris Sovereign; if I left any class of living tissue out, I meant to include them also, are under Military control, and exist for the benefit of the conquering government.

You have read the facts I included in “Bend Over America”, so when you finally understand the reality of conquest and all it entails, even though you do not see the Military in the streets, at this time, the law of the conqueror governs.

PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I DON’T LIKE IT, I DON’T AGREE WITH IT, but it is the TRUTH, it is a FACT!

However, neither the Informer or I are ever complacent, we always try to disprove our facts and our beliefs, for in the end your beliefs mean nothing, if untrue. The thing is, in doing further research we are finding more to confirm the sad but true fact, of Military Occupation. I have obtained more proof from a government depository library, in the Congressional Record, on this subject, I have not yet had time to read all I have copied, or transcribe it. But here are a few samples.

“If these Southern States are conquered provinces, then by the laws of nations we are responsible for all the debts and liabilities of the Conquered country. I ask gentleman to pause before we take so great a responsibility as this upon us.”—Congressman Ross, January 26, 1867

“Republican in form!–governments formed by the Chief Executive without authority of law and upheld by the military power when deemed proper, and set aside at the suggestion of post commanders of military districts— these State governments, conceived in ignorance, brought forth in confusion, and rocked in the cradle of treason, are to be palmed upon the country as legitimate, and taken into the sisterhood of States as republican in form, with all the rights belonging to great States of the Union.” —Congressman Cullom, January 28, 1867

This is a Quote from the SOB responsible for writing and seeing to the passage of the Reconstruction Acts. The Republican majority leader Mr. Stevens from Pennsylvania, of course its not hard to be the majority when you have removed your opposition.

“Nearly two years ago the armies of a government calling itself the Confederate States of America were conquered and the government was dispersed. By the law of nations the conqueror after that had a right to say exactly what government should be administered over them or by them, keeping always within the law of nations. The conqueror had a right either to extend his own laws over those conquered States, or if no action was taken by the conqueror, then by the law of nations the old institutions were permitted to run on for the purpose of administering the local laws until such time as the conquering party should act……This bill provides the ten disorganized States shall be divided into five military districts, and that the commander of the Army shall take
charge of them through his lieutenants as governors, or you may call them commandants if you choose, not below the grade of brigadiers, who shall have the general supervision of the peace, quite, and the protection of the people, loyal and disloyal, who reside within those precincts; and that do so he may use, as the law of nations would authorize him to do, the legal tribunals wherever he may deem them competent; but they are to be considered of no validity per se, of no intrinsic force, no force in consequence of their origin, the question being wholly within the power of the conqueror, and to remain until that conqueror shall permanently supply their place with something else.” —Congressman Stevens from Pennsylvania, February 7, 1867.

“I feel, sir, that the passage of this bill is the death-knell of civil liberty, not only here but everywhere. Sad as the thought may be it is too true that almost the last hope of a once free people, that liberty is secure here, is fast passing away. The bill under consideration proposes to establish nothing more and nothing less than a military despotism….

The provisions of this bill strike down every important provision in your Constitution. You have already inaugurated enough here to destroy any Government that was ever founded….When you do that there is nothing left, I repeat, but quiet submission to your tyranny, or a resort to arms on the part of the American People to defend themselves….We are drifting to monarchy. It will come unless the people take this matter in hand and stop this progress that is being made in the downward road, and restore this shattered Government upon the basis upon which it was originally founded.”—Congressman Le Blond, February 7, 1867

“Will it aid the cause of democratic Government to exhibit this great Republic—this model, as we have sought to make it, of what every republic should be—abandoning all the functions of civil government, abrogating every thing like civil authority over one third of our domain and one third of our people, and for very imbecility and inability to agree upon any measure handing over the control of this section and these people to the absolute and sovereign will of a brigadier general in the regular Army? Will that aid the cause of free republican government anywhere on the face of the earth? It is the last resort of a decayed and dying republic. If we have no better resource than this, we may as well do at once what this would seem to be a preliminary step for doing: invite the regular Army to take control of the whole country, install itself here in the capital as the central, sovereign power, and make such laws and issue such decrees as it may see fit.”—Congressman Raymond, February 8, 1867

