(too old to reply)
The United States is still a British Colony
Quintal
2005-07-16 22:57:53 UTC
francom.esoterisme,fr.soc.complots,fr.soc.politique,alt.conspiracy

The United States is still a British Colony

The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place and
it can be changed to fit someones belief and/or traditions, or it can
be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and
withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the
Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the
contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow
yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be
the judge and don't let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect
teaching, keep you from the truth.

I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books
that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was
secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I'm going to discuss a
few documents that are included at the end of this paper, in the
footnotes. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606
(footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our
fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition
for license is as follows.

"In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some
trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute,
except with the permission of the civil authority or which would
otherwise be unlawful." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British
subjects. So you can better understand what I'm going to tell you,
here are the definitions for subject and citizen.

"In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes
permanent allegiance to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

"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. The term is little used, in this
sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government." Swiss
Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed.
504. Blacks fifth Ed.

I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better
understand what definition of citizen is really being used in American
law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law.

"The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of
private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family
and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other
subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the
distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel.
Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to
America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would
admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his
venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the
land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of
gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his
subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects
could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid
right of the king (Jure Coronae, "In right of the crown," Black's
forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total
loss.

If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs
and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver
and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained
in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a
benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his
capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but
it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia
Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised
the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A
license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods
(commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of
the king's declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of
1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which
was not ceded to America.

This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was
declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant
between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without
representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted
by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of
England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king.
Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief,
separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of
freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the
colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the
militias.

The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis
surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been
taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next
document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally
contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to
himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States.
You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this
Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is
obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a
Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep
this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand
the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it
was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of
freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.

An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility
by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An
Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this
status, see the below definitions.

"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and
others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever
studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who
professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without
manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a
gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a
gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman,
and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants,
and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law
Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the
Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the
only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was
David Hartley Esqr..

Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty,
he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use
of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty
to the crown.

In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America
are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold,
silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives
Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and
its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide
debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand
that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he
protect their interest with this Treaty?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was
signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States
defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we
were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the
Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign
such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty
gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War?
If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land
would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the
Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a
position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won.
Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did
McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No
way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the
king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of
all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the
chance to be free.

When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle,
not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at
Yorktown (footnote 3)

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."...."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 the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and
obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to
support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained
financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is
still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs
and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original
venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will
see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from
those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased
with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:

-CITE-

26 USC Sec. 1491

HEAD-

Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax

-STATUTE-

There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or
resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or
partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or
trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a
contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a
foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess
of -

(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over

(2) the sum of -

(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the
hands of the transferor, plus

(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of
the transfer.

-SOURCE-

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455,
title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600,
title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)

-MISC1-

AMENDMENTS

1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust'
wherever appearing.

1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.

(1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27
1/2 percent' and in par.

(1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and
securities' and in par.

(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar.
(B).

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT

Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments
made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this
title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.'

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT

Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made
by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this
section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section
1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after
October 2, 1975.'

A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his
land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his
heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the
king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.

(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great
Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared "That
he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free
people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of
peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights
and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of
which the future strength and security of the country must forever
depend." The determined language of this speech, pointing to the
continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both
Lords and Commons.

In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons
that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion
"That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by
force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of
Great Britain." The rest of the debate can be found in (footnote 4).
What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper.

The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war
was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key
personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of "A
Country Defeated In Victory," go into detail about how this was done
and exposes some of the main players.

Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king,
and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the
original American Charters.

The following is the definition of tribute (tax).

"A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his
subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by
an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the
friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth
ed. p. 1677

As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes
that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that
study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master
File, all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to
break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your
IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax
you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series,
which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which
is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to
1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone
is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being
held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K.,
payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is
form 8288, FIRPTA - Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you
won't find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288
form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3.
If you will check the OMB's paper - Office of Management and Budget,
in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections,
Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under
OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for
dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property
interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign
persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a. These codes have since been
changed to read as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assement, CP 55
generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF
310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF
390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is
nothing changed, the government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the
payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in
financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.

Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay's Treaty
of 1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of
1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794
he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy
among the American people about this Treaty.

In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed
to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years
after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone
forgot to tell the king of England. In Article 6, the king is still
dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt
and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe.
In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time
concerning where and with who the United States could trade. In
Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that
would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going
to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War?

That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into
believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had
the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because
our status is far worse now than then. I'll explain.

Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made
by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was
canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in
order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never
asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all
our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over
the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest
barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly
adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose
for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government
who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious
that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the
Title of nobility or honor.

The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the
13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the
evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it
increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to
reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was
ratified by the Senate in 1815.
Quintal
2005-07-16 23:02:31 UTC
francom.esoterisme,fr.soc.complots,fr.soc.politique,alt.conspiracy

The United States is Still a British Colony

PART II

Bend Over America

It's not an easy thing having to tell someone they have been conned
into believing they are free. For some, to accept this is comparable
to denying God Almighty.

You have to be made to understand that the United States is a
corporation, which is a continuation of the corporate Charters created
by the king of England. And that the states upon ratifying their
individual State constitutions, became sub corporations under and
subordinate to the United States. The counties and municipalities
became sub corporations under the State Charters. It is my duty to
report further evidence concerning the claims I made in "The United
States is Still a British Colony, part 1."

I have always used a copy of the North Carolina Constitution provided
by the State, I should have known better to take this as the finial
authority. To my knowledge the following quote has not been in the
Constitution the State hands out or those in use in the schools. The
1776 North Carolina Constitution created a new corporate Charter, and
declared our individual freedoms. However, the same corporate Charter,
reserved the king's title to the land, which restored, and did not
diminish, his grants that were made in his early Charters. If you
remember, I made the claim that legally we are still subject to the
king. In the below quote you will see that the king declares our
taxation will be forever, and that a fourth of all gold and silver
will be returned to him.

"YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the
same, the yearly Rent of Twenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at
the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First payment thereof to
begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which shall be in the
year of Our Lord One thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also,
the fourth part of all Gold and Silver Ore which, with the limits
aforesaid, shall, from time to time, happen to be found."

(Feast of All Saints occurred November 1 of each year.)

The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5

I know Patriots will have a hard time with this, because as I said
earlier, they would have to deny what they have been taught from an
early age. You have to continue to go back in historical documents and
see if what you have been taught is correct. The following quote is
from section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration
of Rights.

And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the
titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the
laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King
George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any
of them.

Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution, Footnote #8

Can it be any plainer? Nobody reads, they take what is told to them by
their schools and government as gospel, and never look any further.
They are quick to attack anyone that does because it threatens their
way of life, rocks the boat in other words. Read the following quote
from a court case:

"* * * definition given by Blackstone, vol. 2, p. 244. I shall
therefore only cite that respectable authority in his own words:
"Escheat, we may remember, was one of the fruits and consequences of
feudal tenure; the word itself is originally French or Norman, in
which language it signifies chance or accident, and with us denotes an
obstruction of the course of descent, and a consequent determination
of the tenure by some unforeseen contingency, in which case the estate
naturally results back, by a kind of reversion, to the original
grantor, or lord of the fee."

Every person knows in what manner the citizens acquired the property
of the soil within the limits of this State. Being dissatisfied with
the measures of the British Government, they revolted from it, assumed
the government into their own hands, seized and took possession of all
the estates of the King of Great Britain and his subjects,
appropriated them to their own use, and defended their possessions
against the claims of Great Britain, during a long and bloody war, and
finally obtained a relinquishment of those claims by the treaty of
Paris. But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title
of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim
as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to
them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or
owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed.
How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result
back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it
never issued, and from tenants who never held under it? Might it not
be stated with equal propriety that this country escheated to the King
of Great Britain from the Aborigines, when he drove them off, and took
and maintained possession of their country? At the time of the
revolution, and before the Declaration of Independence, the collective
body of the people had neither right to nor possession of the
territory of this State; it is true some individuals had a right to,
and were in possession of certain portions of it, which they held
under grants from the King of Great Britain; but they did not hold,
nor did any of his subjects hold, under the collective body of the
people, who had no power to grant any part of it. After the
Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the Constitution,
the people may be said first to have taken possession of this country,
at least so much of it as was not previously appropriated to
individuals. Then their sovereignty commenced, and with it a right to
all the property not previously vested in individual citizens, with
all the other rights of sovereignty, and among those the right of
escheats. This sovereignty did not accrue to them by escheat, but by
conquest, from the King of Great Britain and his subjects; but they
acquired nothing by that means from the citizens of the State Ä each
individual had, under this view of the case, a right to retain his
private property, independent of the reservation in the declaration of
rights; but if there could be any doubt on that head, it is clearly
explained and obviated by the proviso in that instrument. Therefore,
whether the State took by right of conquest or escheat, all the
interest which the U. K. had previous to the Declaration of
Independence still remained with them, on every principle of law and
equity, because they are purchasers for a valuable consideration, and
being in possession as cestui que trust under the statute for
transferring uses into possession; and citizens of this State, at the
time of the Declaration of Independence, and at the time of making the
declaration of rights, their interest is secured to them beyond the
reach of any Act of Assembly; neither can it be affected by any
principle arising from the doctrine of escheats, supposing, what I do
not admit, that the State took by escheat."

MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70

There was no way we could have had a perfected title to this land.
Once we had won the Revolutionary War we would had to have had an
unconditional surrender by the king, this did not take place. Not what
took place at Yorktown, when we let the king off the hook. Barring
this, the king would have to had sold us this land, for us to have a
perfected title, just as the Indians sold their land to the king, or
the eight Carolina Proprietors sold Carolina back to the king. The
treaty of 1783 did not remove his claim and original title, because he
kept the minerals. This was no different than when king Charles II
gave Carolina by Charter to the lords that helped put him back in
power; compare them and you will see the end result is the same. The
Charter to the lords is footnote #6, where eight proprietors were
given title to the land, but the king retained the money and
sovereignty for his heirs. The king could not just give up America to
the colonialist, nor would he. He would violate his own law of
Mortmain to put these lands in dead hands, no longer to be able to be
used by himself, or his heirs and successors. He would also be guilty
of harming his heirs and successors, by giving away that which he
declared in the following quotes, and there are similar quotes in the
other Charters:

"SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion due to
us, our heirs and Successors, for the same; and Saving also, the
right, title, and interest of all and every our Subjects of the
English Nation which are now Planted within the Limits bounds
aforesaid, if any be;..." The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5

"KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and mere
motion, HAVE thought fit to Erect the same Tract of Ground, Country,
and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullness of our Royal
power and Prerogative, WE Do, for us, our heirs and Successors, Erect,
Incorporate, and Ordain the same into a province, and do call it the
Province of CAROLINA, and so from henceforth will have it called..."
The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5

The U.S. Constitution is a treaty between the states creating a
corporation for the king. In the below quote pay attention to the
large "S" State and the small "s" state. The large "S" State is
referring to the corporate State and it's sovereignty over the small
"s" state, because of the treaty.

