Archive for the ‘Historical’ Category

A Paradox For Any Court

June 26, 2017

A paradox for any court.

ONLY TO BE USED WHEN DRUG INTO COURT. NOT FOR A ATTACK

Can be adapted for administrative challenges but tricky to say the least. Everyone agrees it’s right to challenge jurisdiction.

“Once jurisdiction is challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.”

Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

“The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proceedings.” Hagans v Lavine 415 U. S. 533.

IRS is an administrative private debt collector. The US is a corporation that hires IRS to collect it’s debt and so do other corporations that are also private that use IRS.

Say they come after you for a individual income tax. . The question is, who is the creditor they are collecting for? It could be corporate United States or it could be corporate Federal Reserve. Who knows. It could be the corporate agency for International Development that they also have a contract with under TDO 91, or could be the BATF under contract. NO one knows who the Creditor is that sicced the IRS on you.

Since the income tax has been solid in stone that it is a excise tax for a privilege, What is the Privilege? To have a privilege there must be a contract. Where is the contract? The court must have this to proceed. This is your mandatory counterclaim in any revenue cause in admiralty that not one patriot has ever used in the history of the patriot community,…. but by one man…. repeating the same thing over and over for decades expecting a different outcome. . He won by the way. This does not go to the merits; you are not demurring to any charge, as it’s strictly asking to dismiss for lack of jurisdictional evidence not in the hand of the court.

Ok, this you have to declare and then make them prove to the contrary. You say you are a natural Physical Man. You have a contract with the Lord in Genesis 17. You are a citizen of the household of the Lord stated at Ephesians 2:19. You owe allegiance to no other than the Lord Almighty. Now, they have to produce the contract you have with the creditor they are collecting for if you challenge their jurisdiction that trumps the Contract you have with the Lord. Since you are now a natural Physical Man to the laws of statute they are working with. Then challenge jurisdiction they have over you the Man when their statutes say person and not man is liable.

Hmm …you can give them this case to prove you can’t be under their jurisdiction because you (#1) have no contract with the creditor they can produce with your signature describing the Privilege that subjects you to statute law you agreed to follow and (#2) you can’t be a person but a man, and in law the physical man can, and never is cited in any statute. Let’s see how would they overcome this case since you have a contract with the Lord that no manmade contract can supercede. IT can if you gave up your contract with the Lord., and became a US citizen or a state citizen. Did the Lord create artificial PERSONS? Did the corporation create the PHYSICAL MAN? Does the Lord lay a tax on you? Does man lay a tax on you? Which one prevails according to the court? Do they now have jurisdiction over a contract they can’t produce that carries your signature and that of the creditor that is making a claim on you, the natural physical man? DO NOT USE THIS. This is just for your mind, what there is of it. Don’t be a know-it-all to show your knowledge that will sink your ship in a heartbeat. If you do you have joined issue and they have jurisdiction because you gave it to them. ASK, ASK, ASK. Don’t argue. MAKE them prove you are not the PHYSICAL MAN standing before them. MAKE them prove there is a contract you and the creditor signed. MAKE them prove you are NOT the Natural Physical man that your LORD made with you, his creation. How can they do that if there is no contract of Privilege. If they can’t they lose personam and Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

“Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of God; whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth. A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions which contradict his laws, we are in conscience bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our courts of justice.” Robin v. Hardaway, 1 Jefferson 109, 114, 1 Va. Reports Ann. 58, 61 (1772) aff’d. Gregory v. Baugh, 29 Va. 681, 29 Va. Rep. Ann. 466, 2 Leigh 665 (1831) And cited 8 Co. 118. a. Bonham’s case. Hob. 87; 7. Co. 14. a. Calvin’s case.)

ALSO; Excerpted from West Bus.Law

If a party to a contract lacks capacity, an essential element for a valid contract is missing, and the contract is void

How is capacity missing? Are you a MAN that entered a presumed contract with the Creditor whereby you asked for a privilege that took the Status of Man from you and replaced it with a person of artificial character? Can they show it, can they produce it for the court? Do they ever? Has IRS ever given the reason you are liable? NO, because even they don’t know. They move on presumption that you can’t prove a thing contrary to presumption. You can never prove a negative. HEY, it’s all a RICO. Mainly because not one patriot ever got it right and filed the mandatory counterclaim in a tax case. Not even Attorneys know this

Hmm… let’s go back to the Informer’s works that no one reads and if they do they do not comprehend how to use it. From PERSON. ALL QUOTES ARE THE LAW BOOK

Vol. XIII AMERICAN LAW AND PROCEDURE. JURISPRUDENCE AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS. By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. ( Albany Law School ), LL.D. ( Ruskin University ) from La Salle University

“Ortolan’s explanation of personality.(45) The substance of the above was undoubtedly taken from Ortolan’s treatment of the subject as given in his History of the Roman Law, which is submitted because it is clear and concise: ”

“The word ‘person’ (persona) does not in the language of the law, as in ordinary language, designate the physical man.”

“First. Every being, artificial or natural, capable of having or owing rights.

Second. The characters, capacities, qualities or positions which the law ascribed to certain men as individuals-that is, rank, condition, capacity-status.”

“The technical term for the second meaning, namely, the position, quality, character which a man bears, is status.

Status is not so broad as person, but always related to physical men.”

REMEMBER THIS. MAN is the only one that has STATUS. PERSON has CHARACTER ONLY

“We know that all laws emanate from persons and also that they operate against or upon persons(50); that is, all law certainly from laws, and that the principle of classification adopted is the difference in the objects to which the rules relate.

There can be found in the Commentaries of Blackstone no definition of the word person, nor any explanation of the meaning

46 Does not this equal “individuals?” See 10 Harvard Law Rev., 101.

47 Ortholan’s History of Roman Law, 567-68.

48 Sandals’ Justinian, Int., 27; Austin ‘s Jur., lect. 12, P.358 49 Galus, 1-9; Austin ‘s Jur., 358.

addresses persons.”

LET ME SPELL IT OUT AGAIN FOR THE UMTEENTH TIME TO THOSE OF YOU THAT BELIEVE WE HAVE A SOCIAL GOVERNMENT YOU CREATED WITH YOUR CONSTITUTION MYTH.

Well as I quoted in my book “The New History of America,” the case of Cruden v Neale, where the court states a principle of natural law so clear that it cannot be twisted by any lawyer, that man is only bound by the laws of nature. Here is what the court stated;

” When a change of government takes place, from a monarchial to a republican government, the old form is dissolved. Those who lived under it, and did not choose to become members of the new, had a right to refuse their allegiance to it, and to retire elsewhere. By being a part of the society subject to the old government, they had not entered into any engagement to become subject to any new form the majority might think proper to adopt. That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent.” CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. Emphasis added.

By this very principle espoused by the court you cannot be made to “retire elsewhere” because, if anything, you retire from the corporate STATE and live upon the land of the Lord in the geographical place called North Carolina rather than the State of North Carolina . Go back and look at the Hamilton case where they said that you “* * * shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State.” Let them keep their corporate State; depart out of it. Isn’t that what the Bible tells you “Come out of her?” What do you need it for? To continually be robbed by legal plunder? Not that they are going to stop if you do, because maybe, just maybe, the masses will wake up and want out also, thereby destroying the State’s power over you.

You see, the whole game is to control you by making you, the man, into a artificial entity called a “person.” In ordinary street language you can use the term person. But the minute you step into ANY legal arena you CANNOT use the term “person.” For to do so the other artificial person, the State, can come after another artificial character. As the court stated above “man” is not bound by other men’s laws unless he consents. You consent when you answer to any statute containing any reference to person. The clever trick is that the statute 26 USC 7701(a) of the IRC is the definition part and it says “person” means; an individual, partnership, corporation, association. Notice that all terms defining the word “person are corporate fictions. BUT, you say, individual is not a corporate fiction because am I not an individual? Yes you are in average common street terms, but in the legal arena “individual is corporate or artificial by legal definition, because “individual,” in and of itself is defining an artificial thing as a “person.” So how can it be a natural man? It goes against all reason and logic. The IRC Code Statute only pertains to man, who, as stated above by the Professor, takes on the artificial character and becomes a “person” by legal definition. Therefore he is subject to all the legal disabilities that come with the term person and that means being subject to all the laws of the parent corporation. The parent corporation is the United States, the State is the artificial child and you are the artificial grand child. That is the best way to describe it so you can start to equate terms and meanings.

