Archive for the ‘Legal versus Lawful’ Category

A Paradox For Any Court

June 26, 2017

A paradox for any court.


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.”


“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.”


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?


Patronymic Paralogy

May 16, 2017

Patronymic Paralogy
Your Name Under Their Law – 137 pages

The United States Citizen General immunities pertaining to prosecutors, judges and government agents
Prosecutor may violate civil rights
in initiating prosecution and presenting case.
– United States Supreme Court in
Imbler v. Pachtman
424 U.S.
409 (1976)
Immunity extends to all activities closely associated with litigation or potential
– Second Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Davis v. Grusemever, 996 F.2d 617
Prosecutor may knowingly use false testimony and suppress evidence. – United
States Supreme Court in
Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976)
Prosecutor may file charges without any investigation.
– Eighth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Myers v. Morris, 810 F.2d 1337 (1986)
Prosecutor may file charges outside of his jurisdiction.
– Eighth Circuit Federal Court of appeal in
Myers v. Morris, 840 F.2d 1337 (1986)
Prosecutor may knowingly offer perjured testimony.
– Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in
Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 1310
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)

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)
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.

Sovereigns Rights Superior Over Citizens

May 9, 2017

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

§ 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

Resources List

May 4, 2017

{This List Is Only around 35% completed}

A resources list
As usual someone with no understanding of true history and unfolding historical events is attacking myself, basically claiming I’m sick in the head, and probably should be in a straight jacket and thrown into a padded cell. I own most of these books and documents on this list. This list by no means exhausts the evidence that supports my arguments. I have more, a lot more.

History is what it is.

Of course one huge stumbling block is the legal/lawful terminology definitions of this evidence, those of us with years of study in this arena comprehend this legal/lawful language. It’s simple, if you must hire a lawyer to explain these terms to you, or perform some legal maneuver for you, this proves you are incompetent in this area. As I would be incompetent in the area of your expertise, whatever that may be.

So in a court of law, if you insist on proving my lunacy you’re going to need a lot of proof. The court of public opinion is your rumor mill. You’d best get to it, or get off my case.

Online books exposing the Jesuits and Papacy; The list is over 100,000 characters. If we were in a court trial your little opinion of my incredibility would be destroyed.

~100 AD:
Dead Sea scrolls (This comprises roughly 900 documents, including texts from the Hebrew Bible)

See also: “Digitising the Dead Sea Scrolls ( “, John Marco Allegro’s: “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Crisis of Christianity ( “, “The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross ( ”