Read the following quote:

"Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an Act of
Assembly of this State passed in 1787, to be law in this State, and
this State by adopting the Constitution of the United States in 1789,
declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the land. The treaty now
under consideration was made, on the part of the United States, by a
Congress composed of deputies from each state, to whom were delegated
by the articles of confederation, expressly, "the sole and exclusive
right and power of entering into treaties and alliances"; and being
ratified and made by them, it became a complete national act, and the
act and law of every state.

If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all necessary
to make the treaty law here, it has been had and repeated. By a
statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to be law in this
State, and the courts of law and equity were enjoined to govern their
decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was adopted here the present
Constitution of the United States, which declared that all treaties
made, or which should be made under the authority of the United
States, should be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in
every state should be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or
laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the
treaty is now law in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as
the treaty interferes with it, is annulled."

"By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April,
1777, it was, among other things, enacted, "That all persons, being
subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter
come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or
Ireland, within ten years last past, in their own right, or acted as
factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States
of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall
take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the
State."

Treaties are the "Law of the Land" HAMILTON v. EATEN, 1 N.C.
641(1796), HAMILTON v. EATEN. Ä 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June
Term, 1796.)

Your presence in the State makes you subject to its laws, read the
following quote:

"The states are to be considered, with respect to each other, as
independent sovereignties, possessing powers completely adequate to
their own government, in the exercise of which they are limited only
by the nature and objects of government, by their respective
constitutions and by that of the United States. Crimes and
misdemeanors committed within the limits of each are punishable only
by the jurisdiction of that state where they arise; for the right of
punishing, being founded upon the consent of the citizens, express or
implied, cannot be directed against those who never were citizens, and
who likewise committed the offense beyond the territorial limits of
the state claiming jurisdiction. Our Legislature may define and punish
crimes committed within the State, whether by citizen or strangers;
because the former are supposed to have consented to all laws made by
the Legislature, and the latter, whether their residence be temporary
or permanent, do impliedly agree to yield obedience to all such laws
as long as they remain in the State;"

STATE v. KNIGHT, 1 N.C. 143 (1799), 2 S.A. 70

Do you understand now? The treaty, the corporate Charter, the North
Carolina Constitution, by proxy of the electorates, created residence
in the large "S" State. Not by some further act you made. So how can
expatriation from the United States, remove your residence in The
"State", which was created by treaty, ratified by our Fore Fathers. As
soon as the corporate Charter (treaty) was ratified we returned to
subjection to the king of England, through the legal residence created
by the treaty. Remember in the quote I gave earlier, by treaty we
recanted our declared freedom, and returned to the king his
sovereignty and title. In the following quote you will see that the
State supreme court sits by being placed by the general assembly:

NC Supreme Court History Supreme Court of North Carolina A Brief
History:

"The legal and historical origins of the Supreme Court of North
Carolina lie in the State Constitution of 1776, which empowered the
General Assembly to appoint; Judges of the Supreme Courts of Law and
Equity; and; Judges of Admiralty.....The first meeting of the Court
took place on January 1, 1819. The Court began holding two sittings,
or ; terms, ; a year, the first beginning on the second Monday in June
and the second on the last Monday in December. This schedule endured
until the Constitution of 1868 prescribed the first Mondays in January
and July for the sittings. Vacancies on the Court were filled
temporarily by the Governor, with the assistance and advice of the
Council of State, until the end of the next session of the state
General Assembly."

From the internet, address can be made available.

Council of State

What is the Council of State, and where did it originate?

III. "The one of which councils, to be called the council of state
(and whose office shall chiefly be assisting, with their care, advice,
and circumspection, to the said governor) shall be chosen, nominated,
placed, and displaced, from time to time, by us the said treasurer,
council and company, and our successors: which council of state shall
consist, for the present only of these persons, as are here
inserted,..."

IV. "The other council, more generally to be called by the governor,
once yearly, and no oftener, but for very extraordinary and important
occasions, shall consist for the present, of the said council of
state, and of two burgesses out of every town, hundred, or other
particular plantation, to be respectively chosen by the inhabitants:
which council shall be called The General Assembly, wherein (as also
in the said council of state) all matters shall be decided,
determined, and ordered by the greater part of the voices then
present; reserving to the governor always a negative voice. And this
general assembly shall have free power, to treat, consult, and
conclude, as well of all emergent occasions concerning the public weal
of the said colony and every part thereof, as also to make, ordain,
and enact such general laws and orders, for the behoof of the said
colony, and the good government thereof, as shall, from time to time,
appear necessary or requisite;..." An Ordinance and Constitution of
the Virginia Company in England. Footnote #4

The job of the 1st Council of State was to make sure the governor
followed the king's wishes. The 2nd was the general assembly, the laws
they passed had to conform to the king's law.

Read the following quote:

V. Whereas in all other things, we require the said general assembly,
as also the said council of state, to imitate and follow the policy of
the form of government, laws, customs, and manner of trial, and other
administration of justice, used in the realm of England, as near as
may be even as ourselves, by his majesty's letters patent, are
required.

VI. Provided, that no law or ordinance, made in the said general
assembly, shall be or continue in force or validity, unless the same
shall be solemnly ratified and confirmed, in a general quarter court
of the said company here in England, and so ratified, be returned to
them under our seal; it being our intent to afford the like measure
also unto the said colony, that after the government of the said
colony shall once have been well framed, and settled accordingly,
which is to be done by us, as by authority derived from his majesty,
and the same shall have been so by us declared, no orders of court
afterwards, shall bind the said colony, unless they be ratified in
like manner in the general assemblies. In witness whereof we have
hereunto set our common seal the 24th of July, 1621. . . .An Ordinance
and Constitution of the Virginia Company in England. footnote #4

The Council of State still exists to day, although it has been
modified several times. The first major change came in the 1776, North
Carolina Constitution, read the below quotes:

16. "That the senate and house of commons, jointly, at their first
meeting, after each annual election, shall, by ballot, elect seven
persons to be a council of state for one year; who shall advise the
governor in the execution of his office; and that four members shall
be a quorum; their advice and proceedings shall be entered in a
journal, to be kept for that purpose only, and signed by the members
present; to any part of which any member present may enter his
dissent. And such journal shall be laid before the general assembly
when called for by them." footnote #9

19. "The governor, for the time being, shall have power to draw for
and apply such sums of money as shall be voted by the general
assembly, for the contingencies of government, and be accountable to
them for the same. He also may, by and with the advice of the council
of state, lay embargoes, or prohibit the exportation of any commodity,
for any term not exceeding thirty days, at any one time in the recess
of the general assembly; and shall have the power of granting pardons
and reprieves, except where the prosecution shall be carried on by the
general assembly, or the law shall otherwise direct; in which case, he
may, in the recess, grant a reprieve until the next sitting of the
general assembly; and he may exercise all the other executive powers
of government, limited and restrained, as by this constitution is
mentioned, and according to the laws of the State. And, on his death,
inability, or absence from the State, the speaker of the senate, for
the time being, and in case of his death, inability, or absence from
the State, the speaker of the house of commons, shall exercise the
powers of government, after such death, or during such absence or
inability of the governor, or speaker of the senate, or until a new
nomination is made by the general assembly." footnote #9

20. "That, in every case, where any officer, the right of whose
appointment is, by this constitution, vested in the general assembly,
shall, during their recess, die, or his office by other means become
vacant, the governor shall have power, with the advice of the council
of State, to fill up such vacancy, by granting a temporary commission,
which shall expire at the end of the next session of the general
assembly." footnote #9

Also take notice who was not allowed to serve as Council of State:

26. "That no treasurer shall have a seat, either in the senate, house
of commons, or council of state, during his continuance in that
office, or before he shall have finally settled his accounts with the
public, for all the moneys which may be in his hands, at the
expiration of his office, belonging to the State, and hath paid the
same into the hands of the succeeding treasurer."

27. "That no officer in the regular army or navy, in the service and
pay of the United States, of this State or any other State, nor any
contractor or agent for supplying such army or navy with clothing or
provisions, shall have a seat either in the senate, house of commons,
or council of state, or be eligible thereto; and any member of the
senate, house of commons, or council of state, being appointed to,and
accepting of such office, shall thereby vacate his seat."

28. "That no member of the council of state shall have a seat, either
in the senate or house of commons."

30. "That no secretary of this State, attorney-general, or clerk of
any court of record, shall have a seat in the senate, house of
commons, or council of state." footnote #9

The king continued to rule through the Council of State until several
things were in place, his bank, his laws and tradition. The king
succeeded by the acceptance of the American people that they were
free, along with the whole of our history not being taught in our
schools. The next change to the Council of State came at the conquest
of this country, I referred to this in part 1, and in A Country
Defeated In Victory.

Read this quote from the 1868 North Carolina constitution, Article 3,
sec 14:

SEC. 14. "The Secretary of State, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent
of Public Works, and Superintendent of Public Instruction, shall
constitute ex officio, the Council of State, who shall advise the
Governor in the execution of his office, and three of whom shall
constitute a quorum; their advice and proceedings in this capacity
shall be entered in a Journal, to be kept for this purpose
exclusively, and signed by the members present, from any part of which
any member may enter his dissent; and such journal shall be placed
before the General Assembly when called for by either House. The
Attorney General shall be, ex offici, the legal adviser of the
Executive Department." footnote #10

After the Civil War, the conquest of America, you see those that were
allowed to be Council of State, were elected officials. Under the 1776
North Carolina Constitution, it wasunlawful for these elected
officials to be Council of State. Why? Because, the king could not
trust the common man to obey him, now that they thought they were
free. After the Civil War the Council of State was no longer needed to
fulfill the public policy of the king, the Council of State still
exists today, but in a reduced capacity as far as the king goes. Now
he had the 14th Amendment, his lawyers in the government, his bankers
in control of the governments money, and above all greed that causes
most in office to continue the status quo.

The Federal Reserve, Taxes and Tax Court

What I will show you next will shock you. I made brief mention in part
1, that taxes paid in this country were under treaty to the king of
England. How about if I told you that the law that created our taxes
and this countries tax court go back in history to William the
Conqueror. And to further help you understand the below definitions,
exchequer is the British branch of the Federal Reserve.

Exchequer: "The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of
record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia,
and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to
recover the king's debts and duties. It was called exchequer,
"scaccharium," from the checked cloth, resembling a chessboard, which
covers the table." Ballentine's Law Dictionary

Exchequer: "That department of the English government which has charge
of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury department."
Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.

Exchequer: "In English Law. A department of the government which has
the management of the collection of the king's revenue." Bouvier's Law
Dictionary 1914 ed.

Court of Exchequer: "56.The court of exchequer is inferior in rank not
only to the court of king's bench, but to the common pleas also: but I
have chosen to consider it in this order, on account of its double
capacity, as a court of law and a court of equity [44] also. It is a
very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a
part of the aula regia, through regulated and reduced to its present
order by King Edward I; and intended principally to order the revenues
of the crown, and to recover the king's debts and duties. It is called
the exchequer, scaccharium, from the chequed cloth, resembling a
chess-board, which covers the table there; and on which, when certain
of the king's accounts are made up, the sums are marked and scored
with counters. It consists of two divisions; the receipt of the
exchequer, which manages to royal revenue, and with which these
Commentaries have no concern; and the court or judicial part of it,
which is again subdivided into a court of equity, and a court of
common law."