In Anderson’s Business law on the Uniform Commercial Code, I think around the Sixth Edition, it states that when a statute refers to artificial beings, natural people are not to be included. So, 26 USC 7701 (a) (1) uses all artificial characters to describe the artificial “person” and individual. By all reason and logic it has to be an artificial term. Just like a third grade reader shows 5 pictures and asks which one does not belong. The pictures are, a baseball, a bat, a base, a glove and a football uniform. You circle the football uniform as not fitting the idea, but the football clothes is a uniform, the same as baseball clothes is a uniform. Only one uniform fits the scheme while the other is left out, but both are uniforms. The same as individual. It is a “leading word” as the professor stated and has to be further defined the same as individual or person has to be defined. Did not the professor state the term individual and person are one in the same? Did he not also state that it is well settled in law that “person” is always an artificial person? Refresh your memory by finding that part of his statement.

YOU ARE A NONRESIDENT ALIEN if there is no CONTRACT. IT has nothing to do with a geographical place where you live. Those that have read my “Which One Are You” book know what I mean. The IRS placed it there for your way to get out, and not one, so-called patriot, ever picked up on it since the statute and reg was written. I am talking to people that this is a loaded gun ready to back fire on them if they don’t know rudimentary functions of what they are dealing with. Never argue Constitution or anything dealing with the corporation called US or State. IT’s NOT yours, so get used to it.

FROM “Which One Are You”;

ITEM 4. a non resident who is NOT a fiduciary, so you cannot be a person of incidence with respect to a person of inherence; then the income tax is not imposed, under subtitle A, chapter 1 on a non resident alien. So you fit the description under 26 USC §§ 2 (d) & 872.

If you are a nonresident alien that DOES fit one of the 4 items above, then you come under 26 USC § 871 and are taxable. If, as a non resident alien, you make income in the statutorily defined U.S., you are subject to the tax if you carry on a “business or trade” as defined by Congress.

26 CFR § 1.1402 (b)-3 (d) Nonresident Alien. “A nonresident alien individual never has self-employment income.

26 CFR § 1.6015 (i)-1. Nonresident Alien Individuals. (a) Exception from requirement from making a declaration. No declaration of estimated income is required to be made under section 6015 (a) and § 1.6015 (a)-1 by a nonresident alien individual

26 CFR 31.3401 (a) (6) -1 (b). Remuneration for services performed outside the United States. Remuneration paid to a nonresident alien individual… for services performed outside the United States is excepted from wages and hence is NOT SUBJECT TO WITHHOLDING .

This is NOT the unless category found in 26 CFR § 1.6015 (i) -1 (1), is it?

Isn’t this in agreement with;

26 USC § 3401 (a) Wages. For purposes of this chapter, the term “wages” means all remuneration… for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration… paid in any medium other than cash; except that such term SHALL NOT INCLUDE remuneration paid–(6) for such services performed by a nonresident alien individual, as may be designated by regulations prescribed by the Secretary;.

The State chartered company may refer you to 26 CFR § 31.3402 (f) (6) (1), but this is wrong for you are not the employee described in 26 USC § 3401 (c), working for the employer 26 USC § 3401 (d), which corresponds to 26 CFR § 1.1402 (c) 3 (d) and (c) 2 (b). This indicates you are not the “person” described in 26 USC 7343, because you are not to be treated as a resident working for the foreign (State), governments instrumentality within the United States. Therefore, the company is not defined as a government employer.

Title 26 Sec. 3401 C, is Congress’ definition of employee, which was published in;

The Federal Register, Tuesday, September 7, 1943 Page 12267 section 404.104 EMPLOYEE;

“… x … The term `employee’ … SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES officers and employees whether elected or appointed, of the United States, a state [ “Federal states” remember ] Territory, or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia, or any agency or instrumentality of any one or more of the foregoing.”

On page 12266 Section 404.102 of the Federal Register, Congress states:

” (g) Compensation paid to nonresident alien individual. …remuneration for services performed by nonresident alien individuals does not constitute wages subject to withholding under section 1622…”

There are 100 pages of this stuff in my book and this amounts to maybe two pages.

NOW PEOPLE, CAN YOU SEE THE PARADOX YOU CAN PUT THEM IN? YEAH, I KNOW, someone will screw this up as usual and will be tongue tied when the judge asks them a question and you answer, which will prove my point, you ain’t using your brain. Yeah, go ahead and answer as a know-it-all and you joined issue and your now a dead meat . That answer just tossed out your counterclaim and your going down. That’s called collateral attack when you box them in a corner like a rat and they use it to get out when you join the collateral attack in an answer that is meaningless. He knows what you are doing and he’s got to circumvent by collateral attack. Did you ever hear the phrase you convict yourself with what comes out of your own mouth? Does not SHUT up, SHUT up, and SHUT up, ever ring a bell when you are in court or talking with a agency once you got them? You ain’t playing softball. You’re playing with your life. They have the bullet aimed right at you. One screw up on your part and they shoot you. For the rest of your life they drain all your blood, sweat and tears from that bullet hole.

This ain’t no marbles game where you can say, ‘If I lose I’m taking my marbles and leaving, boo hoo’. This is the RICO, Mafia, you are dealing with, really the Jesuits from whom the Mafia patterned their operation. If you screw up no one can help you so don’t come to me. I may not be here and probably won’t be. There is no second try with this. You either do it right or don’t even attempt to try it for kicks.

WARNING. Do NOT take this to a lawyer. He will lose his private bar card. May be killed as his boss is the corporator of all bar ASSN.. operating in the world. His sub boss, the Judge, that gave him the private bar card ,as there is no licensed attorney anywhere in the world, controls him to the nth degree. And between them, you lose. They are a monopoly allowed by the owner of the US corporation.

The Informer June 2009

Comment: The people using this will argue with the judge. That’s totally wrong.
The Prosecutor is to bring the evidence of jurisdiction NOT the judge.
Arguing with the judge ignores the evidence the Prosecutor MUST produce FOR the judge so he has jurisdiction. That’s the Rule of procedural law. As I say patriots who cannot comprehend this will always argue with the judge. When the judge says I have jurisdiction he is saying it on his own. So arguing on his terms is a waste of time and one loses all the time. That’s why the only thing you say to the judge is make the Prosecutor prove he has jurisdiction to bring it before the court.
See how they will screw up? It’s what right does he have to bring it to the court?

Advertisements

WHAT TO PRESENT ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT YOU HAVE NO INCOME.

June 26, 2017

Here is a observation that no one realizes or even knows it exists. Here is a problem that may be brought before a court if you are drug into one. But it is better used administratively. Just a hypotheses. Could it work? Who knows.

(1) You work for a company
(2) You receive a negotiable instrument for your work
(3) You have to cash it at a bank
(4) You are given federal reserve notes in exchange.
(5) You have not been paid anything but worthless securities.

So now let’s put on your thinking caps and do some digging starting with

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter B > PART VI > § 165

§ 165. Losses
Release date: 2003-05-15

(a) General rule
There shall be allowed as a deduction any loss sustained during the taxable year and not compensated for by insurance or otherwise.
(b) Amount of deduction
For purposes of subsection (a), the basis for determining the amount of the deduction for any loss shall be the adjusted basis provided in section 1011 for determining the loss from the sale or other disposition of property.
(c) Limitation on losses of individuals
In the case of an individual, the deduction under subsection (a) shall be limited to——-
(1) losses incurred in a trade or business;
(2) losses incurred in any transaction entered into for profit, though not connected with a trade or business; and
(3) except as provided in subsection (h), losses of property not connected with a trade or business or a transaction entered into for profit, if such losses arise from fire, storm, shipwreck, or other casualty, or from theft.
(d) Wagering losses
Losses from wagering transactions shall be allowed only to the extent of the gains from such transactions.
(e) Theft losses
For purposes of subsection (a), any loss arising from theft shall be treated as sustained during the taxable year in which the taxpayer discovers such loss.
(f) Capital losses
Losses from sales or exchanges of capital assets shall be allowed only to the extent allowed in sections 1211 and 1212.