The Institutes of the Christian Religion ( [1] ( , Jean Calvin (1509-1564)
See also: Jean Calvin
Tracts relating to the Reformation ( (vol.1, published in 1844), Jean Calvin (1509-1564)
See also: Jean Calvin, Council of Trent, “History of the Council of Trent ( ” by Félix Bungener
Foxe’s Book of Martyrs ( , John Foxe (1517-1587), (wikipedia article)
(translation from Greek and Hebrew texts): King James Bible ( , John Wycliffe (1320–1384) and William Tyndale (c.1494–1536), (note: both men were executed for having translated the bible into common English), (wikipedia article)
See also: Blue Letter Bible ( , KJB with parallel text browser ( , Latin Vulgate – the Roman Catholic bible version.
This book was discovered somewhere between 1618-1648:
Secret Instructions of the Jesuits ( ([2] ( , [3] ( , [4] ( ), unknown Jesuit authors. (to research: are there multiple versions? W. C. Brownlee, …)
Note: This book was first discovered during the first 30 Years’ War (1618-1648) when the Duke of Brunswick plundered the Jesuit’s college at Paderborn in Westphalia and made a present of their library to the Capuchins of the same town. Soon after reprints and translations appeared all over Europe.
See also: George Bourne
Provincial Letters: Moral Teachings of the Jesuit Fathers Opposed to the Church of Rome and Latin Vulgate ( [5] ( , Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), (“Lettres provinciales”, 18 letters written under pseudonym, translated by Thomas M’Crie, published in 1892), wikipedia article
See also: Antoine Arnauld, Casuistry, Catholic article on Blaise Pascal (
“But, be it rare or not, and let it be granted that (red.: Jesuit Father) Layman follows in this the example of Navarre, a circumstance on which you lay so much stress, is it not shameful that he should consent to such an opinion as that, to preserve a false honour, it is lawful in conscience to accept of a challenge, in the face of the edicts of all Christian states, and of all the canons of the Church, while in support of these diabolical maxims you can produce neither laws, nor canons, nor authorities from Scripture, or from the fathers, nor the example of a single saint, nor, in short, anything but the following impious synogism: “Honour is more than life; it is allowable to kill in defence of life; therefore it is allowable to kill in defence of honour!” What, fathers!” … ” What a subversion of all principle is here, fathers! And who does not see to what atrocious excesses it may lead? It is obvious, indeed, that it will ultimately lead to the commission of murder for the most trifling things imaginable, when one’s honour is considered to be staked for their preservation- murder, I venture to say, even for an apple! You might complain of me, fathers, for drawing sanguinary inferences from your doctrine with a malicious intent” … “For, after due representations had been made to them of the penalties they would draw upon themselves by their refusal to sign the Constitution, and the scandal it might cause in the Church, their reply was …..” (Letter XIV ( )
Jesuit Juggling: Forty Popish Frauds Detected and Disclosed ( , Richard Baxter (1615-1691)
“The more cause have all Christian princes and states to be vigilant against those incendiaries: because they trust to war and violence, and build their kingdom on it, and therefore study it day and night. Because they have Jesuits all abroad continually upon the design: whose contrivances and endeavors are day and night to bring nations to their will, and to kindle divisions and wars among them to attain their ends.” (p.310)
Martyrs Mirror ( , Thieleman J. van Braght, (wikipedia article)
Second Treatise of Government ( , John Locke (1632-1704), (wikipedia article)
Discourses Concerning Government ( , Algernon Sidney (1623– 1683)
A Vindication of Natural Society ( , Edmund Burke (1729–1797), (wikipedia article)
Candide, ou l’Optimisme ( [6] ( , Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet) (1694–1778), (wikipedia article)
“A Jesuit! a Jesuit! we shall be revenged; we shall have excellent cheer; let us eat this Jesuit; let us eat him up.” (ch.16)
The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 ( , (wikipedia article)
“signed on September 3 1783, and ratified by the Congress of the Confederation on January 14, 1784, formally ended the American Revolutionary War between the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America that had rebelled against their rule starting in 1775.”
See also: [7] ( , [8] ( , [9] (
Reflections on the Revolution in France ( , Edmund Burke (1729–1797), (wikipedia article)
Proofs of a Conspiracy Against All the Religions and Governments of Europe ( , John Robison (1739–1805)
Cobbett’s Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes ( , William Cobbett (1762-1835), David Jardine, Thomas Jones Howell (his father was Thomas Bayly Howell)
The Protestant Reformation in England ( , William Cobbett
A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland ( , William Cobbett (516 pages)
A History of the Protestant Reformation in England and Ireland ( , William Cobbett (270 pages)
Foreign Conspiracy against the Liberties of the United States (,1853-With-Addendums.pdf) ([10] ( , [11] ( , [12] ( ), Samuel Finley Breese Morse (1791-1872)
“Will it be said, that however officious in the old countries, yet here, by some strange metamorphosis, Popery has changed its character, and is modified by our institutions ; that here it is surely religious, seeking only the religious welfare of the people, that it does not meddle with the state? It is not true that Popery meddles not with the politics of the country. The cloven foot has already shown itself. Popery is organized at the elections!”
“The conspirators against our liberties who have been admitted from abroad through the liberality of our institutions, are now organized in every part of the country”
“The recklessness and unprincipled character of too many of our politicians give a great advantage to these conspirators.’ There is a set of men in the country who will have power and office, cost what they may ; men who, without a particle of true patriotism, will yet ring the changes on the glory and honor of their country, talk loud of liberty, flatter the lowest prejudices, and fawn upon the powerful and the influential ; men who study politics only, that they may balance the chances of their own success in falling in with, or opposing, this or that fluctuating interest, without caring whether that interest tends to the security or the downfall of their country s institutions.”
“The political character of this ostensibly religious enterprise proved from the letters of the Jesuits now in this country. Their antipathy to private judgment. Their anticipations of a change of our form of government Our government declared top free for the exercise of their divine rights.”
Imminent Dangers to the Free Institutions of the United States Through Foreign Immigration and the Present State of the Naturalization Laws ( , Samuel Finley Breese Morse (1791-1872)
“Returning to New York at the end of his grand tour of Italy in 1830 and 1831, Samuel F.B. Morse hurried into print to warn his countrymen of the insidious Papal designs on the United States. His essays were later published in two volumes: Foreign Conspiracy Against the Liberties of the United States and Imminent Dangers to the Free Institutions of the United Stales through Foreign Immigration. European despots, he told his thousands of readers, were trembling lest the democratic institutions of America inspire revolts on the part of their own peoples. These institutions could not be overthrown by arms, for the United States was too powerful; hence monarchs had allied with the Catholic Church, which Morse considered a giant religious despotism, to dispatch its servile minions across the Atlantic, disguised as immigrants, until they were numerous enough to seize control. “You,” he thundered to his fellow Americans, “are marked for their prey, not by foreign bayonets, but by weapons surer of effecting the conquest of liberty than all the munitions of physical combat in the military or naval storehouses of Europe.” Only by closing the gates to those immigrants, Morse believed, could America be saved.” [13] (
Samuel F. B. Morse, His Letters and Journals: volume 1 ( , volume 2 ( (published in 1914?), Samuel Finley Breese Morse (1791-1872)
“The course of some of our journals on the subject of Popery has led to the belief that they are covertly under the control of the Jesuits. And let me say, sir, that the modes of control in the resources of this insidious society, notorious for its political arts and intrigues, are more numerous, more powerful, and more various than an unsuspicious people are at all conscious of…. “Mr. Y. falls into the common error and deprecates what he calls _religious_ controversy, as if the subject of Popery was altogether religious. History, it appears to me, must have been read to very little purpose by any one who can entertain such an error in regard to the cunningest political despotism that ever cursed mankind.” (volume 2, chapter XXII: 1833-1836)
A text-book of Popery: comprising a brief history of the Council of Trent, and a complete view of Roman Catholic theology ( (earlier version ( ), John Mockett Cramp (1796-1881)
The Principles of the Jesuits ( , Henry Handley Norris ( (1771–1850)
Is it Mary or Lady of the Jesuits? ( , Justin Dewey Fulton ( (1828-1901)
(to find) Subterranean Rome (translated from French, and quotes the Jesuit Extreme Oath of Induction ( ), Charles Didier
The History of Romanism: from the Earliest Corruptions of Christianity to the Present Time ( [14] ( , John Dowling (1807-1878)
The Wandering Jew ( , Eugène Sue (1804-1857)
See also: Wandering Jew
“Martin: Astor, Guggenheim, and Straus were three Jewish men who went down with the Titanic. Why do you focus so much of your attention on Astor? Phelps: John Jacob Astor was the wealthiest Jew in the world, some say the wealthiest man in the world. But he was, most definitely, the wealthiest Jew. He did not have more money than the Pope. But he was the wealthiest man in the world and he was using his wealth NOT in accord with the Jesuit Order. Now, later, his son, John Jacob Astor IV, became part of the money trust, which can be found on the Internet; and so the Jesuits had access, now, to the Astor fortune. They control it now. But, at that time, they got rid of Astor because they wanted his fortune, and they wanted to end his resistance to the establishment of a national bank. And they do this pursuant to The Secret Instructions, that they will take the fortunes of widows and other people who resist them. And that is what they did in Eugene Sue’s The Wandering Jew. That story revolves around a French Protestant family, the Renneponts, and the Jesuits killing-off every member of the Rennepont family, so that they can have the fortune when it would be opened up at a certain day, at a certain time in Paris. And the man who held the fortune in trust was a Jew. So, that’s why they got rid of Astor.” Eric Jon Phelps interview (;read=15642)
A Popular History of Priestcraft in All Ages and Nations ( , William Howitt (1792-1879)
Letters on the Masonic Institution ( , John Quincy Adams (1767-1828)
See also: Anti-Masonic Party, History of Freemasonry, “Files about Freemasonry ( ”
“That so many men, at so many separate points, should have acted in perfect concert in such business as they were engaged in, would scarcely be believed, without compelling the inference of some distinct understanding existing between them. That they should have carried into effect the most difficult part of their undertaking, a scheme of the most daring and criminal nature, in the midst of a large, intelligent and active population, without thereby incurring the risk of a full conviction of their guilt and the consequent punishment, would be equally incredible, but for the light furnished by the phraseology of the Masonic oath. Upon the first hasty and superficial glance, a feeling might arise of surprise that the frivolity of its unmeaning ceremonial, and ridiculous substitution of its fictions for the sacred history, should not long ago discredited the thing in the minds of good and sensible men everywhere. Yet upon closer and more attentive examination, this first feeling vanishes, and makes way for astonishment at the ingenious contrivance displayed in the construction of the whole machine. A more perfect agent for the devising and execution of conspiracies against the church or state could scarcely have been conceived.” (p.8)
History of the Jesuits ( , 3 Volumes, Andrew Steinmetz
The Jesuit Conspiracy: The Secret Plan of the Order (,%20by%20Abbate%20M.%20Leone.pdf) [15] ( , Abbate M. Leone
The Genuine Works of Hippocrates ( , Hippocrates (~460 BC – ~370 BC) (“Father of Western Medicine”), (translated by Francis Adams)
See also: Hippocratic Oath, Vitalism, Qi, Prana, “The Medical Conspiracy ( ” by Bill Schnoebelen (105 MB mp3 file), “Major Figures in the History of Medicine ( ”
The Dealings of God, Man, and the Devil ( (“As Exemplified in the Life, Experience, and Travels of Lorenzo Dow , in a Period of over Half a Century, Together with His Polemic and Miscellaneous Writings, Complete. To Which is Added The Vicissitudes of Life, By Peggy Dow – with an Introductory Essay by the Rev. John Dowling.”), Lorenzo Dow (1777–1834)
“The Jesuits govern the Roman church, and turning the office of the pope, and the power of Icings to further their ambitious views, to gain ascendency and govern the world!” (p.147)
“For the Holy Alliance are bent to destroy Representative Government from the world ; and the order of Jesuits to have but one Religion, as exemplified in their late production in favor of the Inquisition recently published in Boston. And these two powers have entered into a conspiracy against the Liberties of mankind throughout the world, which has been brewing and ripening for execution for about seventeen years—and exhibits a reason why the Kings of England and France have disappointed the people and betrayed their trust, by leaning towards the principles of the Un-Holy-Alliance.” (p.155)
“The whole world is divided into districts, which are lots, each agent having his field for research, and then communicate his information to Rome, according to the science of System of JESUITICAL economy” (p.155)
Dealings with the Inquisition, or, Papal Rome, Her Priests, and her Jesuits, with Important Disclosures ( , Giacinto Achilli (~1803-?)
Americans Warned of Jesuitism, or The Jesuits Unveiled ( [16] (;idno=AJH2497) , John Claudius Pitrat
The Jesuits, An Historical Sketch (,+An+Historical+Sketch) , Edward William Grinfield
The Works of Thomas Paine ( [17] ( , (this includes: “The Origins of Freemasonry”) Thomas Paine
History of the Jesuits: Their Origin, Progress, Doctrines and Designs ( [18] ( , Giovanni Battista Nicolini
Wide-awake! Romanism: its aims and tendencies ( , L. W. Granger
Popery in its social aspect ( , R. P. Blakeney, D.D., LL.D
The rise of the Dutch republic: A history ( , John Lothrop Motley (1814-1877)
The Crisis; or the Enemies of America Unmasked (,%20by%20J.%20Wayne%20Laurens.pdf) , J. Wayne Laurens
The two Babylons, or, The papal worship proved to be the worship of Nimrod and his wife ( [19] ( , Alexander Hislop (1807-1865), (wikipedia article)
On Liberty ( , John Stuart Mill (wikipedia article)
See also: Harm principle
The history of slavery and the slave trade, ancient and modern ( , William O. Blake
History of the Waldenses ( , James Aitken Wylie (1808-1890)
See also: Waldensians
Rome and civil liberty: or, The papal aggression in its relation to the sovereignty of the Queen and the independence of the nation ( , James Aitken Wylie (1808-1890)
The Pope and the Council ( , Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger (1799-1890)
The Papal System: From its origin to the present time, William Cathcart ( (1826-1881)
See also: 1850: The History of the Papal States: From Their Origin to the Present Day ( , John Miley (any relation to the book above?)
Manual of Romish Controversy ( (correct date?), R. P. Blakeney, D.D., LL.D
The Papacy and Civil Power ( , R.W. Thompson
(to find) The rise, progress, and insidious workings of Jesuitism ( , James Aitken Wylie (1808-1890)
“To what country of Europe shall we turn where we are not able to track the Jesuit by his bloody footprints? … How many assassins they sent to England to murder Elizabeth history attests. … Nor is it only the palaces of monarchs into which they have crept with their doctrines of murder and assassination; the very sanctuary of their own Popes they have defiled with blood. […] In the Gunpowder Plot we see them deliberately planning to destroy, at one blow, the nobility and gentry of England. To them we owe those civil wars which for so many years drenched with blood the fair provinces of France. They laid the train of that crowning horror, the St. Bartholomew massacre. Philip II and the Jesuits share between them the guilt of the Invincible Armada …. What a harvest of plots, tumults, seditions, revolutions, torturings, poisonings, assassinations, regicides and massacres, has Christendom reaped from the seed sown by the Jesuits!” [20] (
The Jews of Spain and Portugal and the Inquisition ( , Frederic David Mocatta (1828-1905)
The History of Protestantism ( [21] ( (24 books in 3 volumes), James Aitken Wylie (1808-1890)
See also: History of Protestantism
The Grand Inquisitor ( , Fyodor Dostoyevsky (1821-1881), (wikipedia article, and part of The Brothers Karamazov)
The Doctrine of the Jesuits ( , Paul Bert (1833-1886)
The Engineer Corps of Hell; or Romes Sappers and Miners ( (this includes “Tactics of the Militia of the Pope or the Secret Manual of the Jesuits”), Edwin A. Sherman
Fifty years in the Church of Rome ( [22] ( , Charles Chiniquy (1809-1899)
A history of the Inquisition of the Middle Ages ( (3 volumes), Henry Charles Lea (1825-1909)
A short history of the English people ( (3/4 volumes), John Richard Green (1837-1883), (note: the author’s background and objectivity is highly dubious!)
The Master’s Carpet, or, Masonry and Baal-worship identical ( , Edmund Ronayne (1832-?)
Washington in the lap of Rome ( , Justin Dewey Fulton ( (1828-1901)
The Great Controversy ( , Ellen Gould White (1827–1915, warning: her masonic word choices ( ), wikipedia article
Life inside the church of Rome ( , Mary Frances Cusack
The Footprints of the Jesuits (,%20by%20Richard%20Wigginton%20Thompson.pdf) , by Richard Wigginton Thompson ( (1809-1900)
Black Pope a History of the Jesuits (,%20by%20Mary%20Frances%20Cusack.pdf) , Mary Frances Cusack (1829-1899) (“The nun of Kenmare”)
Rome’s Responsibility for the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln ( , Colonel Thomas Maley Harris ( (1817-1906)
Forty years in the church of Christ ( , Charles Chiniquy (1809—1899)
The History of the Jesuits in England, 1580 to 1773 ( , Ethelred Luke Taunton
(to find / scan) Die karikatur der europäischen völker vom altertum bis zur neuzeit ( , Eduard Fuchs ( (1870-1940) (two parts, containing many illustrations)
(to find) Struggles for Catholic Supremary in the Last Years of Queen Elizabeth ( , Martin S. A. Hume
The Programme of the Jesuits ( , William Blair Neatby ( (1864-1938)
The Jesuits, A Complete History of Their Open and Secret Proceedings From the Foundation of the Order to the Presort Time (,%20A%20Complete%20History%20of%20Their%20Open%20and%20Secret%20Proceedings%20From%20the%20Foundation%20of%20the%20Order%20to%20the%20Presort%20Time,%20by%20Theodor%20Griesinger.pdf) , Theodor Griesinger (translated by Andrew James Scott)
The Jesuits in Great Britain, An Historical Inquiry into Their Political Influence ( , Walter Walsh (1857-1931)
Thirty Years in Hell: From Darkness To Light ( , Bernard Fresenborg (ex-priest)
A history of the gunpowder plot: the conspiracy and its agents ( , Philip Sidney (1872-1908)
See also: video: “V for the Vatican ( “, Gunpowder Plot, “The Trials of Robert Winter, Thomas Winter, Guy Fawkes, … for High-Treason, being Conspirators in the Gunpowder-Plot ( “, ( (disinfo), V for Vendetta (Comic and Hollywood film)
Popery, Puseyism, Jesuitism (,Puseyism,Jesuitism,by_Luigi_Desanctis.pdf) , Luigi Desanctis (
History of the Inquisition of Spain: Volume I ( , Volume II ( , Volume III ( , Volume IV ( , Henry Charles Lea (1825-1909)
(to find) The Answer of Ernst Haeckel to the Falsehoods of the Jesuits ( (date correct?)
Fourteen Years a Jesuit ( German version ( , 2 Volumes, Count Paul Von Hoensbroech ( (1852-1923)
Slaves of the Godsmith ( , H. George Buss (“The Gadfly”)
A Candid History of the Jesuits ( , Joseph McCabe (1867–1955)
The Jesuit Missions: A chronicle of the cross in the wilderness ( , Thomas Guthrie, 1864-1936
(to find) Uncle Sam or the Pope, Which? ( , Rev. L.L. Pickett ( ,
The Suppressed Truth about the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln ( , Burke McCarty
See also: Abraham Lincoln
Romanism as a World Power (,%20by%20Luther%20S.%20Kauffmann.pdf) , Luther S. Kauffmann
Secret Societies and Subversive Movements ( [23] ( , Nesta H. Webster ( (warning: she’s likely a disinfo agent, since the book clearly promotes the anti-Semitic Vatican-Jesuit agenda, and at times even puts the Jesuit Order in a more positive light. See quotes below.)
See also: book review (
“In all these questions it is necessary to seek a motive. I have no personal interest in defending the Jesuits, but I ask: what motive could the Jesuits have in forming or supporting a conspiracy directed against all thrones and altars? It has been answered me that the Jesuits at this period cared nothing for thrones and altars, but only for temporal power; yet–even accepting this unwarrantable hypothesis–how was this power to be exercised except through thrones and altars? Was it not through princes and the Church that the Jesuits had been able to bring their influence to bear on affairs of state? In an irreligious Republic, as events afterwards proved, the power of the whole clergy was bound to be destroyed. The truth is then, that, far from abetting the Illuminati, the Jesuits were their most formidable opponents, the only body of men sufficiently learned, astute, and well organized to outwit the schemes of Weishaupt. In suppressing the Jesuits it is possible that the Old Régime removed the only barrier capable of resisting the tide of revolution.”
A Vanished Arcadia: being some account of the Jesuits in Paraguay 1607-1767 ( , Cunninghame Graham, Robert Bontine (1852-1936)
Proof of Rome’s Political Meddling in America ( , The Fellowship Forum
Jesuit Enigma ( , Edward John Boyd Barrett (1883-?, ex?-Jesuit)
The Story Of Religious Controversy ( , Joseph McCabe (1867–1955)
Occult Theocracy ( [24] ( , Edith Starr Miller ( “Lady Queenborough” (?-1933), (toresearch: her credibility – see notes below)
Hitler’s Secret Backers ( , (author unkown, see below)
“By Sidney Warburg it is suspect that the author using an alias name might have actually been James Warburg, son of Paul Warburg, founder of the Federal Reserve System and Kuhn Loeb partner. Some believe it could have been Sydney Weinberg of Goldman Sachs, proper age at the time to fit the message boy scenario”.
The Mass Psychology of Fascism ( (“Massenpsychologie des Faschismus”), Wilhelm Reich (1897–1957) (original Marxist edition, banned by the Nazis and the Communists) (Note: Reich’s main accomplishment here is describing parts of the social and psychological process of the spread of “emotional plague”, the mass neurosis – the symptoms of chronic physical obstruction of our biological functioning)
The Revolutionary Movement: A Diagnosis of World Disorders ( , John Findlater (a Scottish Presbyterian scholar)
The Rumbling of the Apocalypse, Avro Manhattan (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
Rome stoops to conquer (*listing*title) , Edward John Boyd Barrett (1883-?, ex?-Jesuit)
“In theory, Catholic Action is the work and service of lay Catholics in the cause of religion, under the guidance of the bishops. In practice it is the Catholic group fighting their way to control America.”, p.15 [25] (
“The effort, the fight, may be drawn out. It may last for five or ten years. Even if it last for twenty – what is twenty years in the life of Rome? The fight must be fought to a finish – opposition must be worn down if it cannot be swept away. Rome’s immortal destiny hangs on the outcome. That destiny overshadows the land. And in the fight, as she has ever fought when battles were most desperate in the past, Rome will use steel, and gold, and silvery lies. Rome will stoop to conquer.” – Id., pp. 266, 267.
War is a Racket ( , Smedley Darlington Butler (1881–1940)
See also: “Banker Coup to Remove FDR in 1933 was a Ruse ( ”
A History of Rome Down to the Reign of Constantine ( , Max Cary, D.Litt. (note: there are multiple later editions)
No Friend of Democracy: A study of Roman Catholic politics, their influence on the course of the present War and the growth of Fascism ( [26] ( , Edith Moore (Preface by Joseph McCabe)
See also: Clerical fascism
The Vatican’s Last Crime: How the Black International Joined the World-Plot Against Freedom, Liberalism, and Democracy ( , Joseph McCabe (1867–1955)
How The Pope Of Peace Traded In Blood: The Red Pope ( , Joseph McCabe
The Pope Helps Hitler to World Power: How the Cross Courted the Swastika for Eight Years ( , Joseph McCabe
The Vatican Buries International Law: How Mussolini And The Yellow Brother Got Their Share ( , Joseph McCabe
Hitler Dupes The Vatican: How The Papacy Was Sold In Austria, And Sold Civilization In Czecho-Slovakia ( , Joseph McCabe
The War And Papal Intrigue: How The New Pope Talked Peace And Worked For War ( , Joseph McCabe
The Pious Traitors Of Belgium And France: How The Preaching Of Peace Fizzled Out, And Why ( , Joseph McCabe
The Pope And The Italian Jackal: How Mussolini’s Invincible Legions Were Blessed ( , Joseph McCabe
Fascist Romanism Defies Civilization: How The Pope Keeps To The Plot While The World Curses It ( , Joseph McCabe
The Totalitarian Church Of Rome: Its Fuehrer, Its Gauleiter, Its Gestapo, And Its Money-box ( , Joseph McCabe
The Tyranny Of The Clerical Gestapo: Catholics The Most Priest-Ridden Of All People ( , Joseph McCabe
Rome Puts A Blight On Culture: The Roman Church, The Poorest In Culture And Richest In Crime ( , Joseph McCabe
The Church The Enemy Of The Workers: Rome Is The Natural Ally Of All Exploiters ( , Joseph McCabe
The Holy Faith Of Romanists: How Catholics Are Hypnotized About Their Weird Creed ( , Joseph McCabe
The Artistic Sterility Of The Church: How The Church Stupefies Folk By Crude Emotionalism ( , Joseph McCabe
The Fruits Of Romanism: The Catholic Church Does Far More Harm Than Good ( , Joseph McCabe
Rome’s Syllabus Of Condemned Opinions: The Last Blast Of The Catholic Church’s Medieval Trumpet ( , Joseph McCabe
The Psychology of Religion ( , Joseph McCabe
Facts of Faith ( , Southern Pub. Association
Undercover – My Four Years in the Nazi Underworld in America (part1 ( , part2 ( ), John Roy Carlson
See also: “The Armenian Displaced Persons: A First Hand Report on Conditions in Europe ( ” by John Roy Carlson
Towards the new Italy, Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years), (Preface by H.G. Wells)
Germany’s Master Plan: The Story Of Industrial Offensive ( , Joseph Borkin and Charles A. Welsh
Facts and Fascism ( [27] ( , George Seldes (1890–1995)
Behind the Dictators: A Factual Analysis of the Relationship of Nazi-Fascism and Roman Catholicism ( , by Leo H. Lehmann
The Empire of “The City” (,1944.pdf) , (revised in 1985), E.C. Knuth
A History of Western Philosophy ( , Bertrand Russell (1872–1970)
“The Jesuits acquired prestige by their missionary zeal, especially in the Far East. They became popular as confessors, because (if Pascal is to be believed) they were more lenient, except towards heresy, than other ecclesiastics. They concentrated on education, and thus acquired a firm hold on the minds of the young.” (p.524)
“The Church in the lifetime of Copernicus was more liberal than it became after the Council of Trent, the Jesuits, and the revived Inquisition had done their work.” (p.526)
Latin America and the Vatican, Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
The Lies and Fallacies of the Encyclopedia Britannica: How powerful and shameless clerical forces castrated a famous work of reference ( , Joseph McCabe (1867–1955)
See also: Encyclopædia Britannica 11th Edition, Encyclopædia Britannica, Standard Oil
(to find) The Secret of Catholic Power, L. H. Lehmann
The Catholic Church Against the Twentieth Century, Avro Manhattan (2nd edition 1950), (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
Democracy and Empire in the Caribbean: A Contemporary Review ( , Paul Beecher Blanshard (1892-1980)
The Vatican in Asia, Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
Religion in Russia, Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
The Vatican in World Politics ( , Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
American Freedom and Catholic Power ( , Paul Beecher Blanshard (1892-1980)
Communism, Democracy, and Catholic Power ( , Paul Beecher Blanshard (1892-1980)
Catholic Imperialism and World Freedom ( , Avro Manhattan (2nd edition 1959), (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
The Devil’s Chemists: 24 Conspirators of the International Farben Cartel Who Manufacture Wars ( , Josiah E. DuBois, Jr. (
Terror Over Yugoslavia, the Threat to Europe, Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace ( , Harry Elmer Barnes (with the collaboration of 8 other people)
The Irish and Catholic Power: An American Interpretation ( , Paul Beecher Blanshard (1892-1980)
The Right to Read: The Battle Against Censorship ( , Paul Beecher Blanshard (1892-1980)
Pawns in the Game ( , William Guy Carr (warning: he’s likely a disinfo agent, since the book promotes the ‘Rothschild-are-the-top-controllers’/anti-Semitic Vatican-Jesuit agenda. Todo: quote passages from the book)
The Dollar and the Vatican, Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
Elisabeth I: Herrin der Meere ( , Mary Lavater-Sloman ( (1891-1980), (German language), ISBN 978-3404610396
See also: Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603) who was excommunicated by Pope Pius V in 1570 [28] (
God and Man in Washington ( , Paul Beecher Blanshard (1892-1980)
Perfidy ( , Ben Hecht (1894–1964), ISBN 0964688638
See also: Masonic Judaism
Genocide in Satellite Croatia 1941- 1945 ( , Edmond Paris
See also: “The Vatican’s Complicity in Genocide in Fascist Croatia ( “, History of Croatia, Independent State of Croatia, Ustaše
The Fall of the House of Habsburg ( , Edward Crankshaw ( (toresearch: his credibility; “Edward Crankshaw was attached to the British military mission to Moscow during World War II and afterwards worked as a journalist and researcher.” [29] ( )
The Cult Of The All-Seeing Eye ( , Robert Keith Spenser.
See also: “The New Cult in Washington ( “, Temple of Understanding, Lucis Trust (formerly the “Lucifer Publishing Company”)
Vatican Imperialism in the Twentieth Century ( , Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
Fabian freeway: High road to socialism in the U.S.A., 1884-1966 ( , Rose Martin, ISBN 9780882792095
See also: Fabian Society. Collectivism
Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time ( , Carroll Quigley (Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor: Georgetown University professor from 1941 to 1976) (long summary ( )
Paul Blanshard on Vatican II ( , Paul Beecher Blanshard (1892-1980)
See also: Vatican II (1965), Vatican I (1868), Council of Trent (1545-1563)
The Vatican Empire ( , Nino Lo Bello (1922-1997)
The Vatican’s wealth ( , Nino Lo Bello (1922-1997)
Vatican, U.S.A. ( , Nino Lo Bello (1922-1997)
Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution ( , Antony C. Sutton
Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler ( , Antony C. Sutton
Unholy Alliance ( , Thomas DeBaggio (published in Penthouse, May 1976)
Crime and Punishment of I.G. Farben ( , Joseph Borkin
Rockefeller Medicine Men: Medicine & Capitalism in America ( , E. Richard Brown (
See also: American Medical Association, Rockefeller Foundation, John D. Rockefeller (1839–1937), Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919), Frederick T. Gates (1853-1929)
The Jesuits, a History ( , David J. Mitchell
Vatican Moscow Alliance, Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
The Anglo-American Establishment, Carroll Quigley, (Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor: Georgetown University professor from 1941 to 1976) (long summary ( )
Ketters. Veertien eeuwen ketterij, volksbeweging en kettergericht ( , Theun de Vries ( (1907-2005), (Dutch language)
Trading with the Enemy: The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949 ( , Charles Higham (1931)
The Secret History of the Jesuits ( , Edmond Paris, ISBN 0937958107
Pontiff ( , Gordon Thomas & Max Morgan Witts
See also: “Jesuit Papal Assassins Unmasked ( “, Pope Paul VI (“Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio”, dies August 6, 1978), Pope John Paul I (Albino Luciani, dies September 28, 1978 after 33-days as Pope), Pope John Paul II (“Karol Józef Wojtyła”) Maria Montini,
The Vatican Billions ( ([30] ( ), Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones ( , Antony C. Sutton
Smokescreens ( , Jack Chick
Vietnam … why did we go? ( (pdf version ( ), Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
Du Pont Dynasty: Behind the Nylon Curtain ( , Gerald Colby (
See also: DuPont
“Barry and the Boys ( “, Daniel Hopsicker ( , ISBN 1893010104
Corporate crime in the pharmaceutical industry (,M1) , John Braithwaite, ISBN 0710200498
The Vatican Jesuit Global Conspiracy ( [31] ( , Ronald Cooke
Murder in the Vatican, American Russian and Papal Plots ( , Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
How the Order Creates War and Revolution ( , Antony C. Sutton
How the Order Controls Education ( , Antony C. Sutton
The Unseen Hand: An Introduction to the Conspiratorial View of History ( , A. Ralph Epperson ( , ISBN 978-0961413507
The Occult Roots of Nazism: Secret Aryan Cults and Their Influence on Nazi Ideology: The Ariosophists of Austria and Germany, 1890-1935 ( , Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (toresearch: his credibility), (wikipedia article)
The Vatican’s Holocaust ( , Avro Manhattan, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
The Best Enemy Money Can Buy ( , Antony C. Sutton
America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones ( , Antony C. Sutton
The Jesuits: The Society of Jesus and the Betrayal of the Roman Catholic Church ( , Malachi Martin (1921–1999)
Understanding the New Age Movement ( , Dave Hunt, ISBN 978-0890816820
Catholic Terror in Ireland ( , Avro Manhattan, ISBN 978-0937958278, (note: he was a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor ( – certainly in his early years)
Murder by Injection: The Medical Conspiracy Against America ( , Eustace Mullins (1923) (to verify: claims that he is an anti-semitic), ISBN 978-0880606943
Behold a Pale Horse ( , Milton William Cooper (Bill Cooper) (1943-2001, murdered)
1688: Revolution in the Family ( , Henri Van Der Zee, Barbara Van Der Zee
See also: Glorious Revolution
The Watchtower & the Masons: A Preliminary Investigation ( , Fritz Springmeier ( (note: very likely unjustly punished with a 9 year jail sentence)
See also: Fritz Springmeier – Writings Index ( , book review ( (exploring the link between Jehovah-founder and Mason Charles T. Russell and Masonry)
New World Order ( , A. Ralph Epperson ( , ISBN 978-0961413514
The Keys of This Blood: The Struggle for World Dominion between Pope John Paul II, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the Capitalist West ( , Malachi Martin (1921–1999)
Be Wise As Serpents – part 1 ( , part 2 ( , part 3 ( , Fritz Springmeier (
See also: Fritz Springmeier – Writings Index (
Unholy Trinity: The Vatican, The Nazis, and The Swiss Banks ( , John Loftus, Mark Aarons, (original title: “How the Vatican’s Nazi Networks Betrayed Western Intelligence to the Soviets”)
The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia. CIA complicity in the global drug trade ( , Alfred W. McCoy
The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican: the Croatian massacre of the Serbs during World War II ( , Vladimir Dedijer (1914-1990)
See also: “How the Vatican collaborated with fascism in Yugoslavia ( “, “The Massacre at Koritska Gorge, Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1941 ( “, “Kosovo Vatican Tyranny: Another nail in the coffin of freedom ( “, “The Vatican’s Complicity in Genocide in Fascist Croatia ( ”
The Story of the Committee of 300 ( , John Coleman (note: the author does not detail the Jesuits, nor many of the organizational details of the Knights of Malta, and is suspected of being a Knight of Malta himself [32] ( )
See also: Targets of the Illuminati ( , Tavistock program (
Magical Child ( , Joseph Chilton Pearce, ISBN 978-0452267893
See also: “Waking Up To The Holographic Heart: Starting Over With Education ( ” (1998 interview), “The Biology of Transcendence: A Blueprint of the Human Spirit ( ”
“Joseph Chilton Pearce: Over the past thirty years I’ve given some 2,500 talks to thousands of people on these issues, and it seems our whole nation’s mental set is too locked into a radical denial over education. I’m pessimistic because of our capacity for denial — what 14th century Spanish Sufi, Iban Arabi, called “our enormous capacity for self-deception” — and our simple desire to maintain things as they are. The other criticism, of course, lies in looking at schooling as a concept. I don’t think it is at all correctable as it is. If we look at any system and find that it has an error within it, we can address the error and consider the possibilities of correction. But, if the entire system from beginning to end is one whole, integrated, total error, then there is nothing that can be done. There is nothing, zero. That, I believe, is the American school situation today. Nothing can be done. Further, the school system produces — as John Gatto claims — exactly what the system needs to keep itself going, and that is uncorrectable. We can’t change institutions. And, we can’t give the public an answer to a question they are not asking. People simply aren’t asking the questions that everyone is rushing around with answers for.”
Mystery Babylon audio series: part 1-25 ( and part 26 – 42 ( , [33] ( , Milton William Cooper (Bill Cooper) (1943-2001, murdered)
See also: Babylon Mystery Religion documents ( , Category:Mystery religions
The Secrets of the Federal Reserve ( , Eustace Mullins (1923) (to verify: claims that he is anti-semitic), ISBN 978-0965649216
The Babylonian Woe: A Study of the Origin of Certain Banking Practices, and of their effect on the events of Ancient History, written in the light of the Present Day ( – David Astle
A Woman Rides The Beast: The Roman Catholic Church and the Last Days ( , Dave Hunt, ISBN 9781565071995
The Secret War Against the Jews: How Western Espionage Betrayed The Jewish People ( , John Loftus, Mark Aarons
Roads to Rome: The Antebellum Protestant Encounter with Catholicism ( , Jenny Franchot (1953-), ISBN 058517654X
A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950, Alfred-Maurice de Zayas
Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA (,M1) , Terry Reed and John Cummings, ISBN 1561712493
Trilaterals Over America ( , Antony C. Sutton
Thy Will Be Done: The Conquest of The Amazon: Nelson Rockefeller And Evangelism In The Age of Oil ( , Gerald Colby ( and Charlotte Dennett
See also: “Oil and Drug Cartel Behind WWII Nuremberg Records Reveal ( “, Nelson Rockefeller (1908-1979)
TRANCE Formation of America: The true life story of a CIA Mind Control Slave ( [34] ( , Cathy O’Brien, Mark Phillips
Angels Don’t Play This Haarp: Advances in Tesla Technology ( [35] ( , Nick Begich ( , Jeane Manning (
Note: Nick Begich father Nick Begich (senior) was possibly murdered.
See also: HAARP
The Illuminati formula used to create an undetectable total mind controlled slave ( [36] ( , Fritz Springmeier ( (note: very likely unjustly punished with a 9 year jail sentence)
See also: Fritz Springmeier – Writings Index (
The Octopus: The Secret Government and Death of Danny Casolaro ( , Kenn Thomas and Jim Keith.
See also: Danny Casolaro (1947–1991, murdered in 1991), The Inslaw affair ( , PROMIS, “The Last circle ( ” by Carol Marshall ( .
Windswept House: a Vatican Novel ( , Malachi Martin (1921–1999)
Deeper Insights Into the Illuminati Formula Used to Create an Undetectable Total Mind-controlled Slave ( , Fritz Springmeier ( (note: very likely unjustly punished with a 9 year jail sentence), Cisco Wheeler (
See also: Fritz Springmeier – Writings Index (
Switzerland, the Gold, and the Dead ( , Jean Ziegler (1934) (toresearch: his credibility, see also the note below)
See also: Maurice Bavaud (to which the book is dedicated)
tofind: the locked-up whistleblower who had Nazi-Swiss transaction evidence
“To safeguard the important work of the great majority of UN independent human rights experts, known as the Special Procedures, UN Watch leads a diverse NGO coalition that has exposed the systematic abuse of mandate by Jean Ziegler, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food. Although he continues to deny it, Mr. Ziegler is the 1989 co-founder of the Moammar Khaddafi Prize for Human Rights—an award he went on to win himself in 2002.” [37] (
The Jesuits in North America in the Seventeenth Century ( , Francis Parkman
The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Crisis of Christianity ( ([38] ( , [39] ( ), Navaratna Srinivasa Rajaram (1943-)
Blood Lines of the Illuminati ( [40] ( , Fritz Springmeier (note: very likely unjustly punished with a 9 year jail sentence) and Cisco Wheeler (
Video: Top 13 Illuminati Bloodlines (
See also: Fritz Springmeier – Writings Index (
Occult Ether Physics: Tesla’s Hidden Space Propulsion System and the Conspiracy to Conceal It ( , William R. Lyne (
Occult Invasion ( , Dave Hunt, ISBN 978-1565072695
HAARP (,M1) , Jerry E. Smith, ISBN 0932813534
The Creature from Jekyll Island: A Second Look at the Federal Reserve ( , G. Edward Griffin (1931, Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor – see below), ISBN 978-0912986210
Note that the objectivity of G.E. Griffin is highly doubted: “I am convinced that Griffin is a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor. He is featured in Jewish Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Aron Russo’s video, America: From Freedom to Fascism. Griffin never says one word about the Vatican, Knights of Malta, the Jesuits, or Opus Dei. He blames everything on the Masons and the CFR, as do all good Jesuit shills.” – Eric Jon Phelps (
See also: “A Talk by Edward Griffin ( “, book review (
The Popes of Rome ( , Ronald Cooke
Mystery Confusion ( , Ronald Cooke
Pentagon Aliens ( (3rd edition), William R. Lyne (
See also: synopsis of facts ( (from the book), “ET’s and Ancient Astronauts are Illuminati Propaganda ( “, Ufology
Secret Societies / New World Order ( (correct date?), Milton William Cooper (Bill Cooper) (1943-2001, murdered)
See also: “The Secret Government: The Origin, Identity, and Purpose of MJ-12 ( “, The BATF/IRS Criminal Fraud Case (
Jesus Was Caesar: On the Julian Origin of Christianity: An Investigative Report ( (English translation of “War Jesus Caesar?”), Francesco Carotta (1946), ISBN 978-9059113961
See also: ( , “The Passion of Caesar ( ” (dutch title: “Evangelie van Caesar”) (film by Jan van Friesland), “Jezus Christus = Julius Caesar? ( ” (dutch), Julius Caesar
Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion ( , Gary Webb (1955-2004, suspicious ‘suicide’ death), ISBN 978-1888363937
See also: “CIA and Contra’s cocaine trafficking in the US”, CIA drug trafficking, War on Drugs
Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII ( , John Cornwell, wikipedia article, (note: the author’s objectivity is highly dubious!)
See also: book reviews (
Debacle in Yugoslavia: Another Study on Mystery Babylon-Mystery Confusion ( , Ronald Cooke
Who Murdered Yitzhak Rabin? ( , Barry Chamish
See also: Barry Chamish video’s ( , Kempler video, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres
Jesuit Vatican Tyranny ( (document), Daniel Cremeans
Rulers Of Evil: Useful Knowledge about Governing Bodies ( , Tupper Saussy (1936-2007) (to research: the suspicious book support from known disinfo agents Maxwell and Eustice Mullins ( )
See also: “Finding the Lost ( “, Charles Thomson, United States Capitol, National Mall, Rome’s Capitoline Hill, Holy See, Vatican City, flickr-images: Vatican (
Hidden from History: The Canadian Holocaust ( , Kevin Annett (1956), (wikipedia article)
See also: ( , ( , Unrepentant: Kevin Annett and Canada’s Genocide ( (video), ArcticBeacon interview 2007-10-11 ( (audio), Canadian residential school system, Canadian Indian Tribes ( , “As Long as the Sun Shines and Water Flows ( ”
“The Canadian residential school system consisted of a number of schools for Aboriginal children, operated during the 19th and 20th century by churches of various denominations (about sixty per cent by Roman Catholics, and thirty per cent by the the United Church of Canada (and its pre-1925 predecessors, Presbyterian, Congregationalist and Methodist churches) and the Anglican Church of Canada) and funded under the Indian Act by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, a branch of the federal government.” [41] (
“The foundational purpose behind the more than one hundred Indian residential schools established in Canada by government legislation and administered by Protestant and Catholic churches was the deliberate and persistent eradication of aboriginal people and their culture, and the conversion of any surviving native people to Christianity. … This genocidal intent was restated time and again in government legislation, church statements, and the correspondence and records of missionaries, Indian agents and residential school officials. (see Documentation section) It was, indeed, the very raison d’etre of the state-sanctioned Christian invasion of traditional native territories, and of the residential school system itself, which was established at the height of European expansionism, in the 1880’s, and persisted until 1984. By definition, this aim was genocidal, for it planned and carried out the destruction of a religious and ethnic group: all those aboriginal people who would not convert to Christianity and be culturally extinguished. … As well, such “pagans” were the subject of government-funded sterilization programs administered at church-run hospitals and tuberculosis sanatoriums on Canada’s west coast.” (p.12)
“A majority of the witnesses who have shared their story with the authors, and at public Tribunals on the west coast, have described either seeing a murder or discovering a body at the residential school he or she attended. The body count, even according to the government’s own figures, was enormously high. Where, then, are all these bodies? The deaths of thousands of students are not recorded in any of the school records, Indian Affairs files or other documentation submitted thus far in court cases or academic publications on the residential schools. Some 50,000 corpses have literally and officially gone missing. … To have done this, the residential school system had to not only hide the evidence of murder but the bodies as well. The presence of secret gravesites of children killed at Catholic and Protestant schools in Sardis, Port Alberni, Kuper Island and Alert Bay has been attested to by numerous witnesses. These secret burial yards also contained the aborted fetuses and even small babies who were the offspring of priests and staff at the schools, according to the same witnesses.” (p.20)
“APPENDIX VI: Evidence of ongoing crimes against aboriginal children in British Columbia, including institutionalized pedophilia … Termed “institutionalized pedophilia” by BC Supreme Court Justice Douglas Hogarth in his 1995 sentencing of Alberni residential school sex criminal Arthur Plint, the system to provide native children for sexual and sadistic purposes to powerful figures did not end with the closing of the last BC Indian residential school in 1984. Rather, it has become more covert and shielded from scrutiny by its operation through Indian reserves under the auspices of particular aboriginal leaders who apparently enjoy special protection from the federal government and senior judges in BC.” (p.91)
Underground History of American Education ( , John Taylor Gatto
Israel Betrayed ( , Barry Chamish
Papal Theonomy and America Today ( , Ronald Cooke
Swarms of Locusts: The Jesuit attack on the Faith ( , Michael B. Bunker
Occult Science Dictatorship ( , William R. Lyne (
The Grand Deception: A Second Look at the War on Terrorism ( , G. Edward Griffin (1931, Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor – see below)
Note that the objectivity of G.E. Griffin is highly doubted: “I am convinced that Griffin is a Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor. He is featured in Jewish Jesuit Temporal Coadjutor Aron Russo’s video, America: From Freedom to Fascism. Griffin never says one word about the Vatican, Knights of Malta, the Jesuits, or Opus Dei. He blames everything on the Masons and the CFR, as do all good Jesuit shills.” – Eric Jon Phelps (
The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party ( [42] ( [43] ( , Kevin Abrams, Scott Lively, (wikipedia article)
The Secret Terrorists ( [44] ( , Bill Hughes
The Popes Against the Jews: The Vatican’s Role in the Rise of Modern Anti-Semitism ( , David Kertzer ( ( ), ISBN 978-0375706059
IBM and the Holocaust ( , Edwin Black
The Last Wave from Port Chicago ( , Peter Vogel
See also: Port Chicago disaster
Ahead of the Parade ( , Sherman H. Skolnick (1930–2006)
The Vatican’s Finances (
The Antichrist in the Vatican ( , Rafael Rodríguez Guillén (
The Vatican’s Mafia ( ([45] ( , [46] ( ), Rafael Rodríguez Guillén (
The Power of the Vatican ( , Rafael Rodríguez Guillén (
The Pilgrims: Meet the World Money Power ( , Charles Savoie
See also: more articles by Charles Savoie ( , Pilgrim Society, Pilgrim Society members
The Enemy Unmasked ( [47] ( , Bill Hughes
The Hidden Gears of Freemasonry ( , (author unkown)
The Lies of Pope John Paul II ( , Rafael Rodríguez Guillén (
The Outlaw Bank: A Wild Ride into the Secret Heart of BCCI ( , Jonathan Beaty
See also: Bank of Credit and Commerce International
Hoodwinked: Watching Movies With Eyes Wide Open ( , Uri Dowbenko ( (1951) (toresearch: his credibility)
See also: “‘Passion of the Christ’: Jesuit Theater of Cruelty ( ” by Uri Dowbenko
Beyond Babylon: Europe’s Rise and Fall ( , David Ben-Ariel
The Police State Road Map ( , Michael Nield
Direct Democracy: facts, arguments and experiences on the introduction of initiative and referendum ( , Jos Verhulst (1949), Arjen Nijeboer (1974)
See also: ( , Constitution, Government, Democracy, Direct democracy, Representative democracy, Referendum
Project Day Lily: An American Biological Warfare Tragedy ( , Garth L. Nicolson, Nancy L. Nicolson
The Transformation of the Republic: The Origins of the Religious Hi-Jacking of the American Government and the Truth Behind the Assassination of Abraham Lincoln ( , C.T. Wilcox
Shabtai Tzvi, Labor Zionism and the Holocaust ( , Barry Chamish
Jesse James: United States Senator ( , A. Ralph Epperson ( , ISBN 978-0961413552
See also: ( , Jesse James
Reich Of The Black Sun: Nazi Secret Weapons & The Cold War Allied Legend ( [48] ( , Joseph P. Farrell (toresearch: his credibility), ISBN 978-1931882392
See also: author interview ( , Operation Paperclip, Thule Society, Plasma physics, Majestic 12
Blood on the Altar: The Secret History of the World’s Most Dangerous Secret Society ( , Craig Heimbichner ( (toresearch: his credibility)
See also: Ordo Templi Orientis, “A Warning to All Freemasons ( “, “What’s Beyond Freemasonry? ( ”
Mystery of Babylon – Catholic or Jewish? ( , (Jesuit section ( ) Barbara Aho
Hitler was a British Agent ( , Greg Hallett ( and “the Spymaster”
(date?) How to takeover the world: a Right Royal Con ( , Greg Hallett ( and “the Spymaster”
(date?) Stalin’s British Training: Paedophiles At War ( , Greg Hallett ( and “the Spymaster”
Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia: Analyses and Testimonies ( , edited by Barry M. Lituchy
See also: Jasenovac concentration camp, “Jasenovac: Massive Croatian Holocaust Revision Encouraged ( “, “The Vatican’s Complicity in Genocide in Fascist Croatia ( “, Ustaše, Aloysius Stepinac, Wlodimir Ledochowski
The SS Brotherhood of the Bell: Nasa’s Nazis, JFK, And Majic-12 ( , Joseph P. Farrell (toresearch: his credibility), ISBN 978-1931882613
See also: author interview ( , Operation Paperclip, Thule Society, Plasma physics, Majestic 12
Vatican Ratline: The Vatican, the Nazis and the New World Order ( , Mauri, ISBN 978-1419653568
Reflections In The Night: A Survivor’s Story of Total Mind Controlled Slavery and Torture ( , Mauri, ISBN 978-1419636264
Estimates of the Number Killed by the Papacy ( , David A. Plaisted (
From BCCI to ISI: The Saga of Entrapment Continues ( , Abid Ullah Jan (
See also: Bank of Credit and Commerce International
The Hidden History of Money & New World Order Usury Secrets ( , Alexander James
Vatican Assassins: “Wounded In The House Of My Friends” ( (3rd edition), Eric Jon Phelps ( . The book contains 1836 pages with 760 photos and illustrations! The culmination of centuries of knowledge about the crimes of the Vatican, the Jesuit Order and their mafia networks.
Vatican Design Exposed ( , John Daniel (
Jesuit Papal Assassins Unmasked at Last! ( , Niall Kilkenny
Germany and the Holy Roman Empire ( , Gerald Flurry, J. Tim Thompson, Stephen Flurry
Concordat Watch ( , website archive of Vatican Concordat documents and research.
Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation ( , F. William Engdahl (1944) (todo: research his credibility)
See also: UN Codex Alimentarius, GMO, Club of Rome, National Security Study Memorandum 200.
Almanac of Evil ( , Frank O’Collins (todo: research his credibility)
audio: interview 4-2-2008 (
websites: ( , ( , ( , ( , (
Codeword Barbêlôn—666—Danger in the Vatican: The Sons of Loyola and their Plans for World Domination ( [49] ( , P.D. Stuart, ISBN 978-0954359669
Terrorism and Illuminati: A Three Thousand Year History ( , David Livingstone ( , (warning: parts of this book show anti-semitic disinfo! Note: suspect lack of Vatican-Jesuit insights presented, even after claiming they created Freemasonry and the Illuminati.)
The Bush Connection ( , Erik Berman
Blackwater: The Rise of the World’s Most Powerful Mercenary Army ( , Jeremy Scahill (todo: research his credibility), (wikipedia article)
See also: Blackwater Worldwide, Jeremy Scahill video’s ( , “Blackwater: Knights of Malta in Iraq ( “, “Knight of Malta Joseph Schmitz is a Blackwater Counsel ( ”
Scared to Death: The Anatomy of a Very Dangerous Phenomenon ( , Christopher Booker, Richard North, ISBN 978-0826486141
See also: book review ( , Psychological operations, Strategy of tension, Cold War, Acid rain, Ozone depletion, 911:Healthcare#Pathology_and_Vaccines, “HIV cause for AIDS? ( “, BSE (Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease), H5N1 (“Bird Flu”), War on Terrorism (Al-Qaeda), Global warming.
Secret Societies Then & Now ( , Truthseeker24 (
The Holy Mushroom: Evidence of Mushrooms in Judeo-Christianity ( , Jan Irvin (
See also: podcast interview on his book ( , Entheogens, Ethnopharmacology
Check Out the Evidence ( [50] ( , Brian David Andersen ( ( ( )
Codex Alimentarius: Global Food Imperialism ( , Scott Tips
See also: Codex Alimentarius, Ian R. Crane (
A Voyage Long and Strange: Rediscovering the New World ( , Tony Horwitz (1959), ISBN 978-0719566356
From Venus to Mars: the European Union’s steps towards the militarisation of space ( [51] ( , Frank Slijper, ISBN 1871-3408
See also: European Space Agency, Militarisation of space, HAARP, NASA’s Project Blue Beam ( .
Monarch: The New Phoenix Program ( (book trilogy), Marshall Thomas ( (his video channel ( )
See also: Project MKULTRA, Directed-energy weapon
The Prisoner of San Jose: How I Escaped From Rosicrucian Mind Control ( , Pierre S. Freeman ( , ISBN 9781604940244
See also: Order Rosae Crucis
The Myth of the Oil Crisis ( , Robin Mills ( (to research: his credibility), ISBN 9780313354793
See also: Peak oil, Global warming
The Pope’s Letter and Sunday Laws ( , Russell R. Standish and Collin D. Standish
National Sunday Law ( , A. Jan Marcussen
Testimony of Sister Charlotte ( [52] ( , transcriptions: [53] ( , [54] ( .
See also: Maria Monk (1816–1839)
America’s Subversion: The Enemy Within ( , Sonny René Stermole (convicted for murder while innocent? (;jsessionid=3027D22CF42063FF34D9783076443611.render1?caseNo=2007CF003002&countyNo=40&cacheId=&recordCount=0&offset=0&linkOnlyToForm=false&sortDirection=ASC) )
To process / Research ( – list of online research books.
“Books Suppressed or Censored by Legal Authorities ( ”
One Heart Books (
(to find) The Trial and Burning of John Huss ( (An eyewitness account by a Member of the Council of Constance), Fra Poggius
spirtfire / Dave Emory book selection ( (Note: Dave Emory rarely covers the Vatican-Jesuit-SMOM mafia – he probably is a gatekeeper)
Index Librorum Prohibitorum (“List of Prohibited Books”) a list of publications/authors which are censored by the Catholic Church.
“The Index’s effects were felt throughout much of the Catholic world. From Quebec to Poland it was, for many years, very difficult to find copies of banned works, especially outside of major cities. The Index as an official list having force of law was abolished in 1966 under Pope Paul VI, following the end of the Second Vatican Council and largely due to practical considerations. However, the moral obligation of not circulating or reading those writings which endanger faith and morals, was reaffirmed in 1966″
…: The Jesuits in History, Hector Macpherson
…: The Jesuits ( , Dr. Otto Henne Rhyn
…: Jesultism, Thomas Carlyle
List of old Jesuit books (
book list on (
Skeptic Tank Text Archive (
Etheric pdf books ( ( (Chick Publications, Jack Chick publishing company)
Authors: Frank Lloyd Wright, Carl Sandburg, Henry Miller, Bertrand Russell, Emerson, and Thoreau
Amerikan Exposé Online Bookstore (
knjige: various books (
books on the “Savings and Loans” scandal ( (find the well researched ones)
(to find) Stepinac, the Archbishop of the Genocide (
See also: Aloysius Stepinac and Involvement of Croatian Catholic clergy with the Ustaša regime
Vladimir Bukovsky works
personal site (
Check their publications: “Remember that Rense has banned John Kaminski, Joe Vialls, Don Croft ( [55] ( [56] ( and many more”
Jesuit researcher podcasts collection (
Joseph_McCabe#Works ( Jesuits ( ( Jesuits (
google-books: Paul Blanshard ( , Paul Blanshard
“Paul Blanshard, understood himself to be issuing a timely call to protect the First Amendment of the Constitution against the encroachments of a Catholic hierarchy living within the very fortress of the free world, but hostile to American democratic and political values.” – Mark Massa, Fordham University
google-books: Roman Catholic Church ( , H.G. Wells Jesuits (
Online Library of Liberty ( (Book archive)
MOA collection (;cc=moa;c=moa;key=subject) (American book archive)
list of constitional / Federal Reserve books (
other Edwin A. Sherman works (
German WWII history books (
“The Lucifer-Cassini Project ( ”
Gyeorgos Ceres Hatonn, (interesting conpiracy insights, but also New Age foolishness)
Relative Connections (
Taking Off the Blindfold (
Advanced Demolition Legion: The ADL in Action (
Focus of Demons: Real Gremlins in the Works (
Alexandre Dumas: The Count of Monte Cristo (research also: Man in the Iron Mask)
Albert Camus
Carl Sandburg
Hypsistarians: google-books ( , Goethe
book-bundle download-archives (
“Macht und Geheimnis der Jesuiten ( ”
“Evolutie van Malraux? ( ”
Robert A. Heinlein
(anti-)Zionism books (
Declaration of independence
Thomas Paine
From “The American Crisis by Thomas Paine: III ( “: “What more can we say of ye than that a religious Quaker is a valuable character, and a political Quaker a real Jesuit.” ??
google links (
“Common Sense” – by Thomas Paine
Pacific Institute books (
“Bush Fortune Soaked in Blood ( ” book links
The Strange Death of Franklin D. Roosevelt ( , [57] (
EU Project:

1845: The Jesuits: their origin and order, morality and practices, suppression and restoration ( , Alexander Duff
1861: History of the fall of the Jesuits in the eighteenth century ( , Count Alexis de Saint-Priest
(to find) Treason of the papal system (
“John Adams, wrote to Thomas Jefferson “I do not like the late resurrection of the Jesuits. Shall we not have swarms of them here, in as many shapes and disguises as ever a gypsy king assumed. If any congregation of men could merit eternal perdition on earth and in hell, it is this company of Loyola.” “Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government.”
other Allegro works: “Allegro’s thirteen books include The Dead Sea Scrolls (1956), The Treasure of the Copper Scroll (1960), The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross (1970) and The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth (1979) as well as Discoveries in the Judaean Desert of Jordan vol. V (1968) and articles in academic journals such as the Journal of Biblical Literature, Palestine Exploration Quarterly and Journal of Semitic Studies”
1602: (to find) “Jesuit Catechism”
“To receive Jesuits into a Kingdom is to receive a vermin which at length will gnaw out the heart of the State both spiritual and temporal. They work underhand the ruin of the countries where they dwell, and the murder of whatsoever kings and princes it pleaseth them.”
Harry Hoxsey (Cancer treatment)

Darryl Eberhart ( works
to find: Romanism: Menace to the Nation, Jeremiah J. Crowley (Irishman; ex-priest in the Roman Catholic Church)
“Quotations Concerning the Jesuit Order ( ”
1987: The Babington Plot: Jesuit Intrigue in Elizabethan England, J.E.C. Shepherd (Canadian historian)
Jacques Vallée books (disinfo agent?)
Mithraic religion
Franz Cumont (1868–1947)
“Mighty Mithraic Madness ( ”
Robert Bauval (1948) (
Graham Hancock (
Supernatural: Meetings with the Ancient Teachers of Mankind
video: “Ancient Astronomers ( ”
video: “Fingerprints of the Gods interview ( ”
works with: Robert Bauval
projects: (
Michael Cremo (to research: his seemingly scientifically-weak, NewAge-Vedic approach) ( (his website)
books: “Forbidden Archeology”, “Human Devolution: A Vedic alternative to Darwin’s theory”
video: Michael Cremo interview (
David Wilcock ( (NewAge-Alien-Antisemitic agenda disinfo agent? interview with him ( )
books ( , video’s (
He claims ( the Rothschild’s ‘Illuminati’ clique financed and orchestrated the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, without ever mentioning the Vatican-Jesuit-Masonic network crime facts. This is a big historical error, or more likely part of his disinfo agenda! (
See also: Camelot: “the castle and court associated with the legendary King Arthur”. Note that the present view of this legend is mostly a post-Roman Britain corruption/hijacking of a part of ancient Celtic mythology. Is “Project Camelot” a Romanized spin on ancient Astro-mythology?
In contrast to Michael Tsarion, he does sometimes discusses the Plasma cosmos and Entheogens (albeit very rarely). However he does not seem to fully acknowledge nor describe the historical facts of “Alien disinfo agenda”. The “Alien disinfo agenda” secondary function (after its primary disinformation function) is as a cover for the advanced energy research. Neither will he acknowledge that last fact.
See also: [58] (
Michael Tsarion ( (Rosecrucian disinfo agent ( ?)
Unhived Mind forum threads: [59] ( , [60] (
Exposure video ( by Chris White (
“He has been affiliated with the Paul Solomon Foundation ( of Virginia and Rosicrucian Order, the Naqshbandi Sufi Order, has taught Indigo children at the New Age Academy ( in Berkeley and is frequent guest of Seeing Beyond ( and KEST, the Bay Area’s leading metaphysical radio programs” (from his deleted wikipedia article)
His main topics: Astro-theology, Celtic/druidic mythology, Egyptian mythology, Consciousness influencing sorcery (black magic), Occult symbology.
Tsarion’s “Alien agenda” promotions exposed:
“Tsarion booh hoos the New Age whilst promoting it and teaching it to children as his day job. He and Jordan Maxwell are associated with the Esalen Institute and of course, Tsarion’s mother authored The Little Book of Miracles ( .” [61] (
“It is also worth noting that Tsarion’s forum ( is hosted by Red Ice Creations ( , the Admin of which, Henrik Palmgren ( , does a radio show where Michael Tsarion is a regular guest. Alan Watt ( used to appear on this show every month, but recently he has stopped being invited, claiming on his own show which airs on RBN that this was due to the fact that he refused to go along with the “alien agenda” propaganda which most of the Red Ice guests promote. I like the guy, and we regularly like to each others sites, but apparently, Henrik has become a member of the club.” [62] (
Michael Tsarion never seems to discuss:
His Rosecrucian Order history (nor its role in history).
The plasma cosmos scientific research.
The shamanic history and cultural importance of Entheogens.
He provides little to none (and certainly no new) information on the Vatican-Jesuit-masonic mafia network.
Stewart Swerdlow ( (former victim, Swerdlow author on books about mind-control ( )
Montauk Project
Alan Watt ( (research credibility)
Chris White ( (research credibility) ( (likely disinfo, check the books anyway)
Taylor Caldwell
“Captains and the Kings” (1972)
Ayn Rand
Atlas Shrugged
Edward John Boyd Barrett (1883-?, Jesuit)
1914: Our Schools and Social Work (
1924: Psycho-analysis and Christian Morality (
1926: Effects of Strikes ( (original title: “Irish Messenger”)
1928: Jesuit Enigma ( (listed above)
1929: While Peter Sleeps (
1935: Rome stoops to conquer (*listing*title) (listed above)
1952: Shepherds in the Mist (
1956: A Shepherd Without Sheep (
To process: ( (online book list)
“This Catholic movement has already made such progress in England, that, with a little careful manipulation, its leaders anticipate very little opposition in the future. (See “History of the Romeward Movement in the Church of England,” London: 1900, and “The Secret History of the Oxford Movement’,” London: 1899, both by Walter Walsh; and “The Oxford Movement in America,” by Rev. C. E. Walworth, New York: 1895; also “The Jesuits and the British Press,” by Michael J. F. McMarthy.” [63] (
John Milton readingroom ( (collection of works by the English poet John Milton)
“Fascism comes wrapped in the flag ( ” (See also: Huey Long)
to research: Codex Sinaiticus (
Frederick Douglass bookstore (
James Parton (online works ( )
“…if you trace up Masonry, through all its Orders, till you come to the grand tip-top, head Mason of the World, you will discover that the dread individual and the Chief of the Society of Jesus [i.e., the Black Pope, the Superior General of the Jesuits] are one and the same person.”
1975: The Illuminatus! Trilogy ( , Robert Anton Wilson (1932-2007)
1977: Cosmic Trigger I: The Final Secret of the Illuminati ( , Robert Anton Wilson (1932-2007), (wikipedia article)
See also: Cosmic Trigger II: Down to Earth, Cosmic Trigger III: My Life After Death


The Engineer Corps of Hell; or, Rome’s sappers and miners. Containing the tactics of the “militia of the Pope,” of the Secret manual of the Jesuits, and other matter intensely interesting, especially to the Freemasons and lovers of civil and religious liberty, whithersoever dispersed throughout the globe by Sherman, Edwin Allen

The Devil in robes, or the sin of priests : the gory hand of Catholicism stayed. The prayers of protestants heard… by McCallen, Robert Seth; Carr, James Scott

Popery, an Enemy to Civil and Religious Liberty; and Dangerous to Our Republic by WC Brownlee

Popular lectures on the errors of the Roman Catholic Church by a compilation of writers

The works of Thomas Carlyle

Silent Weapons For Quiet Wars:
Absalom; Sovereign Ontology, Voting At The Mercy Of Wolves:
James Allen, As A Man Thinketh: (
David Williams; Matrix Solutions, The Right of Self Determination: ( (
Power Never Leaves The Posterity: (
Joseph Philips: (Cottonwood Connection), Your Name Under The Law: (
Cornell University Law School; Rule 12, Defences and Objections: “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”; (
Free Dictionary, Failure To State A Claim (
Blacks Law Dictionary: Legal Definition of “Posterity”: (
capitonym: (
Query: Right of Self Determination: (
This Constitution of the United States:
Article I Section 8 – Powers of Congress: (
Article VI – Debts, Supremacy, Oaths: (
The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns: (
(4): (
(5): (
TortFeasor: (
Variation by Agreement: (
John Taylor; of Caroline 1821, Tyranny Unmasked: (
Corporate Charter or Proprietary Government: (
British-American Diplomacy – The Paris Peace Treaty of September 30, 1783 (
The Informer Index Archives: (
The Informer and James Montgomery: (
Kieth Hansen Interviews: (
“The Informer on Vyzygoth Radio/Think Or Be Eaten” (video playlist) (
Gordon Comstock: Ministry of Truth Archives: (
“Bittersweet Is The Victory” (video playlist)
Washington Post; Jefferson changed ‘subjects’ to ‘citizens’ in Declaration of Independence: (
Michael Tsarion: (
The Declaration Deception: (
The Constitution Con: (
Gustavus Myers, History of the Great American Fortunes: (
General Orders No.100: The Lieber Code of 1863; Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field: (
Ted Nace: (
Gangs of America: The Rise of Corporate Power and the Disabling of Democracy: (
The Doctrine of E Pluribus Unum: (
Corpus Juris Secundum: (–AttorneyClient.htm)
Jan Irvan’s Trivium Education: Occult Keys of Wisdom: (
(video playlist) (
Exousia: “the right to choose”; “the liberty of choice” (
The Essential Precepts of a Free Government: (
Theodore Roosevelt; Jamestown Exposition, April 26,1907: (
UNESCO report: The Implementation Of The Right To Self-Determination As A Contribution To Conflict Prevention:
David Fromkin, The Wall Street Journal (3-31-99)Self-Determination: Origins and Meaning: (
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin; The Right of Nations to Self-Determination: (
Unrepresented Nations and Peoples Organization; What is Self-determination?: (
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights:(

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: (
Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations: (
The Declaration on the Rights of Nations: (
A Distinguished Publicist. Tenth Article. (New York Times) All Want Peace: What Must Be It’s Basis?: (
Hauser Global Law School Program; NYU Law: (
Globalex; Inter-American System of Human Rights: A Research Guide:
Cornell University Law School; Wex Articles; International Law: (
A Summary of United Nations Agreements on Human Rights: (

The History Of Lawful Gold And Silver Legal Tender And The Debt Brought On By Unlawful Fiat Paper Money

January 4, 2017


“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.” (Thomas Jefferson)

“Governments never do anything by accident; if government does something you can bet it was carefully planned.” (Franklin D. Roosevelt)

“The high office of President has been used to format a plot to destroy the American’s freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight.” (John F. Kennedy at Columbia University, 10 days before his assassination)

This country, which was founded on Godly principles, finds itself having some perplexing problems. One of which, is a reported four trillion dollars debt, this debt is actually closer to twelve trillion dollars, that’s a twelve and twelve zeros.

“If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash.” (George Washington)

How did this country get so far in debt, is it the Americans’ fault, the government’s fault, or is it possible that there are other forces at work behind the scenes, causing the manipulation of the currencies of the world? For sure the ultimate blame rests with the people of America. The responsibility of freedom is secured by individuals and can only be given away individually, the minority cannot relinquish the rights for the majority. Thomas Jefferson said: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free it expects something it cannot be.” God’s Holy Word says in Hosea 4:6: “My people are destroyed by a lack of knowledge.”

Can a country that murders its children through government-sponsored abortion expect to prosper, or even survive? Can a nation escape God’s judgment while murdering its children and allowing, even promoting, homosexuality, drug abuse, usury, and the blatant violation of its people by government? The Word of God and history prove this cannot occur without the physical destruction of its government and its people for allowing the violation of God’s Laws.

Here is what the Lord says about the violation of His laws: “Woe to them, because they have strayed from me! Destruction to them, because they have rebelled against me! I long to redeem them but they speak lies against me. They do not cry out to me from their hearts but wail upon their beds. They gather together for grain and new wine but turn away from me. I trained them and strengthened them, but they plot evil against me. They do not turn to the Most High; they are like a faulty bow. Their leaders will fall by the sword because of their insolent words. For this they will be ridiculed in the land of Egypt. Put the trumpet to your lips! An eagle is over the house of the LORD because the people have broken my covenant and rebelled against my law. Israel cries out to me, ‘O our God, we acknowledge you!’ But Israel has rejected what is good; an enemy will pursue him. They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval. With their silver and gold they make idols for themselves to their own destruction” (Hosea 7:13-8:4).

How do you destroy a country without firing a shot and without destroying it’s infrastructure? By controlling its money, manipulating inflation and using non-redeemable paper money instead of gold and silver. Here is what the Lord says about paper money: “The LORD detests differing weights, and dishonest scales do not please him” (Proverbs 20:23).

Here is a quote from John Adams: “I am firmly of the opinion that there never was a paper pound, a paper dollar, or a paper promise of any kind, that ever yet obtained a general currency [as money] but by force or fraud, generally by both.”

Also, a quote from Count Destutt de Tracy: “A theft of greater magnitude and still more ruinous, is the making of paper money; it is greater because in this money there is absolutely no real value; it is more ruinous because by its gradual depreciation during the time of its existence, it produces the effect which would be proration of the coins. All those iniquities are founded on the false idea the money is but a sign.”

I’m going to show you some examples in our nation’s history, of how we have been conquered and enslaved. By the time the Revolutionary War was over the United States government could not pay its war debts, altogether Congress printed two hundred million dollars in paper currency just to operate the government. In a short time they had to borrow money just to pay the interest; does this sound familiar?

William Davie, who was a delegate from North Carolina [1787] said: “Can our general government recur to the ordinary expedient of loans? During the late war, large sums were advanced to us by foreign states and individuals. Congress has not been enabled to pay even the interest of these debts, with honor and punctuality. The requisitions made on the states have been every where unproductive, and some of them have not paid a stiver. . . .Many of the individuals who lent us money in the hour of our distress, are now reduced to indigence in consequence of our delinquency. So low and hopeless are the finances of the United States, that, the year before last, Congress was obliged to borrow money even to pay the interest of the principal which we had borrowed before. This wretched resource of turning interest into principal, is the most humiliating and disgraceful measure that a nation could take, and approximates with rapidity to absolute ruin.”

After the Revolutionary War, the military almost rebelled, and would have if it had not been for the pleadings of George Washington. In 1787, Shay’s Rebellion broke out as a result of the financial woes in this country. This caused a great rift between government and the people. Congress decided that the Articles of the Confederation were not sufficient and that a constitution must be written to protect the government and allow trade between the States and other countries. Only then would Congress be able to provide protection for the government and the States, and only then would they, through this commercial enterprise, be able to pay it’s debts.

However, the forefathers made a big mistake by allowing the international bankers to operate in this country with their foreign interests unchecked. Whoever controls the money of the world controls the world.

Here are a few quotes: “Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce.” (Paul Warburg, drafter of the Federal Reserve Act)

“Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws.” (Mayer Amschel Rothschild)

“A great industrial Nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the Nation and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world — no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a government of conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.” (Woodrow Wilson)

“A power over a man’s subsistence amounts to a power over his will.” (Alexander Hamilton)

“It is not a matter of what is true that counts, but a matter of what is perceived to be true.” (Henry Kissinger)

There are and have been groups of people with this power and goal. These groups have passed down from generation to generation the desire to control and rule the world. Just to name a few of whom I’m sure you’ve heard — Rothschild, Morgan and Rockefeller. In order for these groups to implement their plan they have used the secret societies such as, Jesuits, Free Masonry and the Illuminati. The people of this country thought we won the Revolutionary War. They were not aware of the forces at work and the covenants made through treaties, and the obligations involved, when using the king’s money. Nor were they aware of the taxation that ensues for using the kings money and the slavery that follows.