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

Court of Exchequer: "An English superior court with jurisdiction of
matter of law and matters involving government revenue." Ballentine's
Law Dictionary

Court of Exchequer: "A court for the correction and prevention of
errors of law in the three superior common-law courts of the kingdom.

A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31 Edw. III.
C. 12, to determine causes upon writs of error from the common-law
side of the exchequer court. It consisted of the chancellor,
treasurer, and the "justices and other sage persons as to them
seemeth." The judges were merely assistants. A second court of
exchequer chamber was instituted by statute 27 Eliz. C. 8, consisting
of the justices of the common pleas and the exchequer, or any six of
them, which had jurisdiction in error of cases in the king's bench. In
exchequer chamber substituted in their place as an intermediate court
of appeal between the three common-law courts and Parliament. It
consisted of the judges of the two courts which had not rendered the
judgement in the court below. It is now merged in the High Court of
Justice."

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

It gets worse, are you just a little ticked off, or maybe you are
starting to question what you have been taught all these years? It's
time to wake up America!

If you'll look at the Judiciary Act of 1789 (I know most won't take
time to read it), you'll see that all district courts are admiralty
courts. This is the king's court of commerce, in which he is the
plaintiff, recovering damages done against him, or what belongs to
him.

The equity court of the exchequer: "57. The court of equity is held in
the exchequer chamber before the lord treasurer, the chancellor of the
exchequer, the chief baron, and three puisne' ones. These Mr. Selden
conjectures to have been anciently made out of such as were barons of
the kingdom, or parliamentary barons; and thence to have derived their
name: which conjecture receives great strength form Bracton's
explanation of magna carta, c.14, which directs that the earls and
barons be amerced by their peers; that is, says he, by the barons of
the exchequer. The primary and original business of this court is to
call the king's debtors to account, by bill filed by the attorney
general; and to recover any lands, tenements, or hereitaments, any
goods, chattels, or other profits or benefits, belonging to the crown.
So that by their original constitution the jurisdiction of the courts
of common pleas, king's bench, and exchequer, was entirely separate
and distinct; the common pleas being intended to decide all
controversies between subject and subject; the king's bench to correct
all crimes and misdemeanors that amount to a breach of the peace, the
king being then the plaintiff, as such offenses are in open derogation
of the jura regalia (regal rights) of his crown; and the exchequer to
adjust [45] and recover his revenue, wherein the king also is
plaintiff, as the withholding and nonpayment thereof is an injury to
his jura fiscalia (fisical rights). But, as by a fiction almost all
sorts of civil actions are now allowed to be brought in the king's
bench, in like manner by another fiction all kinds of personal suits
may be prosecuted in the court of exchequer. For as all the officers
and ministers of this court have, like those of other superior courts,
the privilege of suing and being sued only in their own court; so
exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead all manner of persons in
the same court of equity that they themselves are called into. They
have likewise privilege to sue and implead one another, or any
stranger, in the same kind of common-law actions (where the personalty
only is concerned) as are prosecuted in the court of common pleas."

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

The common-law court of the exchequer: "58. This gives original to the
common-law part of their jurisdiction, which was established merely
for the benefit of the king's accountants, and is exercised by the
barons only of the exchequer, and not the treasurer or chancellor. The
writ upon which the plaintiff suggests that he is the king's farmer or
debtor, and that the defendant hath done him the injury or damage
complained of; quo minus sufficient exist, by which he is the less
able, to pay the king his debt or rent. And these suits are expressly
directed, by what is called the statute of Rutland, to be confined to
such matters only as specially concern the king or his ministers of
the exchequer. And by the articuli super cartas it is enacted that no
common pleas be thenceforth holden in the exchequer, contrary to the
form of the great charter. But not, by the suggestion of privilege,
any person may be admitted to sue in the exchequer as well as the
king's accountant. The surmise of being debtor to the king is
therefore become matter of form and mere words of course, and the
court is open to allthe nation equally. The same holds with regard to
the equity side of the court: for there any person may file [46] a
bill against another upon a bare suggestion that he is the king's
accountant; but whether he is so or not is never controverted. In this
court, on the nonpayment of titles; in which case the surmise of being
the king's debtor is no fiction, they being bound to pay him their
first-fruits, and annual tenths. But the chancery has of late years
obtained a large share in this business."

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555

Definition of a legal fiction: For a discussion of fictions in law,
see chapter II of Maine's Ancient Law, and Pollock's note D in his
edition of the Ancient Law. Blackstone gives illustrations of legal
fictions on pages 43, 45, 153, 203 of this book. Mr Justice Curtis
(Jurisdiction of United States Courts, 2d ed., 148) gives the
following instance of a fiction in our practice:

"A suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name may be
presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the state which
created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to the contrary
is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the suit from the
jurisdiction of a court of the United States.

There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law, presumes
all the members are citizens of the state which created the
corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse that presumption';
and that is the law now. (Authors note-by your residence you are
incorporated) Under it, the courts of the United States constantly
entertain suits by or against corporations. (Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S.
444, 24 L. Ed. 207.) It has been so frequently settled, that there is
not the slightest reason to suppose that it will ever be departed from
by the court. It has been repeated over and over again in subsequent
decisions; and the supreme court seem entirely satisfied that it is
the right ground to stand upon; and, as I am now going to state to
you, they have applied it in some cases which go beyond, much beyond,
these decisions to which I have referred.