(g) Worthless securities
(1) General rule
If any security which is a capital asset becomes worthless during the taxable year, the loss resulting therefrom shall, for purposes of this subtitle, be treated as a loss from the sale or exchange, on the last day of the taxable year, of a capital asset.

(2) Security defined
For purposes of this subsection, the term “security” means-
(A) a share of stock in a corporation;
(B) a right to subscribe for, or to receive, a share of stock in a corporation; or
(C) a bond, debenture, note, or certificate, or other evidence of indebtedness, issued by a corporation or by a government or political subdivision thereof, with interest coupons or in registered form.

Ok so now you have been given “evidences of debt” for your work. You have never made “income” but received evidences of debt. The US Treasury admits to (g) above in its website http://www.ustreas.gov/education/faq/currency/legal-tender.shtml wherein the website states,

Federal Reserve notes are legal tender currency notes. The twelve Federal Reserve Banks issue them into circulation pursuant to the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. A commercial bank belonging to the Federal Reserve System can obtain Federal Reserve notes from the Federal Reserve Bank in its district whenever it wishes. It must pay for them in full, dollar for dollar, by drawing down its account with its district Federal Reserve Bank.

Federal Reserve Banks obtain the notes from our Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP). It pays the BEP for the cost of producing the notes, which then become liabilities of the Federal Reserve Banks, and obligations of the United States Government.

Congress has specified that a Federal Reserve Bank must hold collateral equal in value to the Federal Reserve notes that the Bank receives. This collateral is chiefly gold certificates and United States securities. This provides backing for the note issue. The idea was that if the Congress dissolved the Federal Reserve System, the United States would take over the notes (liabilities). This would meet the requirements of Section 411, but the government would also take over the assets, which would be of equal value. Federal Reserve notes represent a first lien on all the assets of the Federal Reserve Banks, and on the collateral specifically held against them.

Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in gold, silver or any other commodity, and receive no backing by anything This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves, but for what they will buy. In another sense, because they are legal tender, Federal Reserve notes are “backed” by all the goods and services in the economy.

Now they, not you, have established that their confidence game, what you received in exchange for the company draft (check) was absolutely nothing. They are valueless so you exchanged your labor for valueless paper that has a lien on it already. They are identified in two statutes (Code) and they are Title 18 Section 8 where in it states

TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 1 > § 8 Release date: 2004-08-06

§ 8. Obligation or other security of the United States defined

The term “obligation or other security of the United States” includes all bonds, certificates of indebtedness, national bank currency, Federal Reserve notes, Federal Reserve bank notes, coupons, United States notes, Treasury notes, gold certificates, silver certificates, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the United States, stamps and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, issued under any Act of Congress, and canceled United States stamps.

And the second statute (Code) is
CITE-
12 USC SUBCHAPTER XII – FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES 01/23/00

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 12 – BANKS AND BANKING
CHAPTER 3 – FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
SUBCHAPTER XII – FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

-HEAD-
SUBCHAPTER XII – FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

-CITE-
12 USC Sec. 411 01/23/00

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 12 – BANKS AND BANKING
CHAPTER 3 – FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
SUBCHAPTER XII – FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES

-HEAD-
Sec. 411. Issuance to reserve banks; nature of obligation;
redemption

-STATUTE-

Federal reserve notes, to be issued at the discretion of the
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for the purpose of
making advances to Federal reserve banks through the Federal
reserve agents as hereinafter set forth and for no other purpose,
are authorized. The said notes shall be obligations of the United
States and shall be receivable by all national and member banks and
Federal reserve banks and for all taxes, customs, and other public
dues. They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the
Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of
Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve bank.

-SOURCE-
(Dec. 23, 1913, ch. 6, Sec. 16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934,
ch. 6, Sec. 2(b)(1), 48 Stat. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, title
II, Sec. 203(a), 49 Stat. 704.)

-REFTEXT-

REFERENCES IN TEXT

Phrase ”hereinafter set forth” is from section 16 of the
Federal Reserve Act, act Dec. 23, 1913. Reference probably means as
set forth in sections 17 et seq. of the Federal Reserve Act. For
classification of these sections to the Code, see Tables.

-COD-

CODIFICATION

Section is comprised of first par. of section 16 of act Dec. 23,
1913. Pars. 2 to 4, 5, and 6, 7, 8 to 11, 13 and 14 of section 16,
and pars. 15 to 18 of section 16 as added June 21, 1917, ch. 32,
Sec. 8, 40 Stat. 238, are classified to sections 412 to 414, 415,
416, 418 to 421, 360, 248-1, and 467, respectively, of this title.
Par. 12 of section 16, formerly classified to section 422 of this
title, was repealed by act June 26, 1934, ch. 756, Sec. 1, 48 Stat.
1225.

-MISC3-

AMENDMENTS

1934 – Act Jan. 30, 1934, struck out from last sentence provision
permitting redemption in gold.

-CHANGE-

CHANGE OF NAME

Section 203(a) of act Aug. 23, 1935, changed name of Federal
Reserve Board to Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

-CROSS-

CROSS REFERENCES

Gold coinage discontinued, see section 5112 of Title 31, Money
and Finance.

Since there is no more real “money” to be redeemed then as the Treasury Web Site stated they are worthless in conformity with 26 USC 165 (g). Ergo you cannot go into and bank and demand gold or silver coin for a federal reserve note.

So the question is, Have I received any income that is reportable for filing a tax form? Have I objected openly that I do not accept federal reserve notes as “payment” for my labor? See the PadleFord case 14 Ga. 438 wherein they stated,

“Supposing this not to be taxed for inspection purposes, has Congress consented to it being laid? It is certain that Congress has not expressly consented. But is express consent necessary? There is nothing in the Constitution which says so. There is nothing in the practice of men, or in the Municipal Law of men, or in the practice of nations, or the Law of nations that says so. Silence gives consent, is the rule of business life.
A tender of bills is as good as one of coin, unless the bills are objected to. To stand by, in silence, and see another sell your property, binds you. [Ok people how many times has your property (labor included) been stolen and turned over to the tax man in your silence? Did you file a refusal for good cause shown?] These are mere instances of the use of the maxim in the Municipal Law. In the Law of nations, it is equally potent. Silent acquiescence in the breach of a treaty binds a nation.(Vattel, ch. 16, sec.199, book 1. See book 2, sec. 142 et seq. as to usucaption and prescription, and sec. 208 as to ratification). Express consent, then, not being necessary, is there anything from which consent may be applied? There is–length of time.”

Has the company caused a theft when issuing you a draft that only will result in you receiving evidences of debt that are no longer “at Par” with a face value US Silver Eagle dollar denominated coin? This is what the court stated on this type money issue,

Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188, 75 Am. Dec. 509;

Bank notes are the representative of money, and circulate as such, only by the general consent and usage of the community. But this consent and usage are based upon the convertibility of such notes into coin, at the pleasure of the holder, upon their presentation to the bank for redemption. This is the vital principle which sustains their character as money. So long as they are in fact what they purport to be, payable on demand, common consent gives them the ordinary attributes of money. But upon failure of the bank by which they are issued, when its doors are closed, and its inability to redeem its bills is openly avowed [See Letter, Oct. 26, 1989, Dept. of Treasury, Russell Munk, Asst. Gen. Council, (International Affairs) as recorded in the Office of the Clerk & Recorder, Bacca County, Colorado, admitting the notes are worthless and not redeemable at par.], they instantly lose the character of money, their circulation as currency ceases with the usage and consent upon which it rested, and the notes become the mere dishonored and depreciated evidences of debt . . . It is only upon this idea that they can honestly be tendered as money, and when accepted as such, under the same supposition, the mutual mistake of facts should no more be permitted to benefit one party, or prejudice the other, than if the notes had been spurious, or payment had been made in base or adulterated coin.”

Again the question begs of any court what the last sentence in that you have never received any income in “money”, but evidences of a debt issued with a lien already on it thereby taking them out of the realm of money as they are a debt obligation or in reality an I.O. U. issued by a private banking system that are trademarked as such.