Here’s what our Lord said about this: “We have had to borrow money to pay the king’s tax on our fields and vineyards. Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our countrymen and though our sons are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but we are powerless, because our fields and our vineyards belong to others” (Nehemiah 5:4-5). And in I Samuel 8:11-18 He said: “This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day.”

“If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied.” (Thomas Jefferson)

Let’s assume we are starting all over again in this country, and up until, now the free and independent people who occupy this country have had their needs met by God Almighty and used barter as a medium of exchange. Now they’re going to introduce private banking and issue money as debt.

Let’s say the bank agrees to loan the government one thousand dollars (paper, gold, silver or rocks) and expects ten percent in interest, payable in legal tender as payment for the use this money. Now remember, the only money in existence is the money the bank is now going to create. The bank makes the loan to the government and at the same time the free and sovereign people wish to share the convenience of using this new money rather than barter.

The only money in existence is that created by the bank and loaned to the government, and the once free and sovereign people. Where will the ten percent come from to meet the interest on the loan? Government has agreed to meet its obligations with legal tender. The government may borrow more money to pay the interest, or the bank could foreclose on the government’s property.

The people have the same problem because they have also borrowed the bank’s money, at ten percent interest, with no possibility of ever repaying the interest because the interest money was never physically created, it is merely a book entry. However, they are unaware that this is a scam and have been taught to trust the government.

The great minds in government decide they can repay the interest government owes by raising a direct tax on the income of their once free and sovereign people, making it voluntary while phrasing the tax laws in such a form as to make it appear to be mandatory. The resourceful educated minority learn how this works, able to acquire more money from the other less resourceful people, and repay interest from their surplus. The less resourceful have gotten so poor that they have begun losing their property so the number unable to pay the bank’s usury becomes greater every year. Eventually, because of this use of non-redeemable paper money, the bankers will foreclose on the government and its people.

Your whole nation is BANKRUPT. The citizens begin to realize: One, government does not have their best interests at heart. Two, government representatives would permit your enslavement for their personal gain. Three, government has fraudulently obtained your co-operation in the looting of your own money and property. Four, government schools have withheld the knowledge that would have made the fraud impossible.

“Those unaware are unaware of being unaware.” (Merrill Jenkins)

Are you mad yet? No! Still in denial. The following authorities should overcome your denial:-

First, Marriner Eccles, then chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, in testimony before the Banking and Currency Committee of the House of Representatives on the Banking Act of 1935. Mr. Eccles testified: “In purchasing offerings of Government bonds, the banking system as a whole creates new money, or bank deposits. When the banks buy a billion dollars of Government bonds as they are offered — and you have to consider the banking system as a whole, as a unit — the banks credit the deposit account of the Treasury with a billion dollars. And they debit their Government bond account a billion dollars, or actually create, by a bookkeeping entry, a billion dollars.”

Second, President Eisenhower’s Secretary of the Treasury Anderson in an interview with U.S. News and World Report on August 31, 1959 was asked: “Do you mean that banks, in buying Government securities, do not lend out their customers’ deposits? That they create the money they use to buy the securities?”

Answer (by Secretary Anderson): “That is correct. Banks are different from other lending institutions. When a savings and loan association, an insurance company, or a credit union makes a loan, it lends the very dollar that its customers have previously paid in. But when a bank makes a loan, it simply adds to the borrower’s deposit account in the bank by the amount of the loan. The money is not taken from anyone else’s deposit; it was not previously paid in to the bank by anyone. It’s new money, created by the bank for the use of the borrower.”

“We are completely dependent on the commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are absolutely without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse unless it becomes widely understood and the defects remedied soon.” (Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Ga.)

“The banks — commercial banks and the Federal Reserve — create all the money of this nation and its people pay interest on every dollar of that newly created money. Which means that private banks exercise unconstitutionally, immorally, and ridiculously the power to tax the people. For every newly created dollar dilutes to some extent the value of every other dollar already in circulation.” (Congressman Jerry Voorhis)

On top of all that the bankers were able to get Congress to allow them to practice fractional banking. The banks can loan out 98% of the money on deposit, so if you deposited one thousand dollars, the bank could loan out nine hundred and eighty dollars. This is creating money out of thin air, account money, no money has actually been printed yet now out of the 98% available to be loaned out, you now owe more interest and no money has been printed to repay the principle much less the interest. This money can continue to be loaned out until it reaches zero. What a scam! This was a fraud from the beginning because bank-created money was required to repay interest, which was impossible because only the principal was created.

Francis Corbin, a delegate from Virginia [1787] said: “The debts due by the United States and how much is due to foreign nations! No part of the principal is paid to those nations; nor has even the interest been paid as honorably and punctually as it ought. Nay, we were obliged to borrow money last year to pay the interest. What! Borrow money to discharge the interest of what was borrowed, and continually augment the amount of the public debt! Such a plan would destroy the richest country on earth.”

Here is a example of how the Social Security scam works: Paul, in the year 1940, saves by paying one hundred dollars to the national Social Security Administration. He receives in exchange a claim which is virtually an unconditional government IOU drawn upon future taxpayers. Because government uses this money to meet the interest it owes, and places a IOU in the fund to cover your deposit. It is a tax and a forced loan that is spend ahead of collection so that the contributions of the Peters of 1970 are called upon to meet government obligations to the Pauls of 1940 when they claim upon Social Security. The administrators of 1940 shifted their problems to the administrators of 1970 when they would be either dead or retired. The problem is compounded by the fact that whereas Paul’s one hundred dollars was redeemable in silver, it must now be discharged by inflationary non-redeemable debt [fiat] money. You cannot discharge debt with a debit note, only transfer it to the next generation.

Moral breakdown and rejection of godly principles will destroy our once great nation. However we will focus on the destruction resulting from the use of paper money, the weapon of the internationalists.


1765: Prior to the establishment of the United States, Blackstone said in his commentaries: “If a man counterfeits the King’s money; and if a man brings false money into the realm counterfeit to the money of England, knowing the money to be false.” As to the first branch, counterfeiting the King’s money; this is treason, whether the false money be uttered in payment or not. Also if the King’s own ministers alter the standard of alloy established by law, it is treason.”

1781: George Washington wrote to John Laurens and said: “Experience has demonstrated the impracticability long to maintain a paper credit without funds for its redemption.”

APRIL 12, 1782: John Adams negotiated with the Netherlands to receive a loan and recognition for the United States.

APRIL 19, 1782: The Netherlands recognized the independence of the United States.

JUNE 11, 1782: Dutch bankers agree to lend two million dollars to the United States.

OCTOBER 8, 1782: A treaty of commerce and friendship was signed between the United States and the Netherlands.

NOVEMBER 30, 1782: A preliminary peace treaty is signed between the United States and England. The most important provisions are the establishment of boundaries and recognition of American independence. All debts due to creditors of either country are accepted as valid debts.

FEBRUARY 28, 1785: Britain threatens to break off the treaty because Americans have failed to comply with the treaty, by having paid the debts owed to Britain.

JUNE-SEPTEMBER 1785: There is a major depression because of unstable paper money resulting in falling prices. This allowed some of the States to discharge their debts on a basis which was sometimes a thousand to one.

1786: The board of Treasury in 1786 condemned paper currency “the revival of a paper currency and the rage for another experiment in this fallacious medium that has so far prevailed as to enter into the system of revenue of several States”.

1787: During the federal convention, Roger Sherman made the statement that: “no Government has a right to impose on its subjects any foreign currency to be received in payments as money which is not of intrinsic value: unless such Government will assume and undertake to secure and make good to the possessor of such currency the full value which they oblige him to receive it for.”

JANUARY 27, 1787: Shays rebellion took place because of financial depression.

JANUARY 14, 1790: Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton says the United States should pay its debts at par value, even though many speculators would profit by this. [Alexander Hamilton married into the Rothschild family December 14, 1780, Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies. After changing his name and his geographical situs, he married Elizabeth Schuyler, the second daughter of Phillip Schuyler, at the bride’s home in Albany, New York. The bride’s mother was Catherine Van Rensselaer, daughter of Colonel John R. Van Rensselaer, who was the son of Hendrik, the grandson of Killiaen, the first partroon. [THE INTIMATE LIFE OF ALEXANDER HAMILTON, by Allan Hamilton 1910] [It has been reported that there are documents in the British museum that prove Alexander Hamilton received payment from the Rothschild’s for his dastardly deeds. Could this payment have been for his involvement in the establishment of a foreign bank in this country, and for convincing Congress to assume the States debts, which would have created a debt obligation binding the United States government and the States to the international bankers?]

JUNE 20, 1790: Alexander Hamilton convinces Congress to pass the Assumption Act, under which the federal government is to assume the States debts.

DECEMBER 14, 1790: Alexander Hamilton submits a plan for a bank of the United States, mainly as a vehicle for the funding of debts under the Assumption Act and to establish credit.

FEBRUARY 25, 1791: The bank of the United States is chartered.

MARCH 1-2, 1792: Congress debates the propriety of Alexander Hamilton’s conduct of his office as Secretary of the Treasury. Nothing irregular is discovered.

APRIL 2, 1792: Congress passes the Coinage Act, which establishes a mint and prescribes a decimal system of coinage.

FEBRUARY 2, 1793: Alexander Hamilton resigns as Secretary of Treasury.

JANUARY 24-FEBRUARY 20, 1811: Congress debates renewal of the charter for the Bank of the United States.

MARCH 4, 1811: The Bank of the United States is closed permanently.

1812-1815: The War of 1812 breaks out with Britain.

DECEMBER 5, 1815: President Madison proposes a second Bank of the United States to succeed the first Bank that failed to be rechartered in 1811.

MARCH 14, 1816: Congress creates the second Bank of the United States.

JANUARY 7, 1817: The second Bank of the United States is opened.

SEPTEMBER 11, 1830: The Anti-Masonic party acquires national status by holding a convention in Philadelphia.

DECEMBER 6, 1830: President Andrew Jackson attacks the Bank of the United States.

SEPTEMBER 26, 1831: The Anti-Masonic party holds a national convention in Baltimore.

MARCH 17, 1832: The Banking Select Committee said: “That the consequences of the present, is that the currency of the United States is bank notes, to the exclusion of the precious metals. The exclusion of gold and silver coins from circulation is a serious defect, which ought not to be tolerated, and which should be speedily remedied. There is not an example on record of the successful issue of a paper currency, and our experiment has been too short and dubious to prove its suitableness as a permanent regulation.”

JUNE 11, 1832: A bill to renew the charter of the Bank of the United States is submitted by Congress.

JULY 3 1832: The Bank bill is approved.

OCTOBER 1832: The Anti-Masonic party backs Andrew Jackson, and he is re-elected.

JUNE 1, 1833: The Secretary of Treasury refuses to follow the order of President Jackson to distribute the Bank of United States funds into State banks.

SEPTEMBER 18, 1833: President Jackson reads to his cabinet a paper drafted by the Attorney General as to the reasons why the federal deposits should be removed from the Bank of the United States.

DECEMBER 26, 1833: Senator Henry Clay offers two resolutions of censure against President Jackson for his plan to remove deposits from the Bank of the United States.

MARCH 17, 1834: Representative Gillet, a member of the Banking Select Committee, concurred in the expediency of increasing the circulation of gold coin, arguing that, “under the paper system, banks have broken, and on whom did the loss most severely fall? Upon the poor, who understood little of the condition and credit of banks. The wealthy usually foresaw the evil and protected themselves.”

MARCH 28, 1834: The Senate approves the criticizing of President Jackson.

APRIL 4, 1834: The House passes four resolutions sustaining the bank policy of the Jackson administration.

APRIL 15, 1834: President Jackson makes a formal protest to the Senate concerning its resolution of censure.

MAY 7, 1834: The Senate refuses to enter President Jackson’s protest in its journals.

DECEMBER 1, 1834: President Jackson declares that the national debt will be paid off JANUARY 1, 1835.

JANUARY 30, 1835: There is an attempt to assassinate President Jackson.

FEBRUARY 18, 1836: The Bank of the United States charter expires, the Bank receives a charter in Pennsylvania.

DECEMBER 5, 1836: President Andrew Jackson said in his message to Congress: “It is apparent from the whole context of the Constitution as well as the history of the times which gave birth to it, that it was the purpose of the Convention to establish a currency consisting of the precious metals. These were adopted by a per-exchange, such as of certain agricultural commodities recognized by the statutes of some States as tender for debts, or the still more pernicious expedient of paper currency.”

JANUARY 23, 1840: A bill establishing an Independent Treasury is proposed by Congress.

JUNE 30, 1840: The Independent Treasury bill passes the House.

JULY 28, 1841: A bill re-establishing a National Bank passes the Senate.

AUGUST 13, 1841: The House approves the bill to re-establish the National Bank.

AUGUST 13, 1841: The Independent Act of 1840 is repealed.

AUGUST 16, 1841: President Tyler vetoes the Bank bill.

SEPTEMBER 3, 1841: The Senate approves the second Bank bill for a National Bank under another name.

SEPTEMBER 9, 1841: President Tyler vetoes the second Bank bill.

AUGUST 6, 1846: The Independent Treasury Act is approved.

APRIL 12, 1861: The Civil War starts.

AUGUST 5, 1861: Congress passes the first National income tax.

AUGUST 21, 1861: The United States issues the first paper currency.

FEBRUARY 25, 1863: Congress establishes a National Banking system.

1864: The Coinage Act of 1834 had the purpose of striking a fatal blow at the ability of banks to sustain a circulation of small denomination paper currencies. The invalid conclusion that the legal-tender acts of the Civil War were constitutional because they effected through a paper medium the same type of “debasement”, which no one “ever imagined was taking private property without compensation or without due process of law”.

APRIL 14, 1865: A short time after President Lincoln ordered the Lincoln greenbacks to be printed; which would deprive the banks from charging interest on the money they would have printed, President Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. It’s been proven this was a conspiracy because of the other four men who were involved in the assassination, and it has also been established that these men were on the payroll of the Rothschild’s.

OCTOBER 31, 1865: The public debt of the United States stands at over seventy dollars per capita.

MARCH 18, 1869: Congress passes the public Credit Act to pay the public debt in gold, leaving three hundred million in greenbacks and a bitter debate about redeeming them.

July 28, 1868: The Fourteenth Amendment is enacted, which not only created federal citizenship, it also made it illegal for federal citizens to question the federal debt. [clause four 14th Amendment]

SEPTEMBER 24, 1869: On this “Black Friday” a financial panic occurs after two stock gamblers, Jay Gould and James Fisk, try to organize a corner on the gold market. The Grant administration dumps four million dollars in gold on the market, the price falls in fifteen minutes from one hundred and sixty two dollars to one hundred and thirty three dollars and many investors are ruined.

1873: The historian, William Graham Sumner explained that: “The popular mind rests on instances like our continental money, as showing the error of paper money where it absolutely perishes. It is thought that, short of this, only alarmists see danger. The story of Austria shows that an irredeemable paper currency is a national calamity of the first magnitude, of which one may indeed find greater or lesser examples, but of which the least is a peremptory warning to statesmen and financiers. It is like a disease in the blood, undermining the Constitution and spreading decay through all the arteries of business. In its measure and according to circumstances it is pernicious, if not fatal.”

FEBRUARY 12, 1873: Congress terminates the coinage of silver, because the intrinsic value of bullion exceeds its face value, this Act becomes known as “the crime of 73.”

SEPTEMBER 8, 1873: Jay Cooke and Company declares itself bankrupt, this causes a three year depression.

APRIL 22, 1874: President Grant vetoes a bill passed by Congress validating the issuance of greenbacks.

JUNE 20, 1874: Congress passes a Currency Act fixing the maximum amount of greenbacks in circulation at three hundred and eighty-eight million dollars.

JANUARY 14, 1875: Congress passes the Specie Resumption Act, reducing the circulation of greenbacks to three hundred million dollars.

AUGUST 19, 1877: In a speech made by the Secretary of Treasury John Sherman, he said: “There is a large class of people who believe that paper can be, and ought to be, made into money without any promise or hope of redemption; that a note should be printed: “This is a dollar,” and be made a legal tender. I regard this as a mild form of lunacy, and have no disposition to debate with men who indulge in such delusions, which have prevailed to some extent, at different times, in all countries, but whose life has been brief, and which have shared the fate of other popular delusions. The Supreme Court only maintained the constitutionality of the legal tender promise to pay a dollar by a divided court, and on the ground that it was issued in the nature of a forced loan, to be redeemed upon the payment of a real dollar; that is, so many grains of silver or gold. I therefore dismiss such wild theories, and speak only to those who are willing to assume, as an axiom, that gold and silver or coined money, have been proven by all human experience to be the best possible standards of value, and that paper money is simply a promise to pay such coined money, and should be made and kept equal to coined money, by being convertible on demand. [emphasis mine]

JANUARY 1885: The Treasury surplus was up to five hundred million dollars.

JANUARY 17, 1894: The federal gold reserves drop to only sixty million dollars. The federal government offers a bond issue of fifty million dollars to make up gold reserve losses.

NOVEMBER 13, 1894: Another federal bond issue of fifty million dollars is offered. Because of poor public response, most of this loan is taken over by New York bankers.

JANUARY 6, 1896: The fourth bond issue in three years is floated, this time in public subscription totaling one hundred million dollars, federal treasury reserves are down to seventy nine million dollars which is considered so low as to endanger the continuance of the gold standard.

MARCH 14, 1900: Congress passes the Gold Standard Act, under which other forms of money are made redeemable in gold on demand, a gold reserve of one hundred and fifty million dollars is created, and the sale of bonds is authorized when necessary to maintain the reserve.

MARCH 13, 1907: A financial panic begins with a sharp drop of the stock market.

OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1907: A run begins on October 23rd on the Knickerbocker Trust Co. that wipes out that bank, many other banks fail, unemployment rises, and food prices soar. Increased bank deposits infused by the United States Treasury restore confidence, supported by loans from such capitalist leaders as J. Pierpont Morgan.

MAY 30, 1908: Under the impact of the financial panic of 1907, the Aldrich-Vreeland Currency Act is passed by Congress, it establishes the National Monetary Commission to study banking.

JULY 12 1909: Congress passes an amendment to the Constitution authorizing the imposition of a tax on incomes.

FEBRUARY 25, 1913: The sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States is declared in effect. [This amendment did not confer any new power of taxation on Congress and did not extend the power of taxation to subjects previously exempted. Its whole purpose was to exclude the source from which income tax is a direct tax which must be apportioned among the states, and thus remove the occasion which might otherwise exist for an apportionment. [27th American Jurisprudence, Section 17, pages 317, 318.] “The source of the taxing power is not the 16th Amendment, it is Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.” [Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner, 32 T.C. 1959, CCH at pg. 659.]

December 23, 1913: The Federal Reserve Act is signed, dividing the country into twelve districts, each with a federal reserve bank. The act also provides for a drastic currency based on commercial assets rather than bonded indebtedness, mobilization of bank reserves, public control of the banking system [foreign interest], and decentralization rather than centralization.

JULY 28, 1914: World War One begins.

OCTOBER 15, 1915: American bankers, organized by J.P. Morgan and Co., agree to lend Great Britain and France five hundred million dollars, the largest loan floated in any country.

JULY 11, 1916: The Federal Aid Road Act is signed by President Wilson. The measure provides five million dollars for the use of the States that undertake road building programs, and it establishes a system of highway classification. Almost two hundred and fifty thousand commercial vehicles and more than three million private cars are registered to use public roads.

JULY 17, 1916: The Federal Farm Loan Act is passed by Congress.

OCTOBER 3, 1916: Congress passes the War Revenue Act, increasing corporate and personal income taxes and establishing excise-profits, and luxury taxes.

APRIL 5, 1918: The War Finance Corporation is formed, capitalized at five hundred million dollars to support war industries through loans and bond sales.

1920: Congress abolishes the United States Treasury and establishes the Dept. of Treasury, in the Act of 1920 66th Congress session II ch. 214.

APRIL 9-16, 1924: The United States banks loan Germany two hundred million for reparation.

NOVEMBER 14, 1925: Because of a severe financial depression in Europe, the United States agrees to a sharp reduction in foreign war debts as well as interest rates on them, but still insists on partial payment.

JANUARY-APRIL 1926: War debt agreements are reached between the United States and several European countries, including France, Italy, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, Rumina, Estonia and Latvia. In the case of France it is agreed that the four billion dollars owed to the United States banks will be paid over a period of sixty two years. Italy, which owes one billion five hundred million dollars is also to be paid back in sixty two years.

MARCH 10, 1928: The United States pays three hundred million dollars to Germany to reimburse them for property taken during World War One.

JULY 10, 1929: The new paper currency, only two thirds the size of the old, goes into circulation.

OCTOBER 24-28, 1929: The stock market crashes as millions of shares change hands and billions of dollars in value are lost.

FEBRUARY 24, 1930: J.P. Morgan and Co. announce that the group formed to halt the market crash on October 24-29, has sold all its shares and is disbanded.

DECEMBER 11, 1930: The largest Bank failure in the nations history takes place when the Bank of the United States closes its doors in New York.

SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 1931: The bank panic increases as over eight hundred banks are closed in two months. Individuals start to hoard gold to protect themselves.

DECEMBER 8, 1931: The President’s Address message to Congress calls for increased taxation to make up for the deficit of nine hundred and two millon dollars for the year 30-31.

JANUARY 22, 1932: The Reconstruction Finance Corporation came into existence with the purpose of loaning money to the banks.

FEBRUARY 27, 1932: Congress passes the Glass-Steagall Act, which authorizes the sale of seven hundred and fifty million dollars worth of the government gold supply and allows the Federal Reserve system more leeway in discounting commercial paper.

JULY 21, 1932: President Hoover signs the Emergency Relief Act which provides three hundred million dollars in loans to the States and increases the Reconstruction Finance Corporations debt ceiling to three billion dollars to make loans to State and local governments.

March 10, 1933: By the continued use of paper money the United States had to be declared bankrupt, which was proven by the bankruptcy procedures that were followed in President Roosevelt’s Executive Orders. President Roosevelt declared the United States bankrupt by Presidential Executive Order, 6073 and the subsequent Executive Orders, 6102, 6111 and 6260. [these documents are still publicly attainable in any federal depository library]

MAY 23, 1933: On the House floor, Congressman McFadden brought impeachment charges against many of the Federal Reserve board members, Federal Reserve agents of many States, comptroller of the currency, and several secretaries of the United States Treasury for high crimes and misdemeanors, including the theft of eighty billion dollars from the United States Government and with committing the same thefts in 1929, 1930, 1931, 1932 and 1933 and in the years previous to 1928, amounting to billions of dollars. These charges were remanded to the Judiciary committee for investigation, where these charges were effectively buried and until this day have never been answered. [See Congressional Record pp. 4055-4058 May 23, 1933]

JUNE 16, 1933: The National Industrial Recovery Act is passed, this allows private corporations to make their own laws and write their own statutes, as applied to the public.

JANUARY 30, 1934: The Gold Reserve Act gives the President the right to change the value of the dollar. The President immediately devalues the dollar to fifty nine cents.

JUNE 28, 1934: The Federal Home Association is established, to insure the loans made by banks in building homes.

MAY 27, 1935: The United States Supreme Court declares that the National Industrial Recovery Act is unconstitutional. Since the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and passes its own laws; does this not make the Federal Reserve unconstitutional [illegal]? [Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 1934]

AUGUST 14, 1935: The Social Security Act [Federal Insurance Contribution Act] becomes law, the American people are told this is a insurance policy. This is actually an agreement between you and the United States government where you have agreed under tort law that you have contributed to the national debt and that you are a wrong doer under the definition of the word contribution, as it is used by the government. [see the word contribution and the words tort feasor in Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.]

AUGUST 23, 1935: The Banking Act of 1935 is passed, restructuring the federal reserve system to allow for increased control of banking and credit.

AUGUST 28, 1935: The Public Utility Act is signed, the United States takes control of the countries utilities.

AUGUST 29, 1935: Congress passes the Farm Mortgage Act to offset the Supreme Courts decision against the Federal Farm Bankruptcy Act.

JANUARY 4, 1939: President Roosevelt requests one billion three hundred and nineteen million five hundred and fifty eight thousand dollars for defense.

JANUARY 5, 1939: President Roosevelt submits a budget of nine billion dollars to Congress.

SEPTEMBER 1, 1939: World War Two Begins.

JANUARY 3, 1940: President Roosevelt requests one billion eight hundred million dollars for defense.

MAY 31, 1940: President Roosevelt requests one billion three hundred million dollars for defense.

JUNE 22, 1940: Congress raises the national debt ceiling to a record high of forty nine billion dollars.

JANUARY 8, 1941: The Presidents budget calls for a record seventeen billion eight hundred million dollars, of which sixty percent is for defense.

MARCH 30, 1941: President Roosevelt approves a measure that raises the ceiling on the public debt to a record sixty five billion dollars.

JANUARY 5, 1943: President Roosevelt proposed budget for the fiscal year 1943 is one hundred and eight billion nine hundred and three million dollars.