So that when a suit is to be brought in a court of the United States
by or against a corporation, by reason of the character of the
parties, you have only to say that this corporation (after naming it
correctly) was created by a law of the state; and that is exactly the
same in its consequences as if you could allege, and did allege, that
the corporation was a citizen of that state. According to the present
decisions, it is not necessary you should say that the members of that
corporation are citizens of Massachusetts. They have passed beyond
that. You have only to say that the corporation was created by a law
of the state of Massachusetts, and has its principal place of business
in that state; and that makes it, for the purposes of jurisdiction,
the same as if it were a citizen of that state" See Pound, Readings in
Roman Law, 95n. Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553

Combine this with what I said earlier concerning power of the treaty
and it's creation of the corporate State, and you now know why you are
not allowed to challenge residence or subjection in the State Courts.
And because of the treaty, residence in the State is synonymous with
residence in the district. I know this puts a sour taste in your
mouth, because it does mine, but that is the condition we find
ourselves in. The only way I see to change it, is to change the treaty
and reinforce the original Declaration of Independence, but this would
meet severe objection on the part of the international Bankers, and or
course the king's heirs in England. And most Americans, even if they
were aware of this information, would have no stomach for the turmoil
this would cause.

Still a little fuzzy on what has taken place, the word Exchequer is
still used today? In Britain the Exchequer is the Federal Reserve, the
same as our Federal Reserve. They just changed the name here as they
have done many things to cloud what is taking place, hoping no one
would catch on. Who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and put it in place
in this country? Bankers from the Bank of England with their counter
part in New York!

Congressman McFadden: "I hope that is the case, but I may say to the
gentleman that during the sessions of this Economic Conference in
London there is another meeting taking place in London. We were
advised by reports from London last Sunday of the arrival of George
L.Harrison, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and we
were advised that accompanying him was Mr. Crane, the Deputy Governor,
and James P. Warburg, of the Kuhn-Loeb banking family, of New York and
Hamburg, Germany, and also Mr. O. M. W. Sprague, recently in the pay
of Great Britain as chief economic and financial adviser of Mr.
Norman, Governor of the Bank Of England, and now supposed to represent
our Treasury. These men landed in England and rushed to the Bank of
England for a private conference, taking their luggage with them,
before even going to their hotel. We know this conference has been
taking place for the past 3 days behind closed doors in the Bank of
England with these gentlemen meeting with heads of the Bank of England
and the Bank for International Settlements, of Basel, Switzerland, and
the head of the Bank France, Mr. Maret. They are discussing war debts;
they are discussing stabilization of exchanges and the Federal Reserve
System,I may say to the Members of the House.

The Federal reserve System, headed by George L. Harrison, is our
premier, who is dealing with debts behind the closed doors of the Bank
of England; and the United States Treasury is there, represented by O.
M. W. Sprague, who until the last 10 days was the representative of
the Bank of England, and by Mr. James P. Warburg, who is the son of
the principal author of the Federal Reserve Act. Many things are being
settled behind the closed doors of the Bank of England by this group.
No doubt this group were pleased to hear that yesterday the Congress
passed amendments to the Federal Reserve Act and that the President
signed the bill which turns over to the Federal Reserve System the
complete total financial resources of money and credit in the United
States. Apparently the domination and control of the international
banking group is being trengthened.... Congressional Record, June 14,
1934

What else does the Exchequer do? The government(Congress) puts up
bonds (bills of credit) on the international market, that the Federal
Reserve (Exchequer) prints fiat money, for which the government
(Congress) is the guarantor for, read the following quote:

Exchequer Bills: Bills of credit issued by authority of parliament.

They constitute the medium of transaction of business between the bank
of England and the government. The exchequer bills contain a guarantee
from government which secures the holders against loss by fluctuation.
Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

Also re-read "A Country Defeated In Victory". Who do you think the
national debt is owed to? If that's not bad enough the bond
indebtedness allowed the king to foreclose on his colony when it was
time for the one World government, the king/bankers caused us to
reorganize under bankruptcy. The Bank of England allowed the United
States to use you and I (our labor)for collateral and all the property
in America, read the following quote:

Congressman Lemke: "....This nation is bankrupt; every State in this
Union is bankrupt; the people of the United States, as a whole, are
bankrupt. The public and private debts of this Nation, which are
evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other written instruments
about to about $250,000,000,000, and it is estimated that there is
about $50,000,000,000 of which there is no record, making in all about
$300,000,000,000 of public and private debts. The total physical cash
value of all the property in the United States is now estimated at
about $70,000,000,000. That is more than it would bring if sold at
public auction. In this we do not include debts or the evidence of
debts, such as bonds, mortgages, and so fourth. These are not physical
property. They will have to be paid out of the physical property. How
are we going to pay $300,000,000,000 with only $70,000,000,000?"
Congressional Record, March 3, 1934, footnote #10

This debt was more than could be paid as of 1934, this caused the
declared bankruptcy by President Roosevelt. Now the national debt is
over 12,000,000,000,000. The government only tells you about
5,000,000,000,000, they don't tell you about the corporate debt, which
America is also guarantor for. Add to that the personal debt; you know
credit cards and home loans, and it approaches 20,000,000,000,000,
that's trillion for those of you that miss read the number of zero's.
Mix this with a super inflated stock market and a huge trade deficit,
and that is what brings you to understand my subtitle for this paper.
BEND OVER AMERICA. What could possibly be the purpose of the
international bankers allowing our nation to over extend so badly and
not cut us off? When back in 1934 they could have legally seized the
whole country. We are being used for the purpose of the international
bankers which is loaning money to third world countries, to enslave
them as we are, to colonize the world for Britain, and to use our
military machine to control unruly countries and to collect the king's
debt. There will soon be a United Nations personal income tax for the
whole world. The end purpose of the international bankers, is a one
world government, with England as the center of government and the
international bankers calling the shots.