Want more statutes and code on the matter for you to decide? Here is more info that is incontrovertible?

So with your question in mind as to what statutes say in regard to federal reserve
notes, read all of this

TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER II >
Sec. 5119.

Sec. 5119. – Redemption and cancellation of currency

(a) Except to the extent authorized in regulations the Secretary of the Treasury prescribes with the approval of the President, the Secretary may not redeem United States currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) in gold. However, the Secretary shall redeem gold certificates owned by the Federal reserve banks at times and in amounts the Secretary decides are necessary to maintain the equal purchasing power of each kind of United States currency. When redemption in gold is authorized, the redemption may be made only in gold bullion bearing the stamp of a United States mint or assay office in an amount equal at the time of redemption to the currency presented fo redemption.

COMMENT. As stated in the CODE, in red above, it can be taken as not being U.S currency like you say, until you read all the statutes and the words “IN KIND”. Then the worthless note IS taken as currency by the government. True, it is not a pay to, but only a legal offer (tender). That’s all they care about is a legal offer. You can decline a legal offer even if in federal reserve notes as stated on the US Treasury web site. Go back and read all of it if you have to.

(b) (1) Except as provided in subsection (c)(1) of this section,
the following are public debts bearing no interest:

(A) gold certificates issued before January 30, 1934.

(B) silver certificates.

(C) notes issued under the Act of July 14, 1890 (ch.
708, 26 Stat. 289).

(D) Federal Reserve notes for which payment was made under section 4 of the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act.

(E) United States currency notes, including those issued under section 1 of the Act of February 25, 1862 (ch. 33, 12 Stat. 345), the Act of July 11, 1862 (ch. 142, 12 Stat. 532), the resolution of January 17, 1863 (P.R. 9; 12 Stat. 822), section 2 of the Act of March 3, 1863 (ch. 73, 12 Stat. 710), or section 5115 of this title.

(2) Redemption, cancellation, and destruction of currency. –

The Secretary shall –

(A) redeem any currency described in paragraph (1) from the general fund of the Treasury upon presentment to the Secretary; and

(B) cancel and destroy such currency upon redemption.

The Secretary shall not be required to reissue United States currency notes upon redemption.

(c) (1) The Secretary may determine the amount of the following United States currency that will not be presented for redemption because the currency has been destroyed or irretrievably lost:

(A) circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks issued before July 1, 1929, for which the United States Government has assumed liability.

COMMENT. Does this mean that the notes are no longer assumed by the United States? Kinda presumes they are assumed by the IMF/fed. Res. that issues them as first liens on the U.S., huh?

(B) outstanding currency referred to in subsection (b)(1) of this section.

(2) When the Secretary makes a determination under this subsection, the Secretary shall reduce the amount of that currency outstanding by the amount the Secretary determines will not be redeemed and credit the appropriate receipt account.

(d) To provide a historical collection of United States currency, the Secretary may withhold from cancellation and destruction and transfer to a special account one piece of each design, issue, or series of each denomination of each kind of currency (including circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) after redemption. The Secretary may make appropriate entries in Treasury accounts because of the transfers

Here are the actual statutes on the above that you wanted.

Notes on Sec. 5119.

SOURCE
Pub. L. 97-258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 985
Pub. L. 102-390, title II, Sec. 226(b), Oct. 6, 1992, 106 Stat. 1630
Pub. L. 103-325, title VI, Sec. 602(g)(14), Sept. 23, 1994, 108 Stat. 2294.

Historical and Revision Notes Revised Section
Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

5119(a) 31:408a(less last proviso). 31:444(1st sentence words between 2d and 3d semicolons). 31:822b. Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, Sec. 6(less last proviso), 11, 15(1st sentence words between 2d and 3d semicolons), 48 Stat. 340, 342, 344. 5119(b)(1) 31:405a-3. 31:911. 31:915(a), (b). June 24, 1967, Pub. L. 90-29, Sec. 1, 2, 81 Stat. 77. June 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87-66, Sec. 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 75 Stat. 146, 147.

5119(b)(2) 31:404. 31:420. 31:914. 31:916. May 31, 1878, ch. 146, 20 Stat. 87; June 30, 1961, Pub. L. 87-66, Sec. 7, 75 Stat. 47. R.S. Sec. 3580.

5119(c)(1) 31:915(c)(words before last comma).

5119(c)(2) 31:405a-2. 31:915(c)(words after last comma).

5119(d) 31:917. In subsection (a), the words ”Secretary may not redeem” are substituted for
”no . . . shall be redeemed” in 31:408a(less last proviso) because of the source provisions restated in section 321 of the revised title. The words ”United States currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks)” are substituted
for ”currency of the United States” and the text of 31:444(1st sentence words between 2d and 3d semicolons) for consistency with section 5103 of this title and to eliminate unnecessary words.

COMMENT. Can’t be any plainer than this, right?
In subsection (b)(1), before clause (A), the words ”upon completion of the transfers and credits authorized and directed by section 912 of this title” in 31:915 and ”and the amount of the payment credited as a public debt receipt in accordance with such section” are omitted as executed. In clause (B), the text of 31:405a-3(last sentence) and 31:915(a)(4) is consolidated. The text of 31:405a-3(1st sentence) is omitted as executed. In clauses (C) and (E), the citations in parentheses are included only for information purposes.

In subsection (b)(2), the words ”cancel and destroy” are substituted for
‘retired” in 31:914 for consistency in the revised section. The words ”paragraph (1)
of this subsection” are substituted for ”Any currency the funds for the redemption
or security of which have been transferred pursuant to the provisions of section 912
of this title, and any Federal Reserve notes as to which payment has been made
under section 913 of this title” because of the restatement. The words ”presented
to the Secretary” are substituted for ”presentation at the Treasury” because of the
source provisions restated in section 321(c) of the revised title. The text of 31:916 is
omitted as unnecessary because of the restatement. The text of 31:404 and 31:420
is omitted as superseded by the source provisions restated in this subsection and
subsection (c). The words ”All acts and parts of acts in conflict herewith are hereby
repealed” in the Act of May 31, 1878 (ch. 146, 20 Stat. 87), are omitted as
executed.

In subsection (c)(2), the words ”When the Secretary makes a determination
under this subsection” are added because of the restatement. The words ”on the
books of the Treasury” are omitted as surplus.
The text of 31:405(e)(2)(1st sentence) is omitted as superseded by the source
provisions restated in subsection (b).

In subsection (d), the word ”paper” is omitted as surplus. The words
”(including circulating notes of Federal Reserve banks and national banks)” are
substituted for ”including bank notes” for consistency in the section. The words
”heretofore or hereafter issued” are omitted as surplus

REFERENCES IN TEXT

Act of July 14, 1890, ch. 708, 26 Stat. 289, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(C),
which was known as the Sherman Purchase of Silver Act of July 14, 1890, was
classified to sections 408, 410, 412, and 453 of former Title 31, and sections 122
and 145 of Title 12, Banks and Banking, and was repealed by Pub. L. 97-258,
Sec. 5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1069.

Section 4 of the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act, referred to in subsec.
(b)(1)(D), is section 4 of Pub. L. 87-66, June 30, 1961, 75 Stat. 146, which was
classified to section 913 of former Title 31, and was repealed by Pub. L. 97-258,
Sec. 5(b), Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 1079.

Acts February 25, 1862, July 11, 1862, and March 3, 1863, and resolution
January 17, 1863, referred to in subsec. (b)(1)(E), are acts Feb. 25, 1862, ch. 33,
12 Stat. 345, July 11, 1862, ch. 142, 12 Stat. 532, and Mar. 3, 1863, ch. 73, 12
Stat. 709, and resolution Jan. 17, 1863, 12 Stat. 822, respectively, which are not
classified to the Code

AMENDMENTS
1994 – Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 103-325 inserted concluding provisions. 1992 –
Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 102-390 amended par. (2) generally. Prior to amendment,
par. (2) read as follows: ”The Secretary shall redeem from the general fund of the
Treasury and cancel and destroy currency referred to in paragraph (1) of this
subsection when the currency is presented to the Secretary.”