JANUARY 13, 1944: President Roosevelt proposes a budget of one hundred billion dollars for 1944.

JULY 28, 1945: The United Nations charter is ratified by the Senate.

JANUARY 2, 1950: A report by the United States Dept. of Commerce shows that for the period July 1, 1945 to September 30, 1949, the United States spent almost twenty five billion dollars in foreign aid. Military spending for the same years has been one third of the yearly budget.

JULY 19, 1950: President Truman calls for partial mobilization after Korea crosses the 38th parallel and also asks Congress for ten billion dollars for the military.

APRIL 30, 1951: President Truman gets fifty seven billion dollars for defense for 1951.

JANUARY 21, 1952: The President’s budget calls for expenditures of eighty five billion four hundred and forty four million dollars for the coming fiscal year. Slightly over three fourths of the budget is to spent on “national security”.

JUNE 29, 1955: The Federal Aid Highway Act is signed by the President. It authorizes thirty three billion dollars to be spent over the next thirteen years on the highways.

JANUARY 16, 1957: A peace time budget of seventy two billion eight hundred and seven million dollars is proposed.

JANUARY 13, 1958: The fiscal deficit is up to twelve billion four hundred twenty seven million dollars.

AUGUST 7, 1958: President Eisenhower signs into law an appropriations bill for defense in the amount of thirty nine billion six hundred and two million eight hundred and twenty seven thousand dollars.

1961: President Eisenhower allots forty seven billion six hundred and fifty four million dollars for defense.

NOVEMBER 28, 1961: President Kennedy “reached the decision that silver metal should gradually be withdrawn from our monetary reserves.”

1963: Six days prior to President John F. Kennedy being assassinated, he ordered the Treasury to print United States Notes to be used as legal tender, a limited amount were printed before his untimely death. This action would have put the Federal Reserve out of business because they would no longer be able to collect interest on the money they would have printed. This would have eventually removed the financial and political control the international bankers had over this country. Ten days prior to his assassination President Kennedy said “The high office of President has been used to foment a plot to destroy the American’s freedom, and before I leave office I must inform the citizen of his plight.”

NOVEMBER 22, 1963: President John F. Kennedy is assassinated. One of the first acts President Johnson orders is the reversal of the order President Kennedy had made, which had allowed the printing of United States Notes without interest. Was President Kennedy assassinated for the same reasons as President Lincoln?

NOVEMBER 26, 1963: Prior to this date the Federal Reserve notes were a promise to pay and were redeemable on demand by the bearer for lawful money. After President Johnson’s order to remove the United States notes, the Federal Reserve issued Federal Reserve notes without the promise to pay to the bearer on demand lawful money. Interestingly, the first fifty million no-promise federal reserve notes were shipped out the same day that President John F. Kennedy was buried.

MARCH 8, 1965: The first troops landed in Vietnam.

1967: The deficit is announced to be twenty five billion dollars.

JUNE 1968: Marked the first time in United States history that a paper currency, purportedly designated as legal tender, was not directly or indirectly redeemable in silver or gold coin or bullion.

SEPTEMBER 30, 1967: President Johnson submits a record budget of one hundred and eighty six billion dollars.

JANUARY 29, 1971: President Nixon announces that the deficit is thirty eight billion seven hundred and eighty three million dollars.

1972: President Nixon announces the federal government will share thirty billion dollars with State and local governments.

1974: President Nixon announces a fiscal budget of three hundred and four billion four hundred million dollars.

FEBRUARY 3, 1975: President Ford announces a deficit of fifty one billion five hundred million dollars.

At the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin felt there was too much preoccupation with salaries. He therefore addressed the Constitutional Convention: “Sir, though we may set out in the beginning with moderate salaries, we shall find that such will not be of long continuance. Reasons will never be wanting for proposed augmentations; and there will always be party for giving more to the ruler, that the rulers may be able to return to give more to them. Hence, as all history informs us, there has been in every State and kingdom a constant kind of warfare between the governing and the governed, the one striving to obtain more for its support, and the other to pay less. And this has alone occasioned great convulsions, actual civil wars, ending either in dethroning of the princes or enslaving the people. Generally, indeed, the ruling power carries its point, and we see the revenues of princes constantly increasing, and we see that they are never satisfied, but always in want of more. The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes, the greater need the prince has of money to distribute among his partisans, and pay the troops that are to suppress all resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure.” “Sir, the saving of the salaries, that may at first be proposed, is not an object with me. The subsequent mischiefs of proposing them are that I apprehend. And therefore it is that I move the amendment. If it is not seconded or accepted, I must be contented with the satisfaction of having delivered my opinion frankly, and done my duty.”

The highly qualified language of Article I8, cl. 2 also repels the clause empowers Congress “To borrow money on the credit of the United States” only. A forced loan, however, implies that the government has no credit in the eyes of reluctant lenders, and that it must compel the latter to part with their money because it can no longer convince them of its ability and intention to repay full value at a future time.

Davy Crockett, while serving as a Congressman helped fight a fire one night that broke out in a suburb of Washington. The next morning the Congress voted twenty thousand dollars to assist those whose homes were destroyed. Crockett voted for it. However, when he went home he found himself in deep trouble with one of his constituents named Horatio Bunce. Bunce commended him for the anxiety to help the victims of the fire but scolded him for using other people’s money as “charity.” He challenged Crockett to find where the Constitution allowed Congress to spend one penny of other people’s money for charity. Crockett couldn’t think of any such provision. Crockett returned to Congress and ran into a similar situation. Congress wanted to give a substantial sum to the widow of a distinguished naval officer who had just died. Crockett took the floor and said: “Mr. Speaker, I have as much sympathy as any man in the House, but Congress has no power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member upon this floor knows it. . . . I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week’s pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.” Mr. Crockett took his seat and the bill was defeated but none of the wealthy Congressman offered to meet his plea to donate one weeks pay to the widow.

A contemporary of the Revolution, Peletiah Webster said: “Paper money polluted the equity of our laws, turned them into engines of oppression, corrupted the justice of our public administration, destroyed the fortunes of thousands who had confidence in it, enervated the trade, husbandry, and manufactures of our country, and went far to destroy the morality of our people.”

Bruce A. Budlong, the acting director of the special financing staff of the Department of Treasury said: “The same monetary system that was established on April 2, 1792, is in effect today.”

Jefferson strongly opposed a perennial national debt: “The question, whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here [France] on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be transmitted, I think very capable of proof. I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident: that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living; that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. If [one generation] could charge another with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.” Jefferson said: “I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom. And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager’s to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers. This example reads to us the salutary lesson that private fortunes are destroyed by public as well as by private extravagance. And this is the tendency of all human governments. Departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for a second, that second for a third, and so on, till the bulk of the society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery, to have no sensibilities left but for sinning and suffering. Then begins indeed the bellum omnium in omnia which some philosophers, observing it to be so general in this world, have mistaken for the natural instead of the abusive state of man. And the forehorse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.”

Ellsworth said during the Convention: “Thought this a favorable moment to shut and bar the door against paper money. The mischiefs of the various experiments which had been made were now fresh in the public mind, and had excited the disgust of all the respectable part of America. By withholding the power from the new government, more friends of influence would be gained to it money can in no case be necessary. Give the government credit, and other resources will offer. The power may do harm, never good.”

Wilson said during the Convention: “It will have a most salutary influence of the credit of the United States to remove the possibility of paper money. This expedient can never succeed whilst its mischiefs are remembered. And as long as it can be resorted to, it will be a bar to her resources.”

Butler said during the Convention: “That paper was a legal tender in no country in Europe. He was urgent for disarming the government of such a power.”

Today the American economy operates under a monetary system which is completely outside the Constitution. Its fiat money is continually manipulated both in value and in quantity. [THE MAKING OF AMERICA 1985]

The definition of fiat money is: “money composed of otherwise essentially valueless things that neither have a commercial use nor constitute a claim against anyone, but do have a special legal qualification. The money is not the material bearing the stamp as authority but the stamp alone.”

C.C. Pinckney said during the Convention: “That paper money corrupted the morals of the people; it had diverted them from the paths of honest industry to the ways of ruinous speculation; it had destroyed both public and private credit, and had brought total ruin on numberless widows and orphans.” “I apprehend these general reasoning will be found true with respect to paper money: that experience has shown that, in every state where it has been practiced since the revolution, it always carries the gold and silver out of the country, and impoverishes it.”

Sherman said during the Convention: “This was a favorable crisis for crushing paper money. If the consent of the legislature could authorize emissions of it, the friends of paper money would make every exertion to get into the legislature in order to license it.”

T. Coleman Andrews served as Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service for nearly three years in the early fifties. Finally he resigned and made the following statement: “The income tax is fulfilling the Marxist prophecy that the surest way to destroy a capitalist society is by steeply graduated taxes on income and heavy levies upon the estates of people when they die. As matters now stand, if our children make the most of their capabilities and training they will have to give most of it to the tax collector and so become slaves of the government. People cannot pull themselves up by their own bootstraps anymore because the tax collector gets the boots and the straps as well. The income tax is bad because it is oppressive to all and discriminates particularly against those people who prove themselves most adept at keeping the wheels of business turning and creating maximum employment and high standard of living for their fellow men. I believe that a better way to raise revenue must be found because I am convinced that the present system is leading us right back to the very tyranny from which those, who established this land of freedom, risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor to forever free themselves.”

The American historian George Bancroft said: “History cannot name a man who has gained enduring honor by causing the issue of paper money. Wherever such paper has been employed, it has in every case thrown upon its authors the burden of exculpation under the plea of pressing necessity. Paper money has no hold, and from its very nature can acquire no hold, on the conscience or affections of the people. It impairs all certainty of possession, and taxes none so heavily as the class who earn their scant possession, by daily labor. It injures the husbandman by a twofold diminution of the exchangeable value of his harvest. It is the favorite of those who seek gain without willingness to toil; it is the deadly foe of industry. No powerful political party ever permanently rested for support on the theory that it is wise and right. No statesman has been thought well of by his kind in a succeeding generation for having been its promoter.”

This is what the Lord had to say about usury in Exodus 22:25: “If you lend money to one of my people among you who is needy, do not be like a moneylender; charge him no interest.”

Leviticus 25:35-37: “If one of your countrymen becomes poor and is unable to support himself among you, help him as you would an alien or a temporary resident, so he can continue to live among you. Do not take interest of any kind from him, but fear your God, so that your countryman may continue to live among you. You must not lend him money at interest or sell him food at a profit.”

Deuteronomy 23:19-20: “Do not charge your brother interest, whether on money or food or anything else that may earn interest. You may charge a foreigner interest, but not a brother Israelite, so that the LORD your God may bless you in everything you put your hand to in the land you are entering to possess.”

Psalms 15:5: “Who lends his money without usury and does not accept a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.”

Ezekiel 18:8: “He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man.”

Ezekiel 18:13: “He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.”

Ezekiel 18:17: “He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father’s sin; he will surely live.”

Ezekiel 22:12: “In you men accept bribes to shed blood; you take usury and excessive interest and make unjust gain from your neighbors by extortion. And you have forgotten me, declares the Sovereign LORD.”

The definition of usury is: “Interest; or premium paid or stipulated to be paid for the use of money.” [Noah Webster 1828] In the Hebrew the word usury means; “interest.”

By a preponderance of the evidence; even if you don’t recognize the Bible teachings, you cannot deny the thinking of our forefathers. Clearly they wanted this country to abstain from paper money. If you will read the money clauses in the United States Constitution it is obvious that their intent was to prevent the use of paper money.

So what happened?

The international bankers were able to position men who were indebted to them in all areas of government, including the judiciary. And with unlimited money resources were able to influence world events like wars including Desert Storm. A glance back through history will show you this is correct. Am I laying all blame on the bankers? Not at all. Their plan could not have succeeded without the greed of man and his love for money. The internationalist plans are nearly complete. What are their goals? World domination and the ownership of people.

“At what point shall we expect the approach of danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expect some trans-Atlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us with a blow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher. As a nation of free men, we must live through all times, or die by suicide.” (Abraham Lincoln)

“If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a small chance of survival. There may even be a worse case: you may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.” (Winston Churchill)

Unfortunately this country and its people played a deciding role in their plans. Without this governments resources and the country’s manpower and blind obedience they could not have succeeded. Our forefathers share the greater share of the blame, because in their era the balance of power was not so overwhelming in the hands of the government. Apathy about what the king was doing behind closed doors has created our predicament, past and present.

The government has clearly violated the Constitution and the mind set of our forefathers regarding the use of paper money. As a result this Country was bankrupted by 1933 and as a corporation the government defaulted its right to govern; and by continuing to do so, is operating under color of law. Since that time this country has received its just reward just as our forefathers predicted. The nation has become immoral as a result and the taxes unbearable to the middle class and the poor. Because of the government representatives, who are foreign agents and represent the international bankers, not Americans, this country is under a Foreign King. This Nation is still under British rule. The United Nations is a front for the King to control the world. The United Nations was granted its power by the United States and other member nations. The Rockefeller’s gave the United Nations then land on which it operates, the United States voluntarily became subservient to the United Nations in October 24, 1945. It also granted this foreign organization a Title of Nobility, which is expressly forbidden by the Constitution. This was all done while the American people sat back and watched in a inebriated state, enjoying the social benefits.

“Everyone wants to live at the expense of the State. They forget that the State lives at the expense of everyone.” (Frederic Bastiat)

Can this government be saved? Doubtful. The slate needs to be wiped clean, and begun a new with a fresh start. This time without paper money, we need to go back to a gold and silver standard as our forefathers wanted. You may choose to disagree with the statements I’ve made at the end of this paper. But, when this government collapses of its own accord as our forefathers predicted, and God Almighty predicted in His written Word, maybe then you will believe — if you are still alive.

[Jonathan Williams recorded in his book Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that “a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown.” Cornwallis went on to explain what would seem to be a self contradiction: “Your churches will be used to teach the Jew’s religion and in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye on the Grand Architect of Freemasonry.”

James Franklin Montgomery SUI JURIS

Are You Man? Person? Persona? Artificial Corporate Property? Which One Are You?

October 30, 2016

Man versus Person. Natural versus Artificial. Created by God versus Created by man.
Statutes never address man. Statutes deal with artificial entities A physical being versus A paper artificial not tangible. Government is a private corporation. Corporations are called persons which are corporations.

Both PERSONS and CORPORATIONS are artificial entities. Artificial entities can only deal with other artificial entities. In law, Statutes, Person is defined as an individual, corporation,association, a trust,estate, partnership or company, all of which are defining an artificial entity. All,including individual to describe person, an artificial entity are in English Grammar, alike. Things of a kind, if you remember third grade English where they show you 5 articles and say which one does not fit. They are words of art and the government uses terms and not words to define person to fit their criminal actions. They now say that natural person means a man. Oh really?

That cannot be from looking at the above description of MAN and PERSON. Person is always, in law, an artificial entity. The fraud they pull is outstanding. Here is a law book that dispels all the other law books like Black’s and even Ballentine’s or any other Modern Law dictionary. Look in all the law dictionaries and you do see the definition of Man. Even in Bouvier’s 1870 Dictionary the definition of Man on Vol 2, page 93, states; A human being. A person of the male sex. Isn’t it interesting they use person, an artificial entity to describe man just like the other law books? Further on in the definition there is some truth when they say, “It was considered in the civil or Roman law [here the Roman law is alive as civil law today] that although man and person are synonymous in GRAMMAR, they had a different acceptation in law. Now this is where they mix and match and people will then believe that man and person are one in the same. NOT SO.

This squares with the following law book which is NOT a dictionary so terms cannot come into play. A part of this book is posted in another brief under PERSON. It is 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.

Here is the truth laid out so well that it would take a moron to not see it when it says; “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.” Man can divest himself out of the physical being, stated in the LaSalle law book, and become a person in law. Thus surrendering, giving away, tossing aside, discarding his unalienable and inalienable rights promised him in the Biblical Code.

The States and the United States are pure private corporations from their inception and anyone can go on line to MANTA, type in the corporation block the state or IRS or any government agency you want and it will come up with every State, United States, the Senate; The IRS are all private corporations. You are and have been dealing with private corporations all your lives and have not known this due to the fraud they laid upon the people circa 1777 to present. You see, they were private corporations of their limited membership they took on the artificial and they themselves operated as PERSONS, artificial entities. From the Law book this is stated on Character; “In another sense, very frequently employed, the word ‘person’ designates each character man is called upon to play on the judicial stage; that is to say, each quality which gives him certain rights or certain obligations-for instance, the person of 43 Slaves were not persons in the United States until after the abolition of slavery.

Read PERSON posted under this brief and you will see how they do this. Man can divest himself out of the physical being, stated in the LaSalle law book, and become a person in law. Remember this well, PERSON and MAN, in law is not the same and can never be. How do they determine if they are dealing with a MAN or a man that has lost his physical being status for that of a PERSON with an artificial character? Simply do not use MAN in any statute, but use PERSON. Look at 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (1) which defines person. It starts out with “The Term person does it not? Now read the TERMS NOT WORDS article posted under PERSON. So this is telling you that ordinary words are not employed to define person.

The terms are quoted above in red. So in the IRC do they not say “ANY PERSON LIABLE”? Now how did you get to be a person and leave the status of MAN? Very simple. They said it was your duty to vote so everyone went down to register to vote. This is an easy one to understand. What you did was register yourself as an artificial entity–a person, to become an associate member of that Private Corporation to vote for members of the Board, (CONGRESS) and vote for the private corporate CEO known as the President. NOW you became that “INDIVIDUAL” as defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (1). You are now a bonafide person who just gave up your God given natural Law rights as a MAN for “privileges and immunities” of a PERSON, never to get them back again. The other ways are more subtle. Yes, the Fraud they pulled on you is rampant to say the least.

Ok, here is the oxymoron they use on you to placate you. In many statutes, they say natural person and you believe them that he too is a taxpayer or subject to the statute. Let’s look at this in slight depth. Look at the beginning and ask yourself, in law how can you merge two directly opposites to be one? How can you take a natural physical being, MAN and say he is a person, the artificial entity in Law? That’s exactly what they are doing to you and you don’t have the deductive reasoning to differentiate between that phrase Natural person and Natural man. If you did, no one would fall for it, but you did. How can you be a natural artificial? (Natural person) You can’t be an artificial man for they would have to say that and they can’t. It’s impossibility in law. “Status is not so broad as person, but always related to physical men.” So states the law book on person. Artificial cannot have status, only character.

Ok, so how do they keep you straight and separate from the physical being never addressed in statute, man made law? Ask your self this. Did God create a person or did he create MAN in his likeness? How would he create a person of General Motors or Food Lion in His likeness? So contrary to every lawyer that is behind this fraud, because lawyers wrote the statutes you the man of status are identified with, your given name written in Capital letters that makes you a person of character that lost your status of MAN. Oh yes, you are a physical being as you bleed BUT, you are operating in the alter ego (character) they put you in.

However, they know you are a bonafide person and not a physical being (Man), when they write your name in all Caps. That is simple logic of law for how corporations have to write their names in all caps. Yes I know, you say prove it. In Georgia , to register a business, the
UCC section of the Secretary of States office says so and other states do also. This info was sent to me by a man living in Georgia when I asked to search for me what he found two years before writing this. I don’t have it and can’t find it in the tons, yes tons of paper
documents I have. Do you have even a hundred pounds? Because that’s how much is needed to sort all this fraud out that has been heaped on you year after year. Yes, many a patriot lawyer will say, here we go again with cap letter idiots. But they are there to protect the corporation because MANTA says all the judiciaries are even private corporations and the UNITED STATES Corporation is not listed as their parent company and neither does the United States Post office have a parent corporation. That too is a totally separate private corporation.

The whole of this country is controlled by private corporations. And patriot myth, being what it is, would still believe the con job was a wonderful document because they think a Republican government is a wonderful body of men, of no corporate character, to protect us. Don’t you believe that for one NY minute. The etymology of the word REPUBLICAN means CORPORATION. There is a Republic of China and there is the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Republic of Georgia , so what makes the United States corporation ( REPUBLIC) any different than these other countries? They are all private corporations. NOW, you know why the private Supreme Corporation Court in Texas v. White stated “ “For, as the United States guarantee to each State a republican form of government, Congress must necessarily decide what government is established in the State, before it can determine whether it is republican or not.”

Texas v White 74 US 7 Wall , Lawyers Ed. Congress controls their own private corporation, you don’t and never will. That’s why the Georgia Supreme court stated in the Padleford case; “

“Now the principle at the bottom of all these propositions is this: The States have no power, by the exercise of which, they can defeat all the ends of government–the General Government, or any of those ends. But the States, by the exercise of the taxing power, can take from their inhabitants every cent the inhabitants can spare, and live. The people of the States who made the Constitution, considered themselves as the sovereign, and the Government as the subject. They were the principal – it the agent. That this is also true none will dispute.

It wasn’t us people, it was them people called WE, the People. Note the capitalization of the third word, In English grammar denoting a specific People, not you, the scum of the earth to get in their way. They say what they want you to believe that you are sovereign. You, are sovereign? Well why don’t you fire them all if you are sovereign? They have got to keep the fraud ( myth) going. Continuing– “But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain.”

It’s hard to explain, unless you have been exposed to it as long as I have, when the Padleford court said “no private person.” That terminology is used to confuse the people. There is no “private person” as all are artificial beings and not private, one would assume.
That is not the case for there are “public persons” (Congress) and “private persons” (that means you and me). They should have used No private Man, but that would expose their system. The history books and courts are used to this fraud and use it well. It’s their ball

Well what do you have to say now, Voters and members of the corporation? Now do you understand why the courts say don’t you dare use the Constitution in my private corporate court, it has no place here, you US corporate citizen. They don’t say that exactly otherwise
you would know what they were doing It’s truly disgusting when I watched the feeding frenzy in all the elections where people were so hyped up waving flags to install the same corporate criminals back into their corporate offices, thinking they did something great. As Spooner stated, not one of those criminals that will be installed in their private corporate offices, can ever represent any man let alone the majority, they only represent the Corporation not you.

Spooner said; “As all voting is secret (by secret ballot), and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, the general fact that our government is practically carried on by means of such voting, only proves that there is
among us a secret band of robbers, tyrants, and murderers, whose purpose is to rob, enslave, and, so far as necessary to accomplish their purposes, murder, the rest of the people. The simple fact of the existence of such a band does nothing towards proving that
“the people of the United States ,” or any one of them, voluntarily supports the Constitution.

This is the most that any member of Congress can say in proof that he has any constituency; that he represents anybody; that his oath “to support the Constitution,” is given to anybody, or pledges his faith to anybody. He has no open, written, or other authentic evidence, such as is required in all other cases, that he was ever appointed the agent or representative of anybody. He has no written power of attorney from any single individual. He has no such legal knowledge as is required in all other cases, by which he can identify a single one of those who pretend to have appointed him to represent them. No one can come forward and say to him: I appointed you my attorney to act for me. I required you to swear that, as my attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised me that you would do so; and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to me. No single individual can say this.”

“No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, [*37] can come forward and say to him: We appointed you our attorney, to act for us. We required you to swear that, as our attorney, you would support the Constitution. You promised us that you would do so;
and now you have forfeited the oath you gave to us.

No open, avowed, or responsible association, or body of men, can say this to him; because there is no such association or body of men in existence. If any one should assert that there is such an association, let him prove, if he can, who compose it. Let him produce, if he can, any open, written, or other authentic contract, signed or agreed to by these men; forming themselves into an association; making themselves known as such to the world; appointing him as their agent; and making themselves individually, or as an association, responsible for his acts, done by their authority. Until all this can be shown, no one can say that, in any legitimate sense, there is any such association; or that he is their agent; or that he ever gave his oath to them; or ever pledged his faith to them.

On general principles of law and reason, it would be a sufficient answer for him to say, to all individuals, and to all pretended associations of individuals, who should accuse him of a breach of faith to them:

I never knew you. Where is your evidence that you, either individually or collectively, ever appointed me your attorney? That you ever required me to swear to you, that, as your attorney, I would support the Constitution? or that, I have now broken any faith that I ever
pledged to you?

You may, or you may not, be members of that secret band of robbers and murderers, who act in secret; appoint their agents by a secret ballot; who keep themselves individually unknown even to the agents they thus appoint; and who, therefore, cannot claim that they have any agents; or that any of their pretended agents ever gave his oath, or pledged his faith to them. I repudiate you altogether.

My oath was given to others, with whom you have nothing to do; or it was idle wind, given only to the idle winds. Begone!”
End of Spooner’s talk.

The Founding Fathers were just commercial barons of their time working a fraud to protect their holdings in this country as well as their multi million dollar empire in those days and to hell with the common man, the dupe that he is. They all were business men just like the
Morgan’s, The Gate’s, the Rockefellers, the Warren Buffets, and the Firestones of today.

Washington himself was with the Virginia Land Company selling real estate of the Crown and the East India Land Company back in 1750. So when you read from TERMS are NOT WORDS, to going after the wrong people, to Allegiance to the whole of the writings in various briefs they will now take on a different light I am sure. You have been dealing as a corporation all these years subject to every tax and license they can foster on you, the member backing up the corporation cause all they can do is spend the corporation silly and you fell for it based on myths created years and century before you were born into slavery, voluntary slavery at that; where the involuntary slavery laws do not protect you.
They, dear reader, are a RICO organization if ever there was one.