“Now, I again call on gentlemen who deny that the Union has been dissolved, for I suppose this military bill is to pass if any does, to pause before they take this last and final step. What does this bill do? It proclaims the Union dissolved; it declares that ten States are out of the Union; and if ten States are out all are out; the Constitution holds and binds all together or it holds none. It proclaims that the Union is dissolved; that the experiment of man’s capacity for self-government is a failure….And yet gentlemen are disposed to rush madly upon the passage of a bill declaring in substance that the Union is dissolved, establishing an absolute military despotism over ten States with a population of eight or ten million people, giving to the military commander unlimited and absolute power over life, liberty, property, and all things else.”—Congressman Harding, February 12, 1867

“As the gentleman from Pennsylvania is now in his seat I will repeat a remark which I made a short time ago when he was absent. I said that he was the first to make the startling announcement here in this House a few years ago, “That all compacts between the North and South were abrogated, and that the laws of nations and of war thenceforward controlled the destinies of each party in the conflict then pending.”—Congressman Harding, February 12, 1867

“It is true, undoubtedly true, that these States remained disorganized States in the Union. It is also undoubtedly true that those who were the conquerors upon the field of battle reduced those in rebellion to subjects.”—Congressman Eldridge, February 7, 1867

You see under Military Occupation, as defined by the Law of Nations governing the fighting of wars and conquest, also read the Lieber Code/general order 100, I included in “Bend Over America”, the conquering government leaves as many laws of the conquered government in place, and or sets provisional governments to rule the public. The conquering government can also transfer the Military governance of the public to the Civil Authority, which they have set up as a provisional government. The governing authority over the conquered land was transferred to the Attorney General, under the direction of the Commander-in-Chief. Title 5 is the codified rules for the provisional government, just as a matter of deduction. Here are a few more examples:

“The following bureaus shall be established in this department [The Department of Justice]: a Bureau of International Law, a Bureau of Revenue Law, a Bureau of Military and Navel Law, a Bureau of Postal Law, a Bureau of Land Management Law.”—Congressional Globe, concerning H.R. 1328

“This Bill, however, does transfer to the Law Department, or the Department of Justice as it is now called, the cognizance of all subjects of martial law, and cognizance of all subjects of military and navel law, except that portion of the administration of military justice which relates to military court martial, their proceedings, and the supervision of records.” Congressman Lawrence “If a question of martial law is to be determined by the law officers of government, it will now belong to the Attorney General, or to this Department of Justice. It will not belong to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He will not be called upon for any opinion relating to martial law or military law except as to that portion of the administration of military law which relates to military justice.”—Congressman Lawrence

“In other words, the Judge Advocate General, instead of giving legal opinions to the states of the union, their right to call upon the government for military protection, or military aid, and other grave Constitutional questions, will be limited.”—Congressman Lawrence

“…The Eighth Section provides that the Attorney General is hereby empowered to make all necessary rules and regulations for the government…. “…The Eleventh Section provides that all monies hereafter drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such one of the clerks herein provided for the Attorney General as he may designate, and so much of the First Section of the Act, making appropriations, past March 3rd, 1859, as provides that money drawn out of the Treasury upon requisition of the Attorney General shall be dispersed by such dispersing officer as the Secretary of the Treasury is hereby repealed…. “…The Fifteenth Section provides that the supervisory powers now exercised by the Secretary of the Interior over the accounts of the district attorneys, marshals, clerks, and other officers of the courts of the United States, shall be exercised by the Attorney General….”H.R. 1328

“Now look at what has been done. That very party obtained control of the Government. There has been war; that war is over, but the Union is not restored, and at this very moment the public debt, mountain high, is casting its deadly and blighting shadow of bankruptcy over the whole country. We are literally bankrupts to day; and generations to come must be ground to the earth under the crushing weight of this monstrous debt.”—Congressman Harding, February 12, 1867

“Sec. 13. Be it further enacted, That all laws now in force in Louisiana, consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and with the provisions of this act, shall remain in force until repealed or modified: Provide, That no person shall be competent to act as a juror who is not an elector under the provisions of this act:

And provided also, That all the expenses of and incident to the administration of the provisional governments herein provided for shall be collected and paid as is now done for the support of the present government of Louisiana.” Reported by Congressman Elliot, February 11, 1867

This should drive home the painful truth the Informer and I have been writing about for some time. I know it is hard for some to except, because it removes so many supposed remedies, and the hope of the 1787 Constitution coming to our rescue. I wish it were so, however the overwhelming evidence cannot, I repeat, cannot be rebutted!

James Montgomery