Now let’s go here
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER I >
Sec. 5103.

Sec. 5103. – Legal tender

United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues. Foreign gold or silver coins are not legal tender for debts

Now here is something people do not know in the notes which I will put in
blue.

TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 5103.

Notes on Sec. 5103.

SOURCE
Pub. L. 97-258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 980
Pub. L. 97-452, Sec. 1(19), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2477.

Historical and Revision Notes 1982 Act

Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
5103 31:392. 31:456. July 23, 1965, Pub. L. 89-81, Sec. 102, 79 Stat. 255. R.S.
Sec. 3584.

The words ”All . . . regardless of when coined or issued” are omitted as
unnecessary because of the restatement. The word ”debts” is substituted for
”debts, public and private” to eliminate unnecessary words. The words ”public
charges, taxes, duties, and dues” are omitted as included in ”debts”

1983 ACT
This restores to 31:5103 the reference to public charges, taxes, and dues because
they are not considered to be debts. See, Hagar v. Reclamation District No. 108,
111 U.S. 701, 706 (1884).

AMENDMENTS
1983 – Pub. L. 97-452 inserted ”, public charges, taxes, and dues” after ”all debts”.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1983 AMENDMENT

Amendment effective Sept. 13, 1982, see section 2(i) of Pub. L. 97-452, set
out as a note under section 3331 of this title

SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS
This section is referred to in sections 5112, 5132 of this title.

Now as to taxation of these “notes” and coin read this.
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER V >
Sec. 5154.

Sec. 5154. – State taxation

A State or a territory or possession of the United States may tax United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) as money on hand or on deposit in the same way and at the same rate that the State, territory, or possession taxes other forms of money. This section does not affect a law taxing national banks

Here are the statutes for the above and are you ready for this? Read on
TITLE 31 > SUBTITLE IV > CHAPTER 51 > SUBCHAPTER V > Sec. 5154.

Notes on Sec. 5154.

SOURCE
Pub. L. 97-258, Sept. 13, 1982, 96 Stat. 992
Pub. L. 97-452, Sec. 1(22), Jan. 12, 1983, 96 Stat. 2477.

Historical and Revision Notes 1982 Act

Revised Section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)
5154 31:425, 426. Aug. 13, 1894, ch. 281, 28 Stat. 278.

The words ”United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes
and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks)” are substituted for
”Circulating notes of national banking associations and United States legal tender notes and other notes and certificates of the United States payable on demand and circulating or intended to circulate as currency and gold, silver, or other coin” in 31:425 to eliminate unnecessary words and for consistency with section 5103 of the revised title

1983 ACT
This restates 31:5154 to clarify the intent of the section. See 26 Cong. Rec. 7152, 7170 (1894).

AMENDMENTS
1983 – Pub. L. 97-452 substituted ”other forms of money” for ”United States coins and currency circulating within its jurisdiction”.

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1983 AMENDMENT

Amendment effective Sept. 13, 1982, see section 2(i) of Pub. L. 97-452, set out as a note
under section 3331 of this title

So I think you have enough statutes you wanted to show that federal reserve notes, although worthless, ARE considered to be legal tender (offer) as currency of the United States. The key in all the above relies on that “restatement” of law. Best to get it and read what they had to say about currency and the worthless note.

Now, were you ever “paid” in “money” or evidences of debt? Is that reportable and income when there is no worth attached as stated in Title 26 USC 165 (g) and in the U.S. Treasury Web site quoted above plus all the other sources including the court cases? Would it not be feasible to bring this argument in the administrative forum rather than wait for your butt to be dragged into their court where you will never be allowed to present this as evidence? Better to get it on the administrative record as NOT your argument, but their proofs you have no income with which requires you to file any IRS form whatsoever. Says so right on your master file in a code that is theirs, not yours. After all you are hitting them with their own admissions. Never put -0- income on any 1040 or you will have defeated this plain proof that you have no reportable income.. Now you know why the IRS considers your labor value as -0- and anything above that is pure profit to you. Never thought of it that way did you? Well, when is the onslaught gonna happen? Don’t take my word for this, read it for yourself and draw your own conclusions from the very statutes I gave you here. This ought to really put the binders on them for a long time once you people see the truth they place before you every day.

Peace be with you

The Informer

2-05-05

\

Politics Or Political Thought Ain’t Bona Fide!

June 3, 2017

Where Are All Of Those Fools?

Politics or political thought is a fictitious personally held private belief and nothing more..—ThereIsNoDebt

Notes by ThereIsNoDebt

Etymology of Politics
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=politics
What is BODY POLITIC?
http://thelawdictionary.org/body-politic/
What is BODY CORPORATE?
http://thelawdictionary.org/body-corporate/
~
Definition of Legislature –
“A body of persons having the power to legislate; specifically : an organized body having the authority to make laws for a political unit”
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legislature

Definition of body politic
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/body+politic
Note.- A body politic is fictitious in character.
It must be remembered that ‘politics’ deals with affairs of the mind. They are ‘personal opinions’ of how people think we should relate to each other and to which people are entitled to contract or agree with if that is open to them to do so, or just simply ignore. And therefore as opinion, politics or political thought is a fictitious personally held private belief and nothing more.

Definition of Political unit
political unit – a unit with political responsibilities
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/political+unit
Note.- Political units are unable to own land, in fact or in reality, due to their fictitious nature. Their ownership of land is a mere fancy that remains unchallenged, no doubt because they have a monopoly on force. Of which land they ‘claim’ to own, can only be that to be found in the physical world where the living do not dwell. That is why the territorial jurisdiction political units (nations, countries, states, etc.) define legally as being where they are to be found, remains in their definition as, territorial waters, sea bed, continental shelf, and only the subsoil making up the subterranean world.

IRS
United States Income Tax Treaties – A to Z
(Note.- On failure to open, search for title-heading with browser and select link)
http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/United-States-Income-Tax-Treaties—A-to-Z
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Treaties and TIEAs
(Double Taxation Treaties )
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/treaties/Pages/treaties.aspx
See pages 18 & 19 –
Maritime Zones and Jurisdiction
http://www.iho.int/mtg_docs/com_wg/ABLOS/ABLOS_Conf3/SESSION3.PDF
See Illustration –
Subsoil
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/geology/soil/
28 USC § 3002 – Definitions
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002
SOURCED
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/01/02/muddying-the-waters/
~
Definition of Land
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/land
~
Definition of State (politics)
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/State+(politics)

WHERE AM I
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/where-am-i/

The Psychology Of Evil
http://www.angelfire.com/biz2/daimonic/psychologyofevil.html

Russian Textbook Psycho Politics
http://nesara.insights2.org/Psychopolitics.html

Political

SHEARING THE SHEEP IN A SHEEP PEN OF SELF DELUSION
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/shearing-the-sheep-in-a-sheep-pen-of-self-delusion/

We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.― George Orwell

KNOW THAT MOST MEN, INCLUDING THOSE AT EASE WITH PROBLEMS OF THE GREATEST COMPLEXITY, CAN SELDOM ACCEPT EVEN THE SIMPLEST AND MOST OBVIOUS TRUTH IF IT WOULD OBLIGE THEM TO ADMIT THE FALSITY OF CONCLUSIONS WHICH THEY HAVE DELIGHTED IN EXPLAINING TO COLLEAGUES, PROUDLY TAUGHT TO OTHERS, AND WHICH THEY HAVE WOVEN, THREAD BY THREAD, INTO THE FABRIC OF THEIR LIVES
— Leo Tolstoy

The Tribes Of Europe And The Evolution of Inquisition

May 17, 2017

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.

Who Owns Agenda 2030-2050-Population Objectivity of Subjects Conclusion Set Date 2100?

May 13, 2017

The mechanism and origins of economic inequality are to be found with the Vatican.. All roads lead to Rome.. UNICEP-UNEP-Agenda 2100 Sustainable development is their inquisition of eugenics.. Unfortunately while u.s. subjects can read the international documents evidence. They fail to comprehend what the words / terms are implying.. The document[s] is specifically calling for depopulation.. I am referring to the Agenda 21 document, the United Nations Environmental “Global” Biodiversity Assessment.. The number one problem of course being people, subjects specifically called direct drivers of environmental destruction, causing eco system collapse via Climate Change.. All lies of course as they are manipulating the destruction and misplacing the blame of the cause onto the worlds mass populace..