Read 18 U.S.C. 1961 to 1963 and see how they fit like a glove when demanding from you every year protection money, forcing you to get licenses to travel, registering your property with them as a member that has no natural law rights, no rights you your land or house unless you pay them for the use of it, in their fraud to so called “protect your property “from other thieves that are in competition against them. Why you, dear PERSON, don’t have the right to travel anymore, only the privilege to use their car ( you think is yours) and property through license because you are no longer a MAN or WOMAN anymore, just a corporate slave.

You all must love it, as you stay in the system, locked there as a person arguing as if you are a MAN or WOMAN. Yes, the truth hurts. And those slaves that continually vote, as Spooner said are just as much or more so at fault for the Conditions of America today. Aren’t corporations the bane of mankind that you have heard on and off from time to time?

Why was it that the black man didn’t use the 14 th amendment until 1930? Because it was designed for corporations of the time and they took advantage of it since 1869. So what are you going to do about the situation once you have been exposed to the fraud?
If you knew what I knew, I would have to expand this to at least 500 pages, which you don’t have the time to sit in front of the computer reading it all. Plus, it would be too big for me to send internet. There is little that can be done about the situation and those that keep trying to go against the system by trying to get around this will only get into trouble looking for a silver bullet that does not exist peacefully.

That is why the right to keeps guns are attacked more and more so the people can’t use them against the Corporate CEO’s and Officers and board members. The recent Heller case opinion, of the Private Judicial Corporate U.S. Supreme Court, they never ruled on the unfettered right to keep arms. What they did was say, yes it’s a right provided you get our private corporate license to buy one and to carry one. Now, had the court said that it was a natural law right to buy and carry a gun without getting a permit, license, etc then that would be a genuine ruling for Freedom? But it was not, only enough to make people think they did a good job in protecting their absolute right to own a gun. So everyone would have to stop voting these criminals back into office, and see the con job for what it really is, an R.I.C.O operation document, not a document of Freedom, but one of slavery. How is a corporation destroyed is the question? That includes the state corporations as well as the U.S. corporations. Can we all say, “Just Say NO? If no one bought from Wal- Mart how long would it be, before it went out of business?

The Informer July 4, 2008


Next Terms Not Words

A Paradox For  Any Court

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.


June 5, 2014

by The Informer

In reading the Book WAR POWERS, published in 1864, by Whiting, who was the Solicitor General of the War Department of The United States, it does not come as a shock to me that we are nothing but slaves of Congress, AKA the United States. Whiting was Lincoln’s point man and developed the basis for Lincoln’s justification of the War Policies. Whiting teamed up with Fancis Lieber who wrote the “Lieber Code” that we are now under. James Montgomery, a present day researcher, also has written extensively on the Reconstruction Acts and the Lieber Code and how they apply to Americans to this very day. After Whiting left office, the position that he held, was never replaced.

Many people believe the term “United States” is NOT separate and distinct from the term “United States of America”, but that the two are synonymous. As I stated way back in 1990 and continue to state, America is a country, and the United States is NOT a country. The United States belongs to America. Since the phrase United States OF America contains the word “OF” between the two words United States and America, proper use of the word OF means the United States belongs to America. Another grammatical rule is that the phrase United States is a particular place and not a group of states united. To become a group of states the word United would have to appear as united States. The small “u” would change the word United from a noun to an adjective. To be grammatically correct, one would have to write united States of America to correctly mean all 50 States. But even that is not a country. Simply writing United States of America means only Congress, AKA the United States. A very simple proof is that when the TV airs the State of the Union message the President is always announced by stating, “I now present the President of the United States.” He is never introduced as “the President of the united States of America”. To be the President of the united States of America would mean that the Governors of each of the states would not have the final say on any laws passed in that state but would have to depend on submitting anything the Governor had to sign to the President for final approval.

As I have previously demonstrated in my other books, through copious government documents, both of the United States and England and history, that the common people never ratified the constitutions of any of the states, much less the United States, people still believe that they created the constitutions and are, therefore, the so called Sovereign. This sovereign status is claimed to mean that the people can tell government what and when to do anything through their perceived notion that they have representatives and these so called representatives are their servants. This is a myth that has been told people down through the centuries. This big lie is passed from generation to generation so much so that people of all walks of life now accept it as gospel truth. This myth has caused much dissent among the vast majority of people and and has even caused infighting amongst people called “patriots”, “militia” and others of like mind. This WAR POWERS book is further support for my research and others such as Mr. Montgomery. I will lead into this myth by quoting Whiting and what this great authority on War Powers had to say back in 1864. This will be very short and as I read through the book I will add to this work of Fallacy and Myth. It will be unbelievable to many who still believe the Big Lie that they are sovereign and somehow have control of this supposed government they created and can dispense with it when it becomes oppressive as it has today. I hope you are ready because what follows are not my words but those of the author Whiting with the concurrence of all government branches. You also have to remember that we have been in a state of war with these people called Congress and the other two branches of so called government.

The United States is a belligerent government under the international law of nations and the people therein, yes you, dear reader, are the enemy subject and have never, ever, been a sovereign, and neither have your relatives as far back as 1787, UNLESS your relatives were among the aristocracy having land and money and possibly a grant from the Crown.

Before I get into the book, and to give you what we call modern day research, I have to start with 48 Stat 1 which Roosevelt shoved through in Executive Order 2039 without Congress on the 4th and 5th of March 1933. Then on March 9, 1933 Roosevelt convened Congress and basically told them what he did and that they had to sign off on it as he declared a national emergency. This National Emergency made the United States citizens enemies by adding them to the 1917 Trading with the Enemies Act by changing 5(b) of that Act to include Americans, which it never did before. This is you today.

The original draft was prepared by the Federal Reserve System, NOT Congress, and can be found in President Hoover’s Papers that may be obtained from any Federal Depository. On March 3, 1933, President Hoover declared it to be unconstitutional and refused to implement what the Federal Reserve Board drafted. Immediately after taking office on March 4, 1933, after implementing what Hoover refused, the first thing Roosevelt did was to close the banks so they could be issued licenses by the President to deal with the enemy, who was defined now to be all people in the country. Immediately after that, each State set up its own Emergency War Powers regime to coincide with the United States. After thorough research in North Carolina by a team of 5 people, we came up with documentation between the United States and not only North Carolina but other States. It was to slowly induce people into obtaining licenses as now the people, being declared “public enemies,” had to have licenses. The documentations showed how all people that were not required to have a license to drive were now required to have a license merely to travel as a right because they were the enemies. This documentation also showed how speed laws were set; how federal labor laws and unemployment compensation was legislated into the States; and the most important of all, the social security touted as “insurance”, was in actuality a means of licensing the “enemy” to track their commerce under the trading with the newly revised 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act. This enemy surveillance is very evident today by the use of the social slave number called Social Security. It was instituted by the President, NOT Congress as most people believe. Oh sure, Congress passed legislation so it appears they instituted it, but under the war powers only the President institutes anything of importance and Congress under the constitutional war powers takes a second seat. They, in effect, become the puppets of the executive branch. While under the war powers,all branches that should come under the legislative branch and even the judiciary, are controlled by the executive department through the Commander-in-Chief.

Since 1933, and before then, we have always been under Executive Emergency Orders despite the fact that in 1974 all EXCEPT for section 5(b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917 was repealed. You can find it alive and well in Title 12 USC 95 (a) & (b). You can also find the other emergency war powers acts still existing from 1862 which have NEVER been repealed. They have their genesis from 12 Stat 319, and are 50 USC 212, 213, and 215 and 28 USC 2461 to 2465.

This is totally under military powers of the Commander in Chief, The President. This military Rule allows the civil government to operate as it all comes under administrative directives of the Commander In Chief. This explains the reason all courts fly the Executive’s Commander In Chief gold fringe flag and all of its stationary bears the United States Executive Seal. Now that you know that you have been under executive Rule before and since 1933, I will now go back to the first President to institute the Emergency War Powers Act to make the people the enemy of the State. Roosevelt only made you the enemy of the banking cartel to protect them. That is why the private banking system Board can do as they wish with impunity. They even wrote in the law that the signature card you sign when opening a bank account, unbeknownst to you, states in the 35 to 38 page contract they are to give to you, that you assume the debt of the United States. This is unconscionable that you were never informed under the commercial law. This is your promise, assumpsit in legal terms, that obligates and binds you to pay the debt of the United States by becoming the surety. How many people would enter a contract like that, knowing they are responsible for the national debt? Since the Federal Reserve is a private corporation and was made the fiscal agent of the Treasury to collect and disburse money, or choses in action called Federal Reserve notes, is the reason the 1040 IRS Form is a return. A return of a use portion of the debt that is circulated around the nation by the enemy, AKA the people of America. This is a very insidious scheme and people have no idea it exists.

The first President to use the Emergency powers was Washington. He used it to institute the first private bank of the United States which was against all principles of the constitution. Then in order to control the banks in each of the separate states, which Congress could not do under the constitution, he made districts out of each of the states. So now you had states and district states and that is how the district courts of each state were formed so the United States could now have control where it dare not tread before. Once emergency had been declared then all done under this act is constitutional. Contrary to what people believe this act DID NOT set the constitution aside. It only operated in a different way under emergency powers.

Now with all of this in mind, and knowing that the Commander in Chief can operate above the Constitution when military rule under the Emergency Powers Act is invoked, we move to Lincoln’s time and his Solicitor General of the War Department who wrote the book to show how common people have always been considered as nothing but mere chattel property of an aristocratic group called Congress. From the beginning this is the basis upon which people have slowly lost what rights they THOUGHT they had and the plan by means of which to get where we are today without a major rebellion by the people which almost took place in 1861 with the Southern States wanting to secede from the Union. That caused Lincoln to invoke the Emergency Powers Act in Order that he could control the Government without Congress. He did this under the guiding of the works of Whiting. Once invoked, Congress could do nothing to stop it, and the Courts, under this Act, cannot stop it at all. My comments, if needed, are in [brackets] so you know they are not from the book. Every jot and tittle is placed as recorded in the book. With that established let us move to the Book.

Chapter I

“There is no restriction as to the kind or character of private property which may be lawfully thus appropriated, whether it be real estate, personal estate, right in action or in possession, obligations for money, or for labor and service. Thus the obligations of minor children to their parents, of apprentices to their masters, and of persons owing labor and service to their masters, may lawfully be appropriated to public use, or discharged and destroyed for public benefit, by Congress, with the proviso that just compensation shall be allowed to the parent or master.”

[Now people, are you still sovereign? Did common people write such a constitution that would destroy the children so they could be taken by Congress without your consent? I think not.]

“The right to use the services of the minor, the apprentice, and the slave, for public benefit, belongs to the United States. The claims of all American citizens upon their services, whether by local law, or by common law, or by indentures, can be annulled by the same power, for the same reasons, and under the same restrictions that govern the appropriations of any other private property to public use.”

[And you think that the people who fought for freedom would have written and ratified such a power to Congress by way of this constitution that you so dearly love? Are you stating to realize something is amiss?]

“Slaves, as well as apprentices and minors, are equally subjects of the United States, whether they are or are not citizens thereof. The government of the United States has the right to call upon its subjects to do military duty.”

[Now if you are Sovereign why do they call all subjects. They italicised the words, not I. Without a shadow of a doubt you are slaves to Congress. Do you have to wonder any more why the state can take your children and you are powerless to do anything about it? And the common people wrote and believe in a constitution that would allow a group of men called Congress to have so much power when they just fought for freedom? Was not Patrick Henry correct when he stated in the June 7th 1788 Convention that the Constitution, “Among other deformities, it has an awful squinting: it squints toward monarchy. And does not raise indignation in the breast of every American? Your President may easily become King. . . The army will salute him Monarch: your militia will leave you and assist in making him King and fight against you. And what have you to oppose this force? What will then become of you and your rights? Will not absolute despotism ensue?” And what of James Wilson when he voiced, “Henry looked upon “that paper” as “the most fatal plan that could possible be conceived to enslave a free people.” Ok , so what does commit you to the wrath of Congress? It is stated in the book in big italic letters, which you all should look in a grammar dictionary to see what italics mean.]

“The general government of the United States has, in time of peace, a legal right, under the constitution, to appropriate to public use the private property of any subject, or of any number of subjects, owing it allegiance. Each of the States claims and exercises a similar right over the property of its citizens.”

[As stated, the people are “SUBJECTS” of the Government just like the “subjects” of English Rule and the words in italics that control you as subjects are allegiance. Allegiance can be found in many ways. People are pledging the Pledge of Allegiance; claiming to be a citizen of either a State or of the United States; registering to vote; claiming to be a “resident” in the state of the forum; signing a signature card at the bank that obligates to accept the debt of Congress so you are bound by contract to pay, thereby becoming a “subject.”; claiming that the constitution is yours; claiming the constitution was designed by people like you and that is the law that you must abide by. All are presumed to be allegiance. Now did this apply to all, even colored people? Why yes and this Book proves that the Constitution CREATED slavery, and that it took away the rights of citizenship of the colored people. Now, those people that argue that the 14th Amendment made the colored people free might be correct, but it also made the white people slaves when relying on the 14th Amendment, even though they became slaves to the establishment when declared enemies of the “State.” The Book shows the misinformation used by people claiming that only white people were citizens. It also shows that the word citizen was used well before the 14th Amendment, as seen in the quotes below.]

“The only question is, whether this power is not exclusive, see Chirac v Chirac, 2 Wheat. 269; U.S. v Villato, 2 Dall. 372; Thirlow v Mass., 5 How. 585; Smith v Turner, 7 ib, 556; Golden v Prince, 3 W.C.C. Reports, 314

Congress may thus give the privileges of citizenship to any persons whatsoever, black or white. Colored men, having been citizens in some of the States ever since they were founded, having acted as citizens prior to 1788 in various civil and military capacities, are therefore citizens of the United States, see case of Dred Scott; which no part denies that if colored men were citizens of either of the states which adopted the constitution, they were citizens of the United States. … If white subjects or citizens, owe labor or service, even by formal indentures, such obligations afford no valid excuse against the requisition of government to have them drafted into the militia to serve the country.”

[Hence the President and Congress via the Constitution took away the rights of the colored people by declaring them property. The constitution, by which you people who read this; believe that you are sovereign; believe that common people drafted and ratified the constitution; believe that you own your property; believe that you are not subjects of a group of men called Congress, or that of legislators of the states; believe the Bill of Rights protects you; believe the constitution is the supreme law of the land . . . your beliefs are 100 percent wrong. What if I told you that this Book states that treaties and International law of Nations are supreme over even the constitution drafted by the aristocracy of this country and that even the state succumb to these treaties and International Law? This Book proves it. This Book had an advisory board of eight professors and eminent lawyers carrying L.L.D.; J.S.D.; S.J.D.; J.D., M.A.L.S.; F.R.B and Ph.D. to authenticate its contents written by the Solicitor General of the War Department of the United States. The Constitution that you claim you love so much, took away natural rights of man via the following]:-

INDEMNITY IS REQUIRED “But, when individuals are called upon to give up what is their own for the advantage of the community, justice requires that they should be fairly compensated for it; . . . (Amendments, Art. V, last clause,) “Nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”

[The language of this amendment admits the right of the United States to take private property for public use. This amendment, being now a part of the constitution, leaves that right no longer open to question, if it ever was in question.]

“PUBLIC USE” What is “public use” for which private property may be taken? Every appropriation for the benefit of the United States, either for a national public improvement, or to carry into effect and valid law of Congress for the maintenance, protection, or security of national interests, is “public use.”

[I end Chapter one of the Book on this note. The above are only parts gleaned from Chapter one of this 342 page book. Chapter one is only 31 pages. The word “Public” means government only and not the mass of people. It is limited to Congress or State Legislators. You common people have no representation whatsoever. All the Congressmen do is represent the United States corporation claiming they represent you in the district state that Washington created under the War Powers clause in 1791. In this chapter it explains the specific parts that are war powers clauses and they are; Article I, Section 8, Clauses 11, 12, 14, 15, and 16. The book also states that, “The preamble to the constitution declares the objects for which it was framed to be these” — then it is quoted.]

The powers of the legislative department in relation to war are contained chiefly in the following sections in the constitution:– Art. I., Sect.8, Cl.11. Congress may institute war by declaring it against an enemy. The President alone cannot do so. Also Congress may make laws concerning captures on land, as well as on water. Art. I., Sect.8, Cl 12. Congress may raise and support armies: and provide and maintain a navy. Art. I., Sect.8, Cl.14. Congress man make laws for the government of land and naval forces. Art. I., Sect. 8. Cl. 15. Congress may provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection, and repel invasion. Art. I., Sect.8, Cl. 16. And may provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. The preamble to the constitution declares the objects for which it was formed to be these: “to form a more perfect Union; establish justice; insure domestic tranquility; provide for the common defense; promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

[So in time of war, which falls under a national emergency, even though no shooting or invasion has occurred, the constitution that you so dearly love and would die for, is the very document that allowed all president Washington to declare the first emergency powers act to institute the first Bank of the United States; Lincoln to make the people and it’s Union Members, the States, the enemy of the United States; Roosevelt to declare the national emergency in 1933 under the War Powers Act and the Trading With the Enemy Act; and the current President, Clinton to control you as citizen/subjects/slaves within the system designed and drafted by the landed aristocracy in treaty with the Crown. That is why the Solicitor, Whiting, stated that International Law of Nations and Treaty rein supreme, and not the Constitution when emergency powers are invoked. This I exposed by court cases in my book The New History of America. The Big Lie is now even more evident and I have just scratched the surface of the first chapter of eight.

In the second chapter we find Congress has the power under the War Power clauses to write statutes in aid of the President “in the final and permanent conquest of a public enemy.” I cannot impress upon the reader the words “conquest and public enemy” and I implore you to study these words on your own in any library. This book pertains to the time of the “civil war” but has far reaching consequences in the principles it spells out.]

“Congress may pass such laws in peace or in war as they are within the general powers conferred on it, unless they fall within some express prohibition of the constitution. If confiscation or emancipation laws are enacted under the war powers of Congress, we must determine, in order to test their validity, whether, in suppressing a rebellion of colossal proportions, the United States are, within the meaning of the constitution, at war with its own citizens? Whether confiscation and emancipation are sanctioned as belligerent rights by law and usage of civilized nations? And whether our government has full belligerent rights against its rebellious subjects.

War may originate in either of several ways. Civil war, within the meaning of the constitution, exists whenever any combination of citizens is formed to resist generally the execution of any one or all the laws of the United States, if accompanied with overt acts to give that resistance effect.”

[Right here is proof that if Congress pass laws that are repugnant to human rights, and there has been a total erosion of many, many freedoms of Americans, as you well know, then they are stating that the people, who are perceived by the people themselves to be Sovereigns, are without any such power to correct the law or laws repugnant to their rights. If the people were truly Sovereigns as they claim, no such section in the constitution created by the common man would exist. For if in doing so, the people would have declared that they elected another King or dictator, and to thwart these rights the people claim as sovereign’s, all the President or Congress has to do is invoke the Emergency Powers Act. Such was done in 1933 when people demanded their money from the banks that had stolen all their money. You know, the ones that you have signed the signature card agreeing to accept the National Debt. This right to seek a return of money deposited in the banks for safe keeping was thwarted by Roosevelt to protect all the banks, which, included his friend Rockefeller who owned the Chicago bank and would lose all his holdings if forced to return the people’s money that was rightfully theirs. This was called suppression by government because they were suppressing a rebellion of the people to claim what was rightfully theirs from a private banking system that was now under the supposed control of the United States as it acted as the agent for the United States when the United States did away with a truly Independent Treasury by the Act of 1920 in the year 1921, making the PRIVATE Federal Reserve system the fiscal agent of the United States.]

“Hence it follows, that government, while engaging in suppressing a rebellion, is not deprived of the rights of a belligerent against rebels, by reason of the fact that no formal declaration of war has been made against them, as though they were an alien enemy — . . . The right of a country to treat its rebellious citizens both as belligerents and as subjects has long been recognized in Europe, and by the Supreme Court of the United States* See Geo.III. Ch. 9 1777; Pickering Statutes, Vol. 31, page 312; President’s Proclamation, April 16, 1861 and U.S. Statute at Large , 1861, App.P. 2. It has been decided, since this edition was in type, that citizens of the States in rebellion are considered as public enemies, and are not entitled to sue in courts of the United States.

[Although this Book deals with the Civil War, the principles laid out are for any emergency declared under the War Power clauses, not just the Civil war of the 1860’s. But Roosevelt invoked that Act, which exists to this day. So the following must be read with this in mind when considering that a majority of people say there is no more constitution. There is a constitution, as it is constitutional for what the government does to you today under War Powers — like take your land as most people in confrontation with farm land or wet lands would agree; confiscate car, home and whatever under the “war on Drugs” without due process of any law that would exist in time of peace; license and number all people to track the public enemies, being you. It behooves the reader to seek the definitions of “belligerent” in both legal and standard dictionaries. The United States, as belligerent IS the de facto government, as people state when reading the definitions closely. I am at this point, inserting what came off the Internet of the hearings before Congress of just one evidence of the confiscation of hundreds of thousands every year, that in time of peace and not under War Powers would have never taken place. When reading this keep in mind what you have already read and are about to read after this actual happening.

Introductory statement at the Judiciary Hearing, July 22, 1996. Rayburn Building.

To: House of Representatives/Committee on the Judiciary/Civil Forfeiture Reform I sincerely appreciate this opportunity to speak to you in person about my mother’s experience with the abuse of our national civil forfeiture law, a law which ignores due process, encourages abuse by police and prosecutors, confiscates property from innocent law-abiding citizens and threatens our sacred honor with the tyranny of a police state. My mother is an 85 pound, 75 year old hardworking frugal lady, who chose to squirrel away any extra money she had rather than buy herself any of the things most people consider necessities. Although she has bought a few residential rental properties, she still tears Kleenex in half to stretch her money, and settles for eating half sandwiches rather than run up her grocery bill. She has never taken a vacation or missed a day’s work in the business, but neither has she ever been to a shopping mall. She’s always lived as though the next Great Depression would happen any day. By 70, she managed to save around $70,000 which she kept in her house because her Depression experience taught her not to always trust banks. In December of 1989, the U.S. Government came to my mother’s home and took her savings from a floor safe in her basement. Three months later, they seized her home and two rental properties she owned. You need to know my mother was never charged with a crime, and the police acknowledged she was never part of my brother’s marijuana ring conspiracy. Mom’s biggest sin was allowing the adult son she loved to live next door to her. After my brother was indicted, he fled town. The government suspected she PROBABLY had allowed him to use her property illegally, and had PROBABLY been given cash earned by him illegally. As you know, asset forfeiture laws only require probable cause to seize property. Once property has been seized it is the owner’s burden to prove innocence to the government. When this happened to Mom, I thought “innocent until proven guilty” would apply in her case and she would immediately get her cash back. Trusting the government, I didn’t even hire an attorney at that time. I soon learned that under the Constitution a citizen isn’t afforded innocent until proven guilty in civil forfeiture cases. She wasn’t considered innocent and the government didn’t have to prove anything. The $70,000 they took from mom was mostly old bills dated from the 60’s and 70’s and was covered with mold and mildew. The safe was rusted shut and had to be drilled open. Tragically, the FBI did not keep her cash in an evidence locker, but deposited her money into a bank, co-mingling it with other people’s money and thus destroying her evidence and proof of innocence.

The morning government agents banged on Mom’s door telling her they were there to seize her home, they included the local police, County Sheriff’s Dept., U.S. Marshall’s Service, several FBI agents, and IRS agents (about 20 in all). All this force to take some property from one, innocent, unarmed, law-abiding 70 year old, 85 pound woman. I immediately called our family attorney and he met me at Mom’s house. It had previously been said to me by an agent, “They want to take everything your mother has a make her tell what she knows about your brother, and maybe it will make him come back, too !”

When I arrived at Mom’s home she was in a daze. One agent had a camcorder going on her as she sat there in her old negligee at 8:00 AM. She said she asked the agents where she was suppose to live and was told, “I don’t care where you go, but you have a half-hour to pack up and get out !” Thankfully, our attorney was able to reach an agreement that allowed Mom to “rent” her own house from the government until the case went to trial. The horror of the forfeiture squad invading her home still brings regular nightmares to mom 6 years later. I did everything in my power to convince the government agents that they were making a huge mistake and that mom was not a criminal. To them that didn’t matter. Since they COULD seize her property, they did. An agent said to me, “When I first took this case to my boss, he said not even to mess around with it, that it was just another stupid marijuana case, until I showed him how many assets we could get!” I spent many, many cooperative and truthful hours trying to convince them that this was insane, and finally realized it would cost me more going to trial than her properties were worth. I eventually made a settlement with them and Mom got to keep a little of what she worked her whole life for. They took most of it, including her dignity and love for our government.

I am here for my mother and our Country. It is too late to help her case, and besides, I had the government sign a paper that they could never bother her again. I want to make sure they can never do this to another mother with a bad kid. I have been on this crusade since I saw a Readers Digest article in 1992, titled, Is It Police Work or Plunder, about nationwide forfeiture abuse and Congressman Hyde’s effort to reform this law. I bought a computer, joined an Online Internet Service and have been e-mailing thousands of unaware citizens to educate them about this barbaric civil forfeiture law.