I am going to share a dream I had, July 1992, at the risk of being
ridiculed. I told my friend who is mentioned in the dream, the next
day. At that time neither of us understood the dream, about a month
later I started to understand when I began learning about admiralty
law and where our admiralty law came from. As time has passed I have
come to understand the dream, because of further information coming to
light, such as the information contained in part 1, and part 2, which
you are now reading. I new when I woke up that the dream was not the
normal nonsense you can sometimes experience in a dream. And I might
add I dream very seldom, after having this dream I was given the
desire to write down and pass along the information that has been
brought my way, via. the Holy Spirit. The information has defined the
dream not the other way around.

MY DREAM

July 1992: A record of a dream I had. I was what appeared to be
hovering above the below scene, and it appeared to be three
dimensional, like the scene had texture. It was also in color, with
the smell of war in the air. I awoke at 5:00 am, and was wide awake
and immediately wrote down what took place in my dream.

A friend and I were among thousands of Christians that were massed
together awaiting execution. I saw untold thousands of Christians
executed before us. There were many troops guarding us, these troops
were British; they had on Revolutionary War clothing and were carrying
the old style muskets.

The people that went before us to be executed went voluntarily. They
went out of some false sense of duty to this envisioned government,
that was British controlled. These people were in ranks waiting to be
lead away to their death. While standing in the ranks my friend and I
kept looking at one another, but we were separated by what seemed to
be hundreds of people.

Just before they called our number they lead us away (untold
thousands) under guard to return later. I asked some of the people in
the ranks to step aside so I could get next to my friend. I told him
that while I was in the ranks awaiting death, the Holy Spirit told me
not to listen to their reasons for death, but to consider His reasons
(Holy Spirit's) for the sanctity of life and that we were to do
whatever it took to stay alive and defeat the beast. I saw myself
tapping my friend on the head, and told him this was an example of how
the Holy Spirit related to me, that He wanted our attention.

The Holy Spirit said we were to go and do the Holy Spirit's bidding no
matter where it lead us and that we would be protected. We both looked
at each other and decided we could not die voluntarily as the other
Christians. We looked at each other and said this is crazy, my friend
said this is voluntary just like being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen.
We then walked out of the ranks right in front of the British guards,
unseen and escaped.

Keep in mind you cannot control your dreams. Does God Almighty still
communicate through dreams as he did with George Washington? The Bible
makes it clear He does. Whether this dream is a product of
uncontrolled imagination while asleep, or insight from the Holy
Spirit, I will only say, let history decide. I am satisfied of the
dreams origin, because of its fulfillment through recent knowledge,
that wasn't known at that time. I hope you will read the rest of the
documentation in the footnotes following this commentary.
Quintal
2005-07-16 23:03:26 UTC
francom.esoterisme,fr.soc.complots,fr.soc.politique,alt.conspiracy

THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY PART 3

Part III

Will the real government please stand up!

I will begin with the touch stone of the patriot community, the
Fourteenth Amendment. Everyone knows about the citizenship issue. I
raised another issue concerning the 4th section of the Fourteenth
Amendment in British Colony part 1, and issues regarding sec. 3, in
court documents found in Footnote 13. Doubting thomas' think this is a
conspiracy theory.In the new propaganda movie called "Conspiracy
Theory", the establishment wants you to think that anyone that
believes there is someone behind the scenes calling the shots is
mentally unbalanced. What the doubting thomas' do not realize, is this
is a big puzzle and is hard to recognize, and can be incorrectly
viewed. The biggest problem is, it can be put together more than one
way, totally changing its appearance and outcome. The doubting thomas'
may say how is it you think you have the correct pieces? My answer is,
I shoot a lot of archery, in archery you shoot for the bullseye, not
the less important areas outside the bullseye. You have to stay
focused on what are the core issues, not the side issues/collateral
issues, where valuable time is lost. I conduct my research in this
way. Two, I rely on God Almighty to keep me pointed in the right
direction. Three, I always tell you not to take my word without
checking the subject out for yourself. Most people if plagued with a
recurring headache, take a pain reliever, and the headache appears to
go away. When in fact all you have done is deal with a symptom, that
caused the headache. You have not dealt with the cause. Many patriots
today are dealing with the symptoms, like taxes, driving v. traveling
and the zipcode, etc. etc. All are important issues and have their
place, but they are not the root cause of our problem. Until the cause
of the affliction is researched, exposed and then removed, nothing
will change.

The lawful de jure united States government which was created by the
1787 Constitution/Treaty, between the States, was made null and void
by the fraudulent Congress, that passed the Fourteenth Amendment. This
is a bold and broad statement, but I will prove it.

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered
into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union,
and all the guarantees of republican government in the Union, attached
at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the
Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a
new member into the political body. And it was final. The union
between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and
as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no
place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution,
or through consent of the States." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269,
20 U2d 403

"Considered therefore as transactions under the Constitution, the
ordinance of secession, adopted by the convention and ratified by a
majority of the citizens of Texas, and all the acts of her legislature
intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They
were utterly without operation in law. The obligations of the State,
as a member of the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a
citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It
certainly follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her
citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, the
State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. The war
must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of rebellion, and
must have become a war for conquest of subjugation." Dyett v. Turner
439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403

The Southern States could not lawfully cede from the Union without the
other States being in agreement. In the last sentence you will notice
the war was either a rebellion or, the States were made foreign and
conquest and military rule took place during the Civil War. This is
very important, because of what took place next, and what took place
after the Civil War and March 9, 1933. March 2, 1867, President
Johnson declared the rebellion to be over and the Southern States to
be once again part of the Union, before the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendment were passed. So the States were not foreign, they did not
have to be readmitted, they picked up in Congress where they left off,
with the same State governments they had before the rebellion. If the
Southern States had ceded from the Union, without sanction by all the
States, their Legislative Acts would have been null and void. In other
words if a State or the federal government violates their corporate
Charter, it makes any subsequent law void, unenforceable, other than
by force of arms.