Economic restrictions are not being implemented by wolves nor grizzly bears.. Nor controlled opposition environmental groups..

The bears and wolves can be managed/controlled.. Obviously governmental public office holders representing who they serve who is not the subjects negatively effected by these various U.N. documents are the real storm troopers delivering heavy Agenda 2100 economic bombing.. Carpet bombing every aspect of how people make their livings into oblivion.. The wolves and bears are a cute distraction.. In their massive campaign of distractions.. This is not only effecting farming, ranching nor hunting.. It is everything economical, it is in everything, building codes, plumbing/heating/electrical all housing.. In everything..ALL ASPECTS of any business.

“…reduce their persons to perpetual slavery…and to convert them to his and their use and profit”—Bull Romanus Pontifex (Nicholas V), January 8, 1455

Those who discover sustainable developments true meaning will be deemed arbiters of “fake news” and silenced – censured, ignored.. While those who misinterpret it will be rewarded..

SWW is fourth grade propaganda level Gate-keeping fake opposition…Nothing more.. A huge disappointment..

AGENDA 2030 – A CALL TO ACTION

Agenda 21’s eugenics programme of worldwide ‘preparedness’ having been finalised, calls for its eugenicist ambitions to be put into ‘action’ with its successor, Agenda 2030, primed and ready to do just that; whose programme into action for the eugenicist depopulation of the Earth has been officially announced by the Holy See as law at the General Assembly of the United Nations on the 25th of September 2015.

It must be understood that when the Holy See gave his climate-change encyclical – preceeding his appearance at the United Nations – as well as his speech at the United Nations General Assembly, that his encyclical is an ecclesiastical letter as ‘actual law’ for all of the Churches fictitious jurisdictions. Together with his official pronouncements as ‘law’ given at the United Nations General Assembly, these both quite rightly are to be taken as ‘personally owned private laws’ for fictitious jurisdictional territories.

We read last paragraph, that –

“In the early centuries the term encyclical was applied, not only to papal letters…”

Source:

Encyclical
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05413a.htm

Letters of the popes:

We read from the 1st paragraph –

“The popes began early, by virtue of the primacy, to issue laws as well for the entire Church as for individuals. This was done in the form of letters. Such letters were sent by the popes either of their own will or when application was made to them by synods, bishops, or individual Christians.”

We also read and learn –

“Following the example of the Roman emperors the popes soon established archives (scrinium) in which copies of their letters were placed as memorials for further use, and as proofs of authenticity.”

Source:

Ecclesiastical Letters
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09202a.htm

~

The Pope is an example of a Roman emperor –

Source:

EYE OF NEWT, TOE OF FROG – ACT III
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/eye-of-newt-toe-of-frog-act-iii/

From Chapter 2, entitled, The Crown of the Cæsars Passes to the Papacy, we read,

The Roman Church, without dispute, had by 538 inherited the seat of the Caesars, as Adolf Harnack recorded in his book What is Christianity?,

It [the Papacy] is a political creation, and as imposing as a World-Empire, because of the continuation of the Roman Empire. The Pope, who calls himself “King” and “Pontifex Maximus” is Caesar’s successor. (New York, Putnam, 1901, second edition, page 270).

The same historian concluded that—

The Roman Church in its way privily pushed itself into the place of the Roman World-Empire, of which it is the actual continuation. (Ibid.)

Alexander Clarence Flick in his historical work, The Rise of the Mediaeval Church, concluded that,

The mighty Catholic Church was little more than the Roman Empire baptised. Rome was transformed as well as converted. The very capital of the old Empire became the capital of the Christian Empire. The office of the Pontifex Maximus was continued in that of the Pope. . . . Even the Roman language has remained the official language of the Roman Catholic Church down through the ages. (New York: Burt Franklin, 1959 pp 148, 149).

http://www.sundaylaw.net/books/other/standish/twobeasts/tb02.htm

SOURCES & ALTERNATIVE SOURCES FOR READINGS IN CHURCH HISTORY

What is Christianity? (1957) by Harnack, Adolf von, 1851-1930, New York, Harper 1901
https://archive.org/details/whatischristian01saungoog

Adolf Harnack – German historian and theologian
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack

Adolf von Harnack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_von_Harnack

~

Divine Right of Kings

If we consider that all men are ‘equally endowed’ by nature’s Cause with ‘innate freewill’, then the information we find in reading what is said about the Divine Right of Kings, as well as what is said concerning ‘the Church’, is something of a curiosity, since the Will of God, we would reasonably deduce in relation to man, is quite clear when it comes to all men everywhere – who are endowed with ‘an equal measure of freewill before nature’s Cause or nature’s God’, without exception in the realm of the physical world.

The source of a rebellion to what man sees as God’s Will, on the matter of freewill, would not be God as the source of rebellion contradicting Himself; we would reasonably deduce regarding ‘equal freewill’ in all men, but the source of rebellion, if we look to Heaven for heavenly authority and the source of what God would not make absurd in us, would then be an alternative to God’s Authority and the use by men of that ‘alternative authority’, in making ‘absurd’, equal innate freewill endowed by nature’s Cause or nature’s God in all men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divine_right_of_kings

RULE THYSELF LEST YE BE RULED
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/rule-thyself-lest-ye-be-ruled/

~

EUGENICS AS A MEANS OF CLEANSING

Etymology of Purgatory

in Latin, “means of cleansing,”

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=purgatory

~

Etymology of Purge

note noun.-

“that which purges,”

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=purge&allowed_in_frame=0

~

Definition of Purge

1.4 Law Atone for or wipe out

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/purge

~

Definition of Purgative

Origin

from the verb purgare (see purge)

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/purgative

~

Etymology of Purgatory

past participle stem of Latin purgare (see purge (v.)

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=purgatory

~

Definition of Atone

verb

Make amends or reparation

Example

a human sacrifice to atone for the sin

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atone#atone__2

~

The Roots and Origins of Eugenics belong to the Self-Ennobling Ones and their Self-validating Clergy’s Doctrines

We read, 1st paragraph of Catholic doctrine –

Purgatory (Lat., “purgare”, to make clean, to purify) in accordance with Catholic teaching is a place or condition of temporal punishment for those who, departing this life in God’s grace, are, not entirely free from venial faults, or have not fully paid the satisfaction due to their transgressions.

Source:

Purgatory
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

Comment.-

Where are people to be found in purgatory ?

Purgatory happens in a space between Heaven(that is, ‘this life in God’s grace’) and Hell; purgatory is the temporal corporeal, or physical world, where people are to be found in a temporal condition of life, in the here and now

~

Definition of Transgression

noun

1. 1. (Law) a breach of a law, etc;

sin or crime

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transgression

~

Definition of Temporal
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/temporal

~

Definition of Corporeal
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/corporeal

~

The Catholic Church’s definition of Space (or a Place):

We read, end of 5th paragraph –

“Space is therefore as real, as objective, as the corporeal world itself, but in itself it exists apart only in the human mind, seeing that in the reality of existing things it is only the extension of bodies themselves.”

Source:

Space
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14167a.htm

Comment.-

Space is the temporal corporeal world itself if it is said to be as real as the corporeal world itself. When we use our eyes we are made aware of reality outside of our mind alone, that is what our eyes are for. And of course, the mind is made viable and enabled by the reality of existing things as literally ‘us’, and in that respect, the mind is ‘only the extension of bodies themselves’.