Nobody thinks it is right when they learn how it is used, except prosecutors who do not want a proof provision in the law. One prosecutor told me, “Citizens don’t need a proof provision, those in charge of a case are perfectly capable of determining who is guilty!” That statement, I was told by a Constitutional law professor, is the definition of tyranny. I love the America I knew growing up in the 40’s and 50’s, but am scared to death of the police state this Country could become with more and more laws allowing forfeiture. IT HAS TO STOP. Our Founding Fathers put their lives on the line against tyranny and cavalier attitudes. In my opinion, no real or personal property should be forfeited except in criminal cases. Eliminate this ridiculous, insane, corrupting law, or re-write it to include meaningful proof, fairness and compassion. It is ruining people’s lives and is just another national disgrace.

Thank you.

Note: Mom eventually took her own life over this matter. End of testimony

Now please read the rest of this Book more closely or go back and refresh your memory before reading further. This could very well happen to you. This man, speaking for his mother has no idea he is talking to the proverbial foxes guarding the status quo to see that it is kept intact and paying lip service to correct what they know cannot be corrected unless the President declares, #1 a repeal of 12 Stat 319. #2 a repeal of 12 USC 95 (a) & (b). #3 A repeal of section 5 (b) of the Trading with the Enemy Act as written in 48 Stat 1.]

Having shown that the United States being actually engaged in civil war, —- in other words, having become a belligerent power, without formal declaration of war,— it is important to ascertain what some of the rights of belligerents are, according to the law of nations. It will be observed that the law of nations is above the constitution of any government; and no people would be justified by its peculiar constitution in violating rights of other nations. With this caveat, it will be desirable to state some of the rights of belligerents. Either belligerent may seize and confiscate all the property of the enemy, on land or on the sea, including real as well as personal estate.

[This is exactly what they did to the woman above and hundreds of thousands of people in this country every year]

Some persons have questioned whether title passes in this country by capture or confiscation, by reason of some of the limiting clauses of the constitution; and others have gone so far as to assert that all the proceedings under martial law, such as capturing the enemy’s property, imprisonment of spies and traitors, and seizures of articles contraband of war [all drug related or other avenues the government of 1999 uses, whether guilty or not to seize such property], and suspending the habeas corpus, are in violation of the constitution, which declares that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, Art. V; that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, Art. V; that unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be made, Art IV; that freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged, Art. I; and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Art. II.

If these rules are applicable to a state of war, then capture of property is illegal, and does not pass a title; no defensive war can be carried on; . . . Not a gun can be fired constitutionally, because it might deprive a rebel foe of his life without due process of law — firing a gun not being deemed “due process of law.” If these rules above cited have any application in time of war, the United States cannot protect each of the States from invasion by citizens of other States, nor against domestic violence;

The clauses which have been cited from the amendments to the constitution were intended as declarations of the rights of peaceful and loyal citizens, and safeguards in the administration of justice by the civil tribunals; but it was necessary, in order to give the government the means of defending itself against domestic and foreign enemies, to maintain its authority and dignity, and to enforce obedience to its laws, that it should have unlimited war powers. The right of war and the rights of peace cannot coexist. One must yield to the other. Martial law and civil law cannot operate at the same time and place upon the same subject matter. Hence the constitution was framed with full recognition of that fact; it protects the citizen in peace and war; but his rights enjoyed under the constitution are different from those to which he is entitled in time of war.

[Now one must remember, that present day law is in reality military law that allows the civilian authorities to apply the rules of war upon belligerents. One must also remember that the United States has declared war upon its citizens by the act of 12 Stat 319 and 48 Stat 1, which, to this day, has never been repealed by Congress. The fact that Title 12 USC 95 (a) & (b) has declared the people of America “public enemies” still exists, proves it is a “domestic war” upon which President Roosevelt acted at the behest of the Federal Reserve. We have become the belligerent enemy to the belligerent United States. Mind you, we did not declare war against the United States, rather the United States declared an imperfect war upon the people of America. There is no public declaration as if we were a foreign power like Japan was in 1942. No, there is a subtle declaration in 48 Stat 1 and 12 Stat 319. People find this hard to believe until they read for themselves all these statutes and United States Codes and regulations I have quoted herein. The law speaks for itself quite clearly, and after reading them, it would be impossible for anyone to deny this fact. Belligerents we are, and with that in mind I return to the Book.]


None of these rights, guaranteed to peaceful citizens, by the constitution belong to them after they have become belligerents against their own government. They thereby forfeit all protection under that sacred charter which they have thus sought to overthrow and destroy. [People, this was the ploy that the Roosevelt and Lincoln governments used to reign over the people of America. They reversed the roles as they declared the people the enemy, not the other way around]. One party to a contract cannot break it and at the same time hold the other to perform it. It is true that if the government elects to treat them as subjects and to hold them liable only to penalties for violating statutes, it must concede to all of them all the legal rights and privileges which other citizens would have when under similar accusations;.


Nothing in the constitution interferes with the belligerent right of confiscation of enemy property. [Always remember people, that you are the “enemy” declared by your wonderful government.] The right to confiscate is derived from a state of war. It is one of the rights of war. The right of confiscation belongs to the government as the necessary consequence of the power and duty of making war — OFFENSIVE or defensive. [EMPHASIS Mine]. If authority were needed to support the right of confiscation, it may be found in 3 Dallas, 227; Vit.lib.iii., ch. 8, sect. 188; lib., ch. 9, sect. 161; Smith v Mansfield, cranch, 306-7; Cooper v Telfair, 4 Dallas; Brown v. U.S., 8 Cranch 110, 228, 229. From the foregoing authorities, it is evident that the government has a right, as a belligerent power, to capture or to confiscate any and all the personal property of the enemy; that there is nothing in the constitution which limits or controls the exercise of that right; and that capture in war, or confiscation by law, passes a complete title to the property taken; and that, if judicial condemnation of enemy property be sought, in order to pass title to it by formal decree of courts, by mere seizure, and without capture, the confiscation must have been declared by act of Congress, a mere declaration of war not being ex vi termini sufficient for that purpose.

[This is exactly how and why the IRS operate, the BATF, the DEA, and all those other alphabet agencies of government, right down to child services. And, remember the IRS is nothing but a private collector hired by the IRS District Director to collect for the private Federal Reserve System, the debt owed to the International Monetary Fund by the United States, that caused you to become the “enemies” in 1933 by 48 Stat 1, which was written by the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve. You also must remember at the beginning of this book, it is said by Whiting, that minors can be taken in time of war from their belligerent parent, or have you forgotten so soon?]


In addition to the right of confiscating personal property of the enemy, a state of war also confers upon the government other not less important belligerent rights, and among them, the right to seize and hold conquered territory by military force, and of instituting and maintaining military government over it, thereby suspending in part, or in whole, the ordinary civil administration. The exercise of this right has been sanctioned by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of California, Cross v Harrison, 16 How 164-190. And it is founded upon well-established doctrines of the law of nations. No citizen, whether loyal or rebel, is deprived of any right guaranteed to him in the constitution by reason of his subjection to martial law, because martial law, when in force, is constitutional law.


“Property of persons residing in the enemy’s country is deemed, in law, hostile, and subject to condemnation without any evidence As to the opinions or predilections of the owner.” If he is the subject of a neutral, or a citizen of one of the belligerent States, and has expressed no disloyal sentiments towards his country, still his residence in the enemy’s country impresses upon his property, engaged in commerce and found upon the ocean, a hostile character, and subjects it to condemnation. This familiar principle of law is sanctioned in the highest courts of England and of the United States, and has been decided to apply to cases of civil as well as of foreign war.

While war is raging, many of the rights held sacred by the constitution — rights which cannot be violated by any acts of Congress — may and must be suspended and held in abeyance.

[The following proves that you never owned your property and if you did it can still be taken, evidence the woman’s plight above. So much for the argument that even the King may not enter your house although the cold, wind, rain , etc. etc. may. And so much for the argument that you are sovereign and the government takes a back seat to your wishes. Remember, reader that you have been declared the “enemy” by those officials of government, namely, Congress and the president, who you claim to be your servants. The confiscation acts have not been repealed and have been in force since 1787.]


The belligerent right of the government to confiscate enemy’s real estate, situated in this country, can hardly admit of a question. The title to no inconsiderable part of the real estate in each of the original States of the Union, rests upon the validity of the confiscation acts, passed by our ancestors against loyal adherents to the crown. Probably none of these States failed to pass and apply these laws. English and American acts of confiscation were recognized by the laws of both countries, and their operation modified by treaties; their validity was never denied. The only authority which either of the States or colonies ever had for passing such laws was derived from the fact that they were the belligerents.


“It belongs exclusively to the President to judge when the exigency arises in which he has the authority, under the constitution, to call forth the militia and his decision is exclusive on all other person.” *Such is the language of Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, in Martin v Mott, 12 Wheaton, 19

[Jumping to Chapter five and reading what the true meaning of the constitution is, will be shocking to those that think what they read is what they read and cannot infer any other meaning. No so, because the constitution is couched in technical language, NOT common sense meaning. This was shown when I quoted Article I Section 8 clauses.]


The language of the constitution is peculiar; it is technical; and it shows on the face of it an intention to limit the technical operation of attainders, not to limit the scope or extent of legislative penalties. If the authors of the constitution meant to say that Congress should pass no law punishing treason by attainder, or by its consequences, viz., forfeiture of estate, or corruption of blood, they would, in plain terms, have said so; and there would have been an end to the penalties of attainder, as there was an end to bills of attainder. Instead of saying, “Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but shall not impose the penalties of attainder upon the offender,” they said, “Congress shall have the power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person attainted.” This phraseology has reference only to technical effect of attainder. The “working of forfeitures” is a phrase used by lawyers to show the legal result or effect which arises from a certain state of facts. Note. Since the publication of the seventh edition, it has been decided by Underwood, J., in the Eastern District Court of the U.S. for Virginia, in the case of U.S. v Latham, first, that the Confiscation Act above cited is authorized by the Constitution; second, that by the terms of that Act (dated July 17th, 1862, ch. 195), as modified by the joint resolution of July 27th, 1862 (No. 63), the punishment of treason is not limited to forfeiture of the life estate of the offender, and is not required to be so limited by the Constitution; but the forfeiture extends to the entire estate in fee simple.

[How do the U.S. government or the States seemingly get around this attainder or ex post facto law when; seizing property of the farmer; or from people whose land they want for national parks; wet land violations they concoct; seizures of all kinds of property under “drug war laws” whether innocent or not without due process? The reasons are found in War Powers, which are constitutional. If you are not found guilty of treason the validity of any statute passed by Congress, or for that matter the State legislatures cannot be questioned, only if your are so charged, and, therefore, what you thought was a protection does not become a protection under the constitutional operation of military rule by civil authorities under War Powers Acts. You will understand by what is stated by Whiting as follows.]


This act is not a bill of attainder, because it does not punish the offender in any instance with corruption of blood, and it does not declare him, by act of the legislature, guilty of treason, inasmuch as the offender’s guilt must be duly proved and established by judicial proceedings before he can be sentenced. It is not ex post facto law, as it declares no act committed prior to the time when the law goes into operation to be a crime, or to be punishable as such. It provides for no attainder of treason, and therefore none of the penal consequences which might have otherwise have followed them from such attainder.


If the death penalty is not inflicted on the guilty, and if he be not accused of treason, no question as to the validity of the statute could arise under this clause of the constitution limiting the effect of attainders for treason. No objection could be urged against its validity on the ground of its forfeiting of confiscating all the property of the offender, or of its depriving him of liberty by imprisonment, or of it exiling him from this country. . . .But the crime punished by section 6 is not the crime of treason; and whether there be or be not a limitation to the power of the legislature to punish that crime, there is no limit to its power to punish the crime described in this section,*. See Note, page 111 United States v Latham. Though treason is the highest political crime known to the codes of law, yet wide spread and savage rebellion is still a higher crime against society; . . .

[So now you know that treason is ONLY a POLITICAL crime, how is it that we, the people of America, have become the enemies of the POLITICAL establishment? The answer is very simple after reading my book The New History of America. The political aristocracy who wrote the Constitution did not intend for the masses to take part and become the sovereigns you think you are. No, neither you nor your ancestors were ever party to the contract called the Constitution of any of the colonies nor of the United States. I have quoted the case in my New History of America which I quote only a small part here,

“to this: that the States, in making the Constitution, intended to give up the power of self preservation.”

Lastly, the Court at page 491, said this of the People who made the constitutions:

“The people of the States who made the Constitution, considered themselves as the sovereign, and the Government as the subject. They were the principal — it the agent. That this is also true none will dispute.”

We all know it is not us people who made the Constitutions but the select few as stated by the Court at page 520, to wit:

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain. If they do they are entitled to redress. Or they may waive the right to complain.” END OF QUOTE.

The only way to control the masses is to institute constitutional war powers to institute a different, but constitutional, set of parameters upon the people. Once the war powers are adopted they can change the statutes to fit the ends they want to achieve. They do it slowly so as to not give a clue to the masses. The war powers act of 1862 allowed the President and Congress to constitutionally change the statutes that guaranteed the people, in juries, to rule on both the law and the facts. Not only were the statutes changed that took away the power to judge the law but it also took away the right to be judged by your peers. The meaning of peers will be very evident when reading the next part of Whiting’s Book and shows why today you have no such protections because the enemy can have no such protections. Even to the point that the jury is not aware of the slow indoctrination over the years that they really do have the right to judge the law, but not under the Rule of Necessity in the Rules of military Rule.]


The jury are by law judges of the law and the fact, according to the opinion of many eminent lawyers and judges. Whether this be so or not, their verdict, being upon the law and the fact, in a criminal case, they become in effect judges of law and fact. Suppose that a judge presiding at the trial is honest and loyal, and that the jury is composed of men who believe that loyalty to the State is paramount to loyalty to the United States; or that the States had, and have, a lawful right to secede from the Union. Whatever of the opinions of the judge presiding in the United States courts might be on these questions, he would have no power to root out from the jury their honest belief, that obedience to their own laws of their own seceding State is not, and cannot be, treason. [Now you are going to see how they have destroyed the jury to gain a conviction in 99 percent of the cases, say IRS cases, so that the courts control the outcome under the doctrine of the Military Rules of War, and the jury be damned.] The first step towards securing a verdict would be to destroy the belief of the jury in these doctrines [sounds like jury tampering] of State rights, paramount State sovereignty, and the right of secession. To decide the issue, according to the conscientious judgment of the jurymen upon the facts and the law, would require them to find a verdict against the United States.


But this is not the only difficulty in the operation of this statute. The grand jury and the petit jury are to be drawn from those who are neighbors and possibly friends of the traitor. [remember, a traitor is a “political” enemy as defined by the Solicitor himself and you are a “political enemy” today] The accused has the further advantage of knowing, before the time of trial, the names of all the jurors, and of all the witnesses to be produced against him; he has the benefit of counsel, and the process of the United States to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf.* Statute of April 30, 1790, Sec.29. How improbable is it that any jury of twelve men will be found to take away the lives or estates of their associates, when some of the jurymen themselves, or their friends and relatives or debtors, are involved in the same offense!

[now we are going to get to the meat of jurisdiction in IRS cases. I have stated all along and written about it extensively that all revenue is under admiralty, but very few will listen. Well read the next statement of the Solicitor.]


Those section of the act of 1862, empowering government to seize rebel property, real, personal, and mixed, and apply it to the use of the army, [today it is the local police using seized property] to secure the condemnation and sale of seized property, so as to make it available, and to authorize proceedings in rem, conformably to proceedings in admiralty or revenue cases, are of a different and far more effective character.

[Since I have been talking about these acts of seizure and so has the Solicitor, I think it only fair to produce those codified statutes that were born by 12 Stat 319 and never repealed, showing that the war powers and military rule still exists. If the war against the people, by the government was over, these laws would have been repealed.

Notes on Title 50, Section 212 SOURCE (R.S. Sec. 5308.) CODIFICATION R.S. Sec. 5308 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 1, 12 Stat. 319.

Title 50 Sec. 212. Confiscation of property employed to aid insurrection Whenever during any insurrection against the Government of the United States, after the President shall have declared by proclamation that the laws of the United States are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the power vested in the marshals by law, any person, or his agent, attorney, or employee, purchases or acquires, sells or gives, any property of whatsoever kind or description, with intent to use or employ the same, or suffers the same to be used or employed in aiding, abetting, or promoting such insurrection or resistance to the laws, or any person engaged therein; or being the owner of any such property, knowingly uses or employs, or consents to such use or employment of the same, all such property shall be lawful subject of prize and capture wherever found; and it shall be the duty of the President to cause the same to be seized, confiscated, and condemned.

Notes on Title 50, Section 213 SOURCE (R.S. Sec. 5309; Feb. 27, 1877, ch. 69, Sec. 1, 19 Stat. 253; Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, Sec. 291, 36 Stat. 1167.) -COD- CODIFICATION R.S. Sec. 5309 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 2,12 Stat. 319. Act Mar. 3, 1911, conferred the powers and duties of the former circuit courts upon the district courts. AMENDMENTS 1877 – Act Feb. 27, 1877, inserted ”may” after ”any district in which the same”.

Sec. 213. Jurisdiction of confiscation proceedings Such prizes and capture shall be condemned in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the amount, or in admiralty in any district in which the same may be seized, or into which they may be taken and proceedings first instituted.

Notes on Title 50, Section 215 SOURCE (R.S. Sec. 5311; June 25, 1948, ch. 646, Sec. 1, 62 Stat. 909.) CODIFICATION R.S. Sec. 5311 derived from act Aug. 6, 1861, ch. 60, Sec. 3, 12 Stat. 319. -CHANGE- CHANGE OF NAME Act June 25, 1948, eff. Sept. 1, 1948, substituted ”United States attorney” for ”attorney of the United States”. See section 541 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, and Historical and Revision Notes thereunder.

Sec. 215. Institution of confiscation proceedings The Attorney General, or the United States attorney for any judicial district in which such property may at the time be, may institute the proceedings of condemnation, and in such case they shall be wholly for the benefit of the United States; or any person may file an information with such attorney, in which case the proceedings shall be for the use of such informer and the United States in equal parts.

Now this is not the only place that seizure is found. I now move to 28 USC.


Admiralty and maritime rules of practice (which included libel procedures) were superseded, and civil and admiralty procedures in United States district courts were unified, effective July 1, 1966, see rule 1 and Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, Appendix to this title.

Sec. 2461. Mode of recovery (a) Whenever a civil fine, penalty or pecuniary forfeiture is prescribed for the violation of an Act of Congress without specifying the mode of recovery or enforcement thereof, it may be recovered in a civil action. (b) Unless otherwise provided by Act of Congress, whenever a forfeiture of property is prescribed as a penalty for violation of an Act of Congress and the seizure takes place on the high seas or on navigable waters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States, such forfeiture may be enforced by libel in admiralty but in cases of seizures on land the forfeiture may be enforced by a proceeding by libel which shall conform as near as may be to proceedings in admiralty.

Sec. 2462. Time for commencing proceedings Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued if, within the same period, the offender or the property is found within the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.

Sec. 2463. Property taken under revenue law not repleviable All property taken or detained under any revenue law of the United States shall not be repleviable, but shall be deemed to be in the custody of the law and subject only to the orders and decrees of the courts of the United States having jurisdiction thereof. SECTION REFERRED TO IN OTHER SECTIONS This section is referred to in title 26 section 7434.

Sec. 2464. Security; special bond (a) Except in cases of seizures for forfeiture under any law of the United States, whenever a warrant of arrest or other process in rem is issued in any admiralty case, the United States marshal shall stay the execution of such process, or discharge the property arrested if the process has been levied, on receiving from the respondent or claimant of the property a bond or stipulation in double the amount claimed by the libellant, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the judge of the district court where the case is pending, or, in his absence, by the collector of the port, conditioned to answer the decree of the court in such case. Such bond or stipulation shall be returned to the court, and judgment or decree thereon, against both the principal and sureties, may be secured at the time of rendering the decree in the original case. The owner of any vessel may deliver to the marshal a bond or stipulation, with sufficient surety, to be approved by the judge of the district court, conditioned to answer the decree of such court in all or any cases that are brought thereafter in such court against the vessel. Thereupon the execution of all such process against such vessel shall be stayed so long as the amount secured by such bond or stipulation is at least double the aggregate amount claimed by libellants in such suits which are begun and pending against such vessel. Similar judgments or decrees and remedies may be had on such bond or stipulation as if a special bond or stipulation had been filed in each of such suits. (b) The court may make necessary orders to carry this section into effect, particularly in giving proper notice of any such suit. Such bond or stipulation shall be endorsed by the clerk with a minute of the suits wherein process is so stayed. Further security may be required by the court at any time. (c) If a special bond or stipulation in the particular case is given under this section, the liability as to said case on the general bond or stipulation shall cease. The parties may stipulate the amount of the bond or stipulation for the release of a vessel or other property to be not more than the amount claimed in the libel, with interest, plus an allowance for libellant’s costs. In the event of the inability or refusal of the parties to so stipulate, the court shall fix the amount, but if not so fixed then a bond shall be required in the amount prescribed in this section. Security; special bond

Sec. 2465. Return of property to claimant; certificate of reasonable cause; liability for wrongful seizure

Upon the entry of judgment for the claimant in any proceeding to condemn or forfeit property seized under any Act of Congress, such property shall be returned forthwith to the claimant or his agent; but if it appears that there was reasonable cause for the seizure, the court shall cause a proper certificate thereof to be entered and the claimant shall not, in such case, be entitled to costs, nor shall the person who made the seizure, nor the prosecutor, be liable to suit or judgment on account of such suit or prosecution.


This section is referred to in title 26 section 7328.

I now proceed to IRS cases to prove the above and what Whiting stated about revenue and admiralty being the same jurisdiction for collection and seizure. He did say that under the war powers “in rem” proceedings are used. His reasoning was adopted by the Supreme Court in 1863.

United States v. One 1966 Chevrolet Pickup Truck, 56 F.R.D. 450 (1972); “A proceeding in rem is governed by the Supplemental Rules for Certain Admiralty and Maritime Claims, a supplement to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C. (hereinafter Supplemental Rules), See Rule A, Supplemental Rules;”

And this next case, United States of America, Libelant v $3976.62 In Currency, One 1960 Ford Station Wagon, 37 F.R.D. 564; Key 31. “Although presumably for purpose of obtaining jurisdiction, action for forfeiture under Internal Revenue Laws is commenced as proceeding in admiralty, after jurisdiction is obtained proceeding takes on the character of civil action at law, and at least at such stage of proceedings, Rules of Civil Procedure control.” “On August 14, 1964 a `libel’ of information’ (see Supreme Court Admiralty Rule 21; 28 U.S.C.  1355; 26 U.S.C. 7323) was filed by the United States Attorney.” Ibid 565.

Further proof is gleaned from Benedict on Admiralty 7th Edition. Quoting from Benedict on Admiralty, 1850; “Its necessary effect [the Act] was, however, to start the courts on that system of practice, and really to impose upon them, in admiralty and maritime cases, the civil law practice, as that under which they must continue to administer justice, even after the expiration of that act, until further provision could be made.”

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

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

This is the type of court that exists today and why we cannot bring a pure Article of the Bill of Rights argument in a contract court of the law-merchant in their civil law under war powers act of 1862. Benedict states at Section 5 that, ” “* * *the civil law was held to be the law of admiralty, and the course of proceedings in admiralty, closely resembled the civil law practice.”

Remember in 28 USC 2461 it states as near as may be to admiralty?

Revenue comes under commerce and is basic to the jurisdiction of the admiralty/maritime court. Evidence the fact every judge states you can’t bring the constitution in his court. You can’t bring in the Seventh Article of the Bill of Rights. Why? Because it is evident after reading Benedict on The American Admiralty Its Jurisdiction and Practice, 1850, Chapter XIII section 195, to wit: “So the seventh amendment is limited to suits at common law, which does not include either suits of equity, or of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction”. The American people are not under common law or any other law but Emergency War Powers.

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

Most people would not understand why such a case would not come under the constitution. The reason being when in war, and proceeding in admiralty, International law and treaty law takes over. It is stated in Chapter two of Whiting’s Book that the Law of Nations, which is International law, rules over the Constitutions. One of the International laws is that of Treaty with the United Nations. So try as you might to oust the United States from the UN treaty, as long as we are the enemy and the United States the belligerent power running the show you will never, under international law that we live under, obtain your goals.

Benedict states at section 204; “In such cases, the question before the court, is not whether the court has jurisdiction, but whether the party have right; it is not a question in abatement, but a question of the merits of the action. `If the cause is a maritime cause, subject to admiralty cognizance, jurisdiction is complete over the person as well as over the ship. It must in its nature be complete, for it cannot be confined to one of the remedies on the contract, when the contract itself is within its cognizance’.” The quote he used is from 12 Wheat 460; 7 Howard 729 Boyd’s proceedings.

Whether the party have the right? Yes. As enemies of the State, you have no rights that you call unalienable. And the case for that is called, The Sally, 8 Cranch 382, 384, wherein the court stated; “By the general law of prize, property engaged in the illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy property. It is of no consequence whether it belong to an ally or a citizen; the traffic stamps it with a hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal consequences of enemy ownership”. In The Shark, (1862)page 218 the court states, “All persons doing business with the enemy, whether citizens of the United States or citizens of the other belligerent nation or neutrals, are as to their property to be deemed enemies.”

Therefore, with all this knowledge as to why you are deemed the enemy, this case called The Julia, (1813) falls right into what Whiting stated in 1864 about the enemy having no rights.

“No contract is considered valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio.”

Now you know why people charged under the revenue laws that are in court have a 99 percent chance of losing; have no right to present the law or regulations to the jury, as that has been eliminated slowly since 1867, to claim and show a defense; are 99 percent of the time denied all motions that would have to be ruled in their favor and when having a claim against the United States they always institute a Rule 12 (b) (6) that claims they have not stated a cause in which relief can be granted. This is so because the enemy in rebellion, the cash cow of the United States, the so called “tax protester,” can never overcome. The IRS can seize property of all types without any due process in the courts before they take the property as explained in Whiting’s Book below.]

Some persons have turned their attention to certain passages in the amendments relating, as was supposed, to this subject. Let us examine them:

Article IV. “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated.”

This amendment merely declares that the right of being secure against UNREASONABLE seizures or arrests shall not be violated. It does not declare that NO ARRESTS shall be made. Will any one deny that is reasonable to arrest or capture the person of the public enemy? If all arrests, reasonable or unreasonable, were prohibited, public safety would be disregarded in favor of the rights of individuals. Not only may military, but even civil, arrests be made when reasonable. Emphasis the Solicitor’s.

[48 Statutes at Large 1, very specifically declared the people of America “public enemies”, whether of the banking cartel or otherwise, it was already done by Lincoln. Now to prove “public enemies” have no rights that are protected by the infamous Bill of Rights is this passage in the Book.]

The Fifth article of the amendments to the constitution provides that — [I let the reader obtain a copy as it is stated here] This article has no reference to the rights of citizens under the exigencies of war, but relates only to their rights in time of peace.

That military arrests are deemed necessary for public [definition for “public” means government only] safety by Congress is shown by the act of March 3, 1863, ch.81, wherein it is provided that no person arrested by authority of the President of the United States shall be discharged from imprisonment so long as the war lasts, and the President shall see fit to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

[Yes, the habeas corpus is a PRIVILEGE and NOT a right, and it is granted by government in time of peace. It can and has, for all intents and purposes, been suspended. This is evident by the fact that between 1957 and about 1990 only 3 percent of all habeas corpus have been granted. Now, all this material so far has proven one thing. That is, the people of America who thought they were sovereign; who thought government was their servant; who thought the constitution was their doing; who thought the Bill of Rights were written for them; who thought the constitution was there to protect them; who thought that white citizens were always above the blacks; who thought the term “citizen” did not show up until after the Fourteenth Amendment; who never realized that blacks voted, held office, held military commissions before the 1787 Constitution; who did not realize that the 1787 Constitution enslaved the black people by considering them property by the institution of Article I, Section 2, Clause 3; who thought the constitution was over all treaty law or International law of nations; who thought we were living in times of peace; who do not believe they are considered “public enemies; who believe that they are free, are sorely mistaken. So let us move along in the Book and destroy some more myths. One has to remember that this Book was written during Civil war and talks about military law, the principles apply to this very day, even though you do not see uniformed officers behind the desks of the alphabet agencies of government, although you do see quasi military presence in the form of a police officer that is termed “law enforcement.” They are no longer peace officers.]

The laws of war, military and martial, written and unwritten, founded on the necessities of government, are sanctioned by the Constitution and laws, and recognized as valid by the Supreme Court of the United States. Arrests made under the laws of war are neither arbitrary nor without legal justification. In Cross v Harrison, Judge Wayne, delivering the opinion, (16 Howard, 189, 190,) says:

Early in 1847 the President, as constitutional commander-in-chief of the army and navy, authorized the military and naval commanders of our forces in California to exercise the belligerent rights of a conqueror, and to form a civil government for the conquered country, and to impose duties on imports and tonnage as military contributions for the support of government and of the army which had the conquest in possession. No one can doubt that these orders of the President and the action of our army and navy commanders in California, in conformity with them, were according to the law of arms &c.”

So in Fleming v Page, (9 Howard, 615,) Chief Justice Taney says:

“The person who acted in the character of collector in this instance, acted as such under the authority of the military commander and in obedience to his orders; and the regulations he adopted were not those prescribed by law, but by the President in his character as commander-in-chief.”

It is established by these opinions that military orders, in accordance with martial law or the laws of war, though they may be contrary to municipal laws; and the use of the usual means of enforcing such orders by military power, including capture, arrest, imprisonment, or the destruction of life and property, [such as those in the Waco incident and others throughout the country] are authorized and sustained upon the firm basis of martial law, which is, in time of war, [and national emergency that we have been living under all our lives] constitutional law.

[Turning to Whiting’s separate section Titled, The Return of the Rebellious States to the Union, we see the mindset of government, our enemy, as so aptly stated by Albert J. Nock in his book, Our Enemy, The State. It shows that the people of the south and the north became enemies of the United States, AKA Congress, because the southern states could not be admitted back into the Union and have disabilities different to the north. So Congress overrode President Johnson’s veto of the War Powers after Johnson decreed the War Powers over, and then Congress declared that in order to have all states on equal footing they would continue the emergency war powers to include ALL the people in the States of the Union to be enemies, subject to the Confiscation Acts of 12 Stat 319. The section on Reconstruction of the Union shows that the southern States were forced into submitting to the United States, thereby showing, for all to see, that the Constitution is of “No Authority” as stated by eminent Jurist Lysander Spooner.

The south had sought to be free from the Union as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, that whenever government ceased to be what it was supposed to be, they had the right to secede. Such was not the case and shows the fraud of the Constitution for what it is. For if the abuses could not be remedied the South sought to only do what the Constitution stated, and that was to form a new government. They did not want to overthrow the old government. This also proves that the Treaty of 1783 still is supreme over the constitution which the treaty created. This I brought forth in my book The New History of America by quoting from the First Circuit Court of the United States operating in North Carolina in 1796.] fallacy.htm

Elements of Ecclesiastical Law

April 6, 2014

Does anyone believe the Vatican is talking out of their ass here? Or could they mean what they claim? I take these people very seriously when they make these claims;

Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1 53-54 you will find the following:

“The Holy See and civil governments may be annulled by the Pope. Again, it seems to be commonly admitted that in all agreements entered into by the Sovereign Pontiff this condition is understood: Nisi aliud exigat causa gravis et extraordinaria propter bonum commune ecclesiae. (In other words, unless you show cause of extraordinary evidence that you are not ruled by the Pope you’re presumed to be ruled by The Holy See.)

Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1 53-54 goes on to say: “no national law can become legitimate except by at least the tacit or legal consent of the Pope. Again, the jus particulare of a nation always remains subject to the authority of the Holy See in such manner as to be repealable at any time by it. Hence, the jus nationtie, or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign Pontiff.”

On the Rights; and Pereogitives Church is necessarily involved, in these things, though they be temporal, the Church may by right exert its power, and the civil state ought to yield.73“-In this proposition is contained the full explanation of the indirect spiritual power of the Church over the state.” The proposition is proved: 1. From reason.-Either the Church has an indirect power over the state, or the state has an indirect power over the Church. Then is no alternative. For, as experience teaches, conflicts may arise between Church and state.” Now, in any question as to the competence of the two powers,” either there must be some judge to decide what docs and what does not fall within their respective spheres, or they are delivered over to perpetual doubt and to perpetual conflict. But who can define what is or is not within the jurisdiction of the Church in faith and morals, except a judge who knows what the sphere of faith and morals contains and how far it extends? 7.

It is clear that the civil power cannot define how far the circumference of faith and morals extends. To do this it must know the whole deposit of explicit and implicit faith. . Therefore, the Church alone can fix the limits of its jurisdiction; and if the Church can fix the limits of its own jurisdiction, it can fix the limits of all other jurisdiction- at least, so as to warn it off its own domain.77 Hence, the Church is supreme in matters of religion and conscience: she knows the limits of her own jurisdiction, and, therefore, also the limits of the competence of the civil power. Again, if it be said that the state is altogether independent of the Church, it would follow 7. that the state would also be independent of the law of God in things temporal; for the divine law must be promulgated by the Church. It is unmeaning to say that princes have no superrior but the law of God;

Card. Tarqu., 1. C., lib. i .. p. 56, n. 55. 7S Manning, 1. C., pp. 70, 71. .• Craiss., n. 698. ,.
Cfr. Phillips, Kirchenr.. vol. iL, pp. 546, 547· .• Manning, 1. C., pp. 54, 55. 77 Cfr. Syllab.
r864, prop. 19, 20, 39, 42, 54′. Cra,ss .. n. 698.
of the Roman Pontiff. 255

7. for a law IS no superior without an authority to judge and to apply it. II. We next prove our thesis from authourity. \We refer to the famous bull Ullam Sallctam, issued by Pope Boniface VIII. in 13°2. This bull declares that there is but one true Church,·· and therefore but one head of the Church-the Roman Pontiff; that there are two swords-i.e., two powers-the spiritual and the temporal; the latter must be subject to the former. The bull finally winds up with this definition: “And this we declare, affirm, define (definimus), and pronounce, that it is necessary for the salvation of every human creature that he should be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” 5′ This is undoubtedly a de fide definition-i.e., an utterance ex cathedra.”‘ In fact, the bull, though occasioned by and published during the contest between Boniface VIlI. and Philip the Fair, King of France-who held that he was in no sense subject to the Roman Pontiff-had for its object, as is evident from its whole tenor and wording, this: to define dogmatically the relation of the Church to the state·’ in general that is, universally, not merely the relations between the Church and the particular state or nation-France. Now, what is .the meanIng of this de fide definition? There are two interpretations: one, given by the enemies of the Papacy, is that the Pope, in this bull, claims,” not merely an indirect, but a direct and absolute, power over the state, thus completely subordinating it to the Church; 5′ that is, subjecting it to the Church, even in purely temporal things. This explanation, given formerly by the partisans of Philip the Fair,by the Regalists in the reign of Louis XIV., and at present by Janus, Dr. Schulte, 7′ Manning,!. C., p. 51. Phillips, 1. C., vol. iii., pp. 256, 257; cfr. Darras, Hist., vol. iii., p. 454.” Fessler, True and False Infallibility, p. 81. •• Manning, I. C., p. 51 82 Phillips, I. C., vol. iii., pp. 255. 256. •• Cfr. ib., p. 206 . Cfr. Manning, I. c, pp. 61-64.


“Those who know what Rome has once been,are best able to appreciate what she is.” – Hallam

Hmmmm….Sounds like we’re nobody’s in no where land..

The United States gave up all rights, title, and interest. If you claim to be a U.S. Citizen by your own admission, you also have no rights, no title, and no interest. “The United States of America by contract, gave up all right, title or interest in said property, without any conditions set forth;” [Ensminger Case 1995]

A.) ‘Our survey of the legal landscape as it existed in March 1989 indicates, that, in general, members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. [E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th

Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker , 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. Denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121, 103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).]

B.) Judge Posner aptly explained the reasoning behind this general principle when he stated in Bowers that:

The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let “We the People of the United States” alone; it does not require their agency federal government or their state(s) to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order….for those not a party to the contract (Constitution).

Thus, because there is no constitutional duty to provide such protection for the Public at Large, {the state’s} failure to do so is not actionable under Title 42, section 1983, of the United States Code (U.S.C.). [emphasis added]

“But indeed, no person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breech of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact (contract), but he is not a party to it. The States are a party to it…” (emphasis added). [Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Alderman of the City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438 (1854)]

“The People” does not include you and me. “The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual States. Each State established a constitution for itself, and in that constitution provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated. The people of the United States framed such a government for the United States as they supposed best adapted to their situation and best calculated to promote their interests.” [Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243]

Members of the public have no constitutional right to be protected by the State from harm inflicted by third parties. [E.g., Fox v. Custis, 712 F.2d 84, 88 (4th Cir. 1983); Wells v. Walker , 852 F.2d 368, 370 (8th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1012, 109 S.Ct. 1121, 103 L.Ed.2d 184 (1989); Ketchum v. Alameda County, 811 F.2d 1243, 1247 (9th Cir. 1987); Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616, 618 (7th Cir. 1982).]

No constitutional right exists under the Ninth Amendment, or to any other provision of the Constitution of the United States, “…to trust the Federal Government and to rely on the integrity of its pronouncements.” [MAPCO, Inc. v Carter (1978, Em Ct App) 573 F2d 1268, cert den 437 US 904, 57 L Ed 2d 1134, 98 S Ct 3090.]

Members of the public have no right to petition for a redress of grievance. [UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA in the case of “We the People Foundation, Inc. et al. v. United States,” No. 1:04-cv-01211 EGS, admitted in the Civil War era, however, the U. S. Congress enacted Rules abolishing the duty to respond, a change later sanctioned by the Supreme Court [see: 96 Yale Law Journal 142, 164 (1986); Bieregu v. Reno, 59 F.3rd. 1445, 1453, (3rd. Cir. 1995)]. Furthermore, U.S. FEDERAL Judge Emmet G. Sullivan in his Order and Opinion upheld the position of the UNITED STATES et al., to deny the Human Rights of “We the People,” et al., the “Right of Petition” in the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DICTRICT OF COLUMBIA on August 31, 2005.]

There are no sovereigns citizens in the United States. That is an oxymoron.

“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472

Sovereignty: The supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power by which any

independent state is governed; supreme political authority; paramount control of the constitution and frame of government and its administration… [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1252]

Subject: Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1277]

Subject: verb. to bring under one’s control by force of arms — see conquer [Merriam Online Thesaurus] Subjected: transitive verb. [Merriam Online Thesaurus]

1 a : to bring under control or dominion : subjugate b : to make (as oneself) amenable to the discipline and control of a superior

2 : to make liable : predispose

3 : to cause or force to undergo or endure (something unpleasant, inconvenient, or trying)

— sub·jec·tion \ noun

“Citizenship connotes membership in a political society and implies a dutyof permanent allegiance to that society.”

-David Weissbrodt, Immigration Law and Procedure In a Nutshell.Citizenship: The status of being a citizen. See also Corporate citizenship… [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 222]

“Citizenship, is, by definition, a condition of allegiance to, and participation in, a governmental jurisdiction. It means, for a collective order, a pledge of loyalty, commitment to actively participate in civics and community, and willingness to serve when and where called upon. Citizenship begins within the individual but is nurtured by the country.” —Eduardo Aguirre, Director, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Sovereigns are not citizens. Citizens are synonymous with subjects and subjects are synonymous with slaves. As in Subjected. So look at this case again below. Did King George maintain his sovereignty over his subjects? Did the 56 signers of the compact gain their sovereignty because they signed the compact and not the rest of the people? The answer is Yes! As a U.S. Citizen or American, you are a debtor under the 14th amendment, due to your “choice” of nationality.

“…at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects…with none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.” CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472 [Padelford Case of 1854 page. 35] *41

“Now the principle at the bottom of all these propositions is this: The States have no power, by the exercise of which, they can defeat all the ends of Government-the General Government, or any of those ends. But the States, by the exercise of the taxing power, can take from their inhabitants every cent the inhabitants can spare, and live. According to the principle of this decision, therefore, the States have no power to lay any tax on their inhabitants; and if they have no power to tax, it follows that they have no power to enable them to keep up their State Governments; and without State Governments, they have no power to keep themselves alive, as States. The principle comes to this: that the States, in making the Constitution, intended to give up the power of self preservation (sovereignty).” [Padelford Case 1854 pg. 35]

State citizens, State nationals, and Sovereign States gave up all power when they signed the constitution. And they weren’t states to begin with they were Royal Charters granted by the King. Something that is granted may be un-granted.

Sovereign States are: States whose subjects or citizens are in the habit of obedience to them… [Blacks Law 5th Edition page 1238]

You are NOT a signatory to the compact or the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America and “they” did not “pledge” for you…”they” did it for “their” posterity. You think that some “colonists” had some right? Then, why did the colonists not participate in any election or any “vote”? During the third presidential election why did only ten governors vote? I will tell you why….”the colonists” had no voice. These men were “proprietors” of company…the East India Company being the “Grand Corporation” with its “red, white, and blue” striped flag.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

So, who did the “establishing and ordaining”???? It was “the People” of the “United States” who “ordained and established” THEIR Con-stitution FOR the United States of America.

Someone established rules and regulations for someone else. The one doing the stablishing and ordaining is in the SUPERIOR POSITION.

Where did they get the authority to do this? Easy: Article 6 clause 1….they assumed the debt repayment assurance of the United States of America to payback the debt to the King….PERIOD.

The word: Country means “to count trees”. It was the “count of the trees” or “The Rent of the Woods” that was an accounting procedure of the Exchequer in the Virginia Company and the East India Company.

You have no rights in the United States, because you are an American debtor under the 14th Amendment. The U.S.A. is bankrupt and has been since the drafting of the Treaty of Paris.

I’d rather be a man myself. Now I could go on, and add 150 or so of more pages verifying this, but then we live in a society with severe attention deficit disorder. They are clearly explaining the difference between the law makers, and the citizens. Problem is the citizens love their servitude. They don’t want to take responsibility to fix anything, they want someone else to do that for them.

They have contractual membership in the corporation they deserve, with fringe benefits that allows them the opportunity to choose another corporate representative to lead the corporation. Candidates are of course pre selected by the corporation itself.

Beatles – Nowhere man – Live in Munich 1966

This version is clearer;

The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 Article 4

April 6, 2014

Paris Peace Treaty of 1783

Stated: “It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.”

George Washington divided the States (Estates) into Districts. [Messages and papers of the Presidents Vo 1, pg 99. Webster’s 1828 dictionary for definition of Estate.]

The Articles of Confederation Article XII

“All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged.”

On September 17, 1787 Nine State delegates approve the Constitution. The other four states silently acquiesced and it was ratified despite the rules under the articles of confederation of a unanimous decision. [Anti-Federalist Papers]The States have now become Constitutors.

Constitutor: “In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another’s debt.” [Blacks Law Dictionary 5 Constitutum: In the civil law, an agreement to pay a subsisting debt which exists without any stipulation in that it must be for an existing debt.” [Blacks Law 5 Edition page 283]

Constitutio: “In civil law, an imperial ordinance, decree, or constitution, distinguished from Lex, Senatus-Consultum, and other kinds of law and having its effect from the sole will of the emperor. A sum paid according to an agreement.” [Blacks Law 5 page 282]

Constitutiones: “Laws promulgated, i.e., enacted by the Roman Emperor…The emperor had this power of irresponsible enactment by virtue of a certain lex regia, whereby he was made the fountain of justice and of mercy.” [Blacks Law 5 “‘Civil Law,’ ‘Roman Law’ and ‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence.” [Black’s 3rd p 332.]

Article XI section I of the U.S. Constitution
Keeps the loans from the King valid it states; “All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.”

Article I Section XIII Clause II of the U.S. Constitution
states that “Congress has the power to borrow money on the faith and credit of the United States.” This was needed so the United States (Which went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money and then because the States were a party to the Constitution they would also be liable for it.

The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote.

An Act making provision for the payment of the Debt of the United States was passed on August 4th, 1790 which can be found at [1 U.S. Statutes at Large pages 138-178.] This Act for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the Districts. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is synonymous with subject.

If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large 116-132 you will find “The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation”. This Treaty was signed on November 19th, 1794 which was twelve years after the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states that the King’s Troops were still occupying the United States. The troops would return to England by June 1st, 1796.
On September 30th, 1783 Benjamin Franklin, Esquire, John Adams, Esquire, and John Jay, Esquire, negotiated the terms of the debt repayment to Great Britain. [Definitive Peace Treaty of Paris 1783]
Benjamin Franklin Esquire was working for Great Britain, United States, and France. He was a triple agent who studied the works of Sir John Dee of Great Britain, who was known as Agent 007. [Secret Mysteries of Americas Beginnings]

Esquire defined in Merriam Dictionary means:
1 : a member of the English gentry ranking below a knight
2 : a candidate for knighthood serving as shield bearer and attendant to a knight
3 —used as a title of courtesy usually placed in its abbreviated form after the surname
4 archaic : a landed proprietor

“When people desired to come to this country for the purpose of settlement, it was necessary for them to· obtain permission from the government interested in that portion of the new country which they expected to occupy. The permits thus granted formed the basis of the new governments set upon this side of the Atlantic. Sometimes these permits were granted by the king to a company, whose members either sent out colonists to the new country or came themselves as colonists. Such permits were known as Royal Charters and were in reality a form of constitution granted by the king to the colonists, defining their rights and privileges.

They usually outlined the form of government, providing for a governor and council. Sometimes these permits were granted to individuals called proprietors, and the governments set up by them were called Proprietary Governments. These proprietors in turn granted charters to their colonists, so that in general the government of charter colonies and of proprietary governments was very similar.

In time, however, all but a few of the colonies lost or surrendered their charters, passed under the direct Government of the mother country (England), and came to be known as Royal Provinces. In the royal provinces the king could rule with greater freedom. He appointed the governor and the colonial judges, and everywhere except in Massachusetts, the governor’s council also. Notwithstanding this, the colonists’ retained no small measure of self-government.” [Berle’s_Self_Culture_p304]

These men were “proprietors” of companies…the East India Company being the “Grand Corporation” with its “red, white, and blue” striped flag.

You don’t think that they knew that they were still subservient to the Crown… the letter from Hartley of Parliament and US Foreign Affairs Secretary: Fox……

The form of the treaty was the subject of some correspondence between Fox, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Hartley. Copies of the letters are in Bancroft’s Transcripts, Hartley’s Negotiations, II, 53, 57, NYPL On August 21, 1783, Fox wrote to Hartley:

“One thing only I must remind you of in point of form. When a treaty is signed between two Crowned Heads in order to prevent disputes about presidency, the name of the one stands first in one instrument and that of the other in the other but when the Treaty is between a crowned Head and a Republic, the name of the Monarch is mentioned first in each instrument. I believe if you will inquire upon this subject among the Corps Diplomatique, you will find this to have been the constant practice.

Hartley replied as follows under date of September 1:
The treaties are drawn out for signature as you have expressed it viz: giving precedence to the Crowned Head. The American Ministers never had a thought of disputing the priority or equality of rank & therefore I have had no occasion to mention the subject.” [British-American Diplomacy Treaty of Paris – Hunter Miller’s Notes]
“Mr. American”….since “your American Ministers” never thought of disputing the priority or EQUALITY OF RANK…that being the Crown had “Precedence”…..then where does that leave you? Subject that is “subjected”, correct?

Article XI U.S. Constitution

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

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

That’s International Treaties dealing with the International Public Order i.e., The High Contracting Parties i.e., the Pope. All Treaties signed are the Supreme Law of the Land. Therefore Contract Law is the Supreme Law of the Land, not the con-stitution!

Furthermore, you cannot dispute the debt or it will be in surmounting of insurrection and rebellion. Slavery is illegal as involuntary servitude. However, voluntary servitude is not.

14th Amendment, Amendment XIV Section 4 U.S. Constitution
States that “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

Article I Section 8 U.S. Constitution

States “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

“To borrow money on the credit of the United States;”
“To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;”

The constitution makes a reference to the “Law of Nations.” Ask a constitutional expert what exactly is the “Law of Nations” and your response might be shocking. They study the constitution, why don’t they study the Law of Nations? What is the Law of Nations? It is Public international law. And it is the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Law of Nations is International Law. “the law which regulates the intercourse of nations; the law of nations. The customary law which determines the rights

“Public international law concerns the structure and conduct of sovereign states, analogous entities, such as the Holy See, and intergovernmental organizations. To a lesser degree, international law also may affect multinational corporations and individuals.”
“The field of study combines two main branches: the law of nations (jus gentium) and international agreements and conventions (jus inter gentes), which have different theoretical foundations and should not be confused.”

“Public international law should not be confused with “private international law”, which is concerned with the resolution of conflict of laws. In its most general sense, international law “consists of rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of states and of intergovernmental organizations and with their relations inter se, as well as with some of their relations with persons, whether natural or juridical.”

What is the Holy See? The Holy See is From the Latin Sancta Sedes, Holy Chair. A term derived from the enthronement-ceremony of the bishops of Rome. The papal enjoyed reservations of benefices, customary in the Middle Ages.

The terms “Holy See” and “Apostolic See”
Every episcopal see is considered holy. In Greek, the adjective “holy” or “sacred” (ἱερά) is constantly applied to all such sees as a matter of course. In the West, the adjective is not commonly added, but it does form part of an official title of two sees: as well as Rome, the Bishopric of Mainz (the former Archbishopric of Mainz), which was also of electoral and primatial rank, bears the title of “the Holy See of Mainz” (Latin: Sancta Sedes Moguntina).

The term “see” comes from the Latin word “sedes”, meaning “seat”, which refers to the Episcopal throne (cathedra). The term “Apostolic See” can refer to any see founded by one of the Apostles, but, when used with the definite article, it is used in the Catholic Church to refer specifically to the see of the Bishop of Rome, whom that Church sees as successor of Saint Peter, the chief of the apostles. [Catholic Encyclopedia] [Wikipedia]

The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and discovery.[Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493]

The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. [Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493]

The Pope’s laws are obligatory on everyone. [Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44][ Elements of Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1 53- 54]

Civil Governments are the Popes governments. If there is any doubt to the validity of any and all references they can be found also in another location other than the Avalon Project of Yale as to provide a double witness to the accounts that have taken place which have formed history and the current state of affairs. You may find the link below titled “European Treaties Bearing on the History of the United States”


March 30, 2012