~

Image of a fiery purgatory by Annibale Carracci

Source:

Purgatory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purgatory

Definition of Purgatory

Noun

1. – a place or state of suffering inhabited by the souls of sinners who are expiating their sins before going to heaven

Adjective

archaic

Having the quality of cleansing or purifying:

Example –

infernal punishments are purgatory and medicinal

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/purgatory

~

Definition of Infernal

Adjective

1. Relating to or characteristic of hell or the underworld

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/infernal#infernal__2

~

Definition of Expiate (Expiating)

Make amends or reparation for (guilt or wrongdoing):

Example –

their sins must be expiated by sacrifice

~

Definition of Sacrifice

Noun

1. An act of slaughtering an animal or person or surrendering a possession as an offering to a deity:

Examples –

they offer sacrifices to the spirits

the ancient laws of animal sacrifice

1.1 An animal, person, or object offered in the act of sacrifice

Verb

1. Offer or kill as a religious sacrifice

Example –

the goat was sacrificed at the shrine

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/sacrifice#sacrifice__2

~

Definition of Shrine

Noun

1. A place regarded as holy because of its associations with a divinity or a sacred person or relic, marked by a building or other construction

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/shrine#shrine__2

This excellent compilation of evidence was done by There Is No Debt..

Negotiable Debt Instrument Destroys Real Dollar

May 12, 2017

The Real Dollar Versus Negotiable Debt Instrument

Looking at an old 100 “dollar” federal reserve note 1934 series and reading the data on the bill, it states;

” This note is “Legal tender” for all debts public and private and is redeemable in ” lawful money” at the United States Treasury or at any Federal Reserve Bank.”

It plainly states that the note is “legal tender” but then says it is redeemable in “lawful money”. Therefore Federal Reserve Notes are ” legal tender” but not “lawful money”. The Federal Reserve note is apparently evidence of some right to recover, as printed at the bottom of the front side of the note, just under the picture are the following words;

“WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS” or it used to, they hid this over the years.

This becomes obvious when looking at the United States Code, which, in talking about Federal Reserve notes, says;

” They shall be redeemed in lawful money on demand at the Treasury Department of the United States, in the city of Washington, District of Columbia, or at any Federal Reserve Bank.” U.S.C.A., title 21, section 411.

Therefore, “FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS” or ONE DOLLAR is something different from a Federal Reserve Note or it would not state on the note that the note is redeemable in ” DOLLARS”.

It appears that Federal Reserve Notes are simply a medium of exchange used in place of, in lieu of, or as temporary substitutes for that which should be redeemable for “lawful money” of the United States—”Dollars.” ” Lawful Money” of the United States is not Federal Reserve Notes, as “Lawful Money” it can only be “DOLLARS.” A DOLLAR is a ” UNIT” of measure and is so defined;

” A silver coin of Spain and of the United States, of the value of one hundred cents of four shillings and sixpence sterling. American Dictionary of the English Language, Noah Webster, 1828.

The DOLLAR means “lawful money” of the United States. (103 U.S. 792 )

” The gold coins of the United States shall be a one DOLLAR piece, which at the standard weight of 24.75 grains shall be the unit of value.” 31 U.S.C.A. 314

A DOLLAR then is a coin that has value. In other words a DOLLAR is something of value, not something that represents something of value, nor an implied evidence of value. A coin has value as it is made from a substance that itself has value. A coin is defined as;

“Money stamped; a piece of metal, as gold, silver, copper, or other metal, converted into money by impressing on it marks, figures or characters.” Websters, 1828, Vol I, page 40

A coin then, of stamped gold or silver, is money. Money is defined as:

” Coin, stamped metal; any piece of metal usually gold, silver, or copper stamped by public authority ,… among modern commercial nations, gold, silver, and copper are the only metals used for this purpose. Gold and silver containing great value in a small compass, and being therefore of easy conveyance, and being also durable and little liable to diminution by use, are the most convenient metals for coin or money. Which is the representative of commodities of all kinds, of lands, and of every thing that is capable of being transferred in commerce.” Webster’s Volume II, page 18

This definition is further substantiated in law dictionaries which define money as;
“Gold and silver coins. The common medium of exchange in a civilized nation.”
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1870, page 192. Love that old set of law dictionaries.

” In usual and ordinary acceptation it means gold, silver, or paper money used as circulating medium of exchange, and does not embrace notes, bonds, as evidence of debt…Lane v. Riley, 280 Ky 319…” Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Ed. page 115. ( Federal Reserve Notes are FIAT DEBT NOTES, not real, fake). What can you buy with 3500 FDRNs? Now what can you buy with 3500 American Silver Dollars, you know, those old metal dollars. A LOT MORE, I could go buy a new truck with them if I so desired.

Are you starting to get it? I certainly hope so. lets continue a bit further.

” In its strict technical sense, “money” means coined metal, usually gold or silver, upon which the government stamp has been impressed; it indicates its value.” Black’s, supra.

Interestingly enough, in this definition it can be plainly seen that money is coined gold and silver ( DOLLARS) having a value, and cannot be NOTES or evidences of debt.

A DOLLAR is defined as; ” The money unit of the United States…established under the confederation by a resolution of Congress, July 6, 1785. This was originally represented by a silver piece only; the coinage of which was authorized by the act of Congress of Aug. 8, 1786. But the coinage was not effected until after the passage of the act of April 2, 1792, establishing a mint.”
Bouvier’s, p. 496

That act was passed after the Constitution was in force and effect and is 1 U.S. Statute at Large, 246 which states; ” that there shall be from time to time struck and coined at the said mint, coins of gold, silver, copper of the following denominations, values and descriptions…” DOLLARS or UNITS—each to be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current, and to contain three hundred and seventy one grains and four sixteenth parts of a grain of pure, or four hundred and sixteen grains of standard silver.”

” That the money of account of the United States shall be expressed in dollars or units…and that all accounts in the public offices and all proceedings in the courts of the United States shall be kept and had in conformity to this regulation.” ALL DOLLARS are specific ” UNITS” of gold and silver coins having a fixed “value” based upon their weight content of gold and/or silver in grains and are ” lawful money” of the United States. This is further substantiated by the United States Code which states; ” Lawful money shall be construed to mean gold or silver coin of the United States. U.S.C.A., title 12, Section 152

The ” DOLLAR” means lawful money of the United States. 103 U.S. 792.

Lawful money of the United States is quite a different thing from legal tender or other lawful currency for the United States. Federal Reserve Debt Notes are a legal tender for but not of the United States. It can be said that all DOLLARS are legal tender, but not all legal tender is DOLLARS, Federal Reserve Debt Notes cannot be, nor ever have been ” Lawful Money” of the United States.

Federal Reserve Debt Notes and other forms of lawful money are not the topic of my blog, but it should suffice to say that anything could serve as a currency for the United States ( such as Federal Reserve Negotiable Debt Notes) but there is only one form of ” lawful money of the United States” and that is the DOLLAR, expressed in a unit of weight in grains of gold and silver contained in coin. Since Federal Reserve Debt Notes are not gold and silver coins, have no fixed value, and are not even redeemable in silver or gold dollars, Federal Reserve Debt Notes are not dollars or even evidence of dollars.

The so called modern Federal Negotiable Reserve Debt Note is quite different from the one mentioned in the beginning of the blog, as current Federal Reserve Debt Notes only state; “This note is legal tender for all debts public and private” ( there is not even a period after this statement, proving the statement is not complete.) There is no mention of the note being redeemable in ” lawful money” at the United States Treasury or at the Federal Reserve Bank” and it makes no promise to “PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND” DOLLARS in the amount printed on its face.

There is a vast difference between the two notes as one is redeemable in something of value ( lawful money) and the other is redeemable in nothing except more Federal Reserve Debt Notes. Therefore, Federal Reserve Debt Notes have no value except what they may bring in the market place from day to day.

Are you ready for the next financial collapse America will suffer ? The Big one, The final crash is forthcoming. Are you ready to lose your Nation, your home, the fake banker is coming to collect his 20 Trillion owed, thanks to your double speaking mis-leaders and their web of deception. The Federal Reserve Negotiable Debt Note is worthless which is why it has been in slow motion hyper-inflation as was the plan so many years ago. It takes a wheel barrel full of these debt instruments just to eat these days..

By the way when the owners of the Nation/States and banks are making trades they trade in real wealth. Real commodities, land, resources, slaves that use their Monopoly Negotiable Debt Instruments. Resources can be in the ground yet verified to be in that spot, thus a natural bank holding the asset for trading.. Oil, gas, precious metals, water.. Vast plots of growing food.. The debt against their Negotiable Debt Instrument Economy is a weapon helpful in their population reduction aspect of human resources management..

The human resources slave classes are being over charged for everything, land, housing, food, transportation.. To make things worse human resources ownership of any property is an illusion.. When you know who owns the Allodial Title to this continent you then know who owns everything because you dear human resource even if your are Mortmain mortgage free must pay annually just to keep hold of your land and house..

The Bankers; Of course the bankers have a boss.. But that fact is to upsetting..

A DEN OF THIEVES, IMPOSTORS ALL AND THE FECKLESS

https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/a-den-of-thieves-impostors-all-and-the-feckless/
“The kaleidoscope of fabricated diversions, distractions and varied agendas together with the propensity of people to sow complexity and confusion of their own making, facilitates the Impostor with orchestrating misdirection, away from the real issue of freewill and ‘the true economy of man’, to a meaningless dependency on the Impostor to provide a palliative as well as true sustenance for the problems created by ‘the imposed lie of economy’. To be sure, all hell would have to freeze-over in the wait for that to happen.”—There Is No Debt

The “Quiet War” Against Humanity
http://henrymakow.com/000504.html

The Only True and Accurate Description of Economy

TERRORISM AND THE ILLUMINATE –
A THREE THOUSAND YEAR HISTORY (PDF)

http://www.lovethetruth.com/books/terrorism_illuminati.pdf

Banks Controlled Independent Reviews
(Note.- Remember, you fund or work for your loaned thing as your own investor.)
http://livinglies.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/banks-controlled-independent-reviews/

The Same Corporate Entity has management of a very impressive and lucrative business. That has insured their ownership of the Earth and everything in it and on it..

Afghanistan: Bank of Afghanistan
Albania: Bank of Albania
Algeria: Bank of Algeria
Argentina: Central Bank of Argentina
Armenia: Central Bank of Armenia
Aruba: Central Bank of Aruba
Australia: Reserve Bank of Australia
Austria: Austrian National Bank
Azerbaijan: Central Bank of Azerbaijan Republic
Bahamas: Central Bank of The Bahamas
Bahrain: Central Bank of Bahrain
Bangladesh: Bangladesh Bank
Barbados: Central Bank of Barbados
Belarus: National Bank of the Republic of Belarus
Belgium: National Bank of Belgium
Belize: Central Bank of Belize
Benin: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Bermuda: Bermuda Monetary Authority
Bhutan: Royal Monetary Authority of Bhutan
Bolivia: Central Bank of Bolivia
Bosnia: Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana: Bank of Botswana
Brazil: Central Bank of Brazil
Bulgaria: Bulgarian National Bank
Burkina Faso: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Burundi: Bank of the Republic of Burundi
Cambodia: National Bank of Cambodia
Came Roon: Bank of Central African States
Canada: Bank of Canada – Banque du Canada
Cayman Islands: Cayman Islands Monetary Authority
Central African Republic: Bank of Central African States
Chad: Bank of Central African States
Chile: Central Bank of Chile
China: The People’s Bank of China
Colombia: Bank of the Republic
Comoros: Central Bank of Comoros
Congo: Bank of Central African States
Costa Rica: Central Bank of Costa Rica
Côte d’Ivoire: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Croatia: Croatian National Bank
Cuba: Central Bank of Cuba
Cyprus: Central Bank of Cyprus
Czech Republic: Czech National Bank
Denmark: National Bank of Denmark
Dominican Republic: Central Bank of the Dominican Republic
East Caribbean area: Eastern Caribbean Central Bank
Ecuador: Central Bank of Ecuador
Egypt: Central Bank of Egypt
El Salvador: Central Reserve Bank of El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea: Bank of Central African States
Estonia: Bank of Estonia
Ethiopia: National Bank of Ethiopia
European Union: European Central Bank
Fiji: Reserve Bank of Fiji
Finland: Bank of Finland
France: Bank of France
Gabon: Bank of Central African States
The Gambia: Central Bank of The Gambia
Georgia: National Bank of Georgia
Germany: Deutsche Bundesbank
Ghana: Bank of Ghana
Greece: Bank of Greece
Guatemala: Bank of Guatemala
Guinea Bissau: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Guyana: Bank of Guyana
Haiti: Central Bank of Haiti
Honduras: Central Bank of Honduras
Hong Kong: Hong Kong Monetary Authority
Hungary: Magyar Nemzeti Bank
Iceland: Central Bank of Iceland
India: Reserve Bank of India
Indonesia: Bank Indonesia
Iran: The Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Iraq: Central Bank of Iraq
Ireland: Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland
Israel: Bank of Israel
Italy: Bank of Italy
Jamaica: Bank of Jamaica
Japan: Bank of Japan
Jordan: Central Bank of Jordan
Kazakhstan: National Bank of Kazakhstan
Kenya: Central Bank of Kenya
Korea: Bank of Korea
Kuwait: Central Bank of Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan: National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic
Latvia: Bank of Latvia
Lebanon: Central Bank of Lebanon
Lesotho: Central Bank of Lesotho
Libya: Central Bank of Libya (Their most recent conquest)
Uruguay: Central Bank of Uruguay
Lithuania: Bank of Lithuania
Luxembourg: Central Bank of Luxembourg
Macao: Monetary Authority of Macao
Macedonia: National Bank of the Republic of Macedonia
Madagascar: Central Bank of Madagascar
Malawi: Reserve Bank of Malawi
Malaysia: Central Bank of Malaysia
Mali: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Malta: Central Bank of Malta
Mauritius: Bank of Mauritius
Mexico: Bank of Mexico
Moldova: National Bank of Moldova
Mongolia: Bank of Mongolia
Montenegro: Central Bank of Montenegro
Morocco: Bank of Morocco
Mozambique: Bank of Mozambique
Namibia: Bank of Namibia
Nepal: Central Bank of Nepal
Netherlands: Netherlands Bank
Netherlands Antilles: Bank of the Netherlands Antilles
New Zealand: Reserve Bank of New Zealand
Nicaragua: Central Bank of Nicaragua
Niger: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Nigeria: Central Bank of Nigeria
Norway: Central Bank of Norway
Oman: Central Bank of Oman
Pakistan: State Bank of Pakistan
Papua New Guinea: Bank of Papua New Guinea
Paraguay: Central Bank of Paraguay
Peru: Central Reserve Bank of Peru
Philip Pines: Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
Poland: National Bank of Poland
Portugal: Bank of Portugal
Qatar: Qatar Central Bank
Romania: National Bank of Romania
Russia: Central Bank of Russia
Rwanda: National Bank of Rwanda
San Marino: Central Bank of the Republic of San Marino
Samoa: Central Bank of Samoa
Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency
Senegal: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Serbia: National Bank of Serbia
Seychelles: Central Bank of Seychelles
Sierra Leone: Bank of Sierra Leone
Singapore: Monetary Authority of Singapore
Slovakia: National Bank of Slovakia
Slovenia: Bank of Slovenia
Solomon Islands: Central Bank of Solomon Islands
South Africa: South African Reserve Bank
Spain: Bank of Spain
Sri Lanka: Central Bank of Sri Lanka
Sudan: Bank of Sudan
Surinam: Central Bank of Suriname
Swaziland: The Central Bank of Swaziland
Sweden: Sveriges Riksbank
Switzerland: Swiss National Bank
Tajikistan: National Bank of Tajikistan
Tanzania: Bank of Tanzania
Thailand: Bank of Thailand
Togo: Central Bank of West African States (BCEAO)
Tonga: National Reserve Bank of Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago: Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia: Central Bank of Tunisia
Turkey: Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
Uganda: Bank of Uganda
Ukraine: National Bank of Ukraine
United Arab Emirates: Central Bank of United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom: Bank of England
United States: Federal Reserve, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
Vanuatu: Reserve Bank of Vanuatu
Venezuela: Central Bank of Venezuela
Vietnam: The State Bank of Vietnam
Yemen: Central Bank of Yemen
Zambia: Bank of Zambia
Zimbabwe: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe

Go count up your assets dear human resource PERSON… The Bankers definition of YOU of course.. Thats what you do if you steal intellectual property belonging to another.. Who called You man..

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.

Books

May 9, 2017

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