The following information should upset you greatly and at the same
time amaze you, that Americans are totally unaware of this
information. How is it in the freest country in the world, and a
nation that prides itself on our history, could you have 200 plus
million people ignorant of the truth, and that care so little about
the destruction of our country? The information I am sharing with you
is purposely not taught in the public schools. Why? It will become
clear to you that, if the government taught this in the public
schools, it would cause the rebirth of American patriotism. Americans
would demand our former overthrown Republican form of government; and
that the Laws of God Almighty be adhered to. We were promised in the
Constitution a Republican form of government, and Benjamin Franklin
when asked, said: you have been given a Republican form of government
if you can keep it,(paraphrase). By the laziness and greed of the
American people over the years our lawful government was stolen, but
not without our help.

The Civil War was fought to free the slaves and reunite the Union, or
so we have been told by selected history, taught by and through the
government. The slaves just changed masters, as I have said before in
other research papers, and the white people enfranchised,
incorporated, and sold themselves into slavery. Whites along with
blacks were made legal fictions so they could be owned and taxed by
the king. However, the only way this could be done is by destroying
the Constitution, but they had to do it in a way that no one would
recognize its destruction, or care thanks to the offered benefits. Now
the Proof.

December 8, 1863 President Lincoln declared by proclamation, amnesty
and reconstruction for the southerners so they could be readmitted
into the Union. Footnote #7 This action along with what Lincoln was
doing with the money is why Lincoln had to be killed. The South could
not be allowed back into the Union without their enfranchisement.
Compare the readmittance oath in President Lincoln's proclamation of
1863, to the following oath requirement required by Congress, under
the Reconstruction Acts, Footnotes #3,4,5 and 6.

"An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the rebel
States, passed March second, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, shall
cause a registration to be made of the male citizens of the United
States, twenty-one years of age and upwards, resident in each county
or parish in the State or States included in his district, which
registration shall include only those persons who are qualified to
vote for delegates by the act aforesaid, and who shall have taken and
subscribed the following oath or affirmation: "I, _____, do solemnly
swear, (or affirm,) in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a
citizen of the State of _____; that I have resided in said State for
_____ months next preceding this day, and now reside in the county of
_____, or the parish of _____, in said State, (as the case may be;)
that I am twenty-one years old; that I have not been disfranchised for
participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States,
nor for felony committed against the laws of any State or of the
United States; that I have never been a member of any State
legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in any State
and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United
States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof; that I have
never taken an oath as a member of Congress of the United States, or
as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State
legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to
support the Constitution of the United States, and afterwards engaged
in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or
comfort to the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support the
Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will, to the
best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so help me God;" which
oath or affirmation may be administered by any registering officer."
Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867, supplement to Reconstruction Act
of March 2, 1867.

You will note that in the above oath Congress creates legal residence
for anyone taking the oath and that this is done by registering to
vote, and made a requirement in order to vote. The same legal
disability still takes place today when you register to vote. Today
you still have voting districts in every county in the America.

You will also notice that, the oath makes you declare that you were
not disenfranchised, by taking part in the Civil War. Which means
that, before the Civil War Americans were franchised citizens,
incorporated. I covered this in part 1; by the States adoption of the
Constitution, those that lived in the States became legal residents,
incorporated/enfranchised, instead of Sui Juris freemen. Which was
granted to them by the Declaration of Independence, and in North
Carolina, for North Carolinians this was reaffirmed by the 1776 North
Carolina Constitution, see British Colony part 2.

Also, you will see in the following oaths where the language came
from, for the creation of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, this
language was also used in the 14th Amendment oath you just read.
Wherein it declares that, elected officials, judges, legislators and
police etc., cannot give aid and comfort to the enemy. The enemy is
anyone unincorporated, because the king cannot legally tax you,
without using the force of admiralty. The enemy is also anyone that
refuses to swear the oath to the de facto government for the above
reasons.

The following is the oath given to those that wanted to serve in the
United States government.

An act to prescribe an oath of office. July 2, 1862

"Be it enacted, That hereafter every person elected or appointed to
any office of honor or profit under the Government of the United
States either in the civil, military, or naval departments of the
public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall,
before entering upon the duties of such office, and before being
entitled to any of the salary or other emoluments thereof, take and
subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I, A B, do solemnly
swear (or affirm), that I have never voluntarily borne arms against
the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have
voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to
persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought
nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office
whatever, under any authority or pretended authority, in hostility to
the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any
pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the
United States, hostile or inimical thereto; and I do further swear (or
affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support
and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies,
foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to
the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental
reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter; so
help me God;" which said oath, so taken and signed, shall be preserved
among the files of the Court, House of Congress, or Department to
which the said office may appertain. And any person who shall falsely
take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction, in
addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, shall be
deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever after, of
holding any office or place under the United States."

When the war was over President Johnson declared the States readmitted
to the Union and hostilities to be over.

Furthermore; on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued a
"Proclamation" that:

"The insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of Georgia,
South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama,
Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida is at an end, and is
henceforth to be so regarded."

Presidential Proclamation No. 153,

General Records of the United States,

G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service.

On August 20, 1866 (14 Stat. 814); the President proclaimed that the
insurrection in the State of Texas had been completely ended and his
"Proclamation"continued:

"The insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of Texas is at
an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that State, as in the
other States before named in which the said insurrection was
proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the second
day of April, one thousand, eight hundred and sixty-six.

"And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at an end,
and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority now exist, in
and throughout the whole of the united States of America."

Again the power behind the United States government would not stand
for this, so Congress passed the Reconstruction Acts, Footnotes #3,4,5
and 6. President Johnson vetoed the Acts because they were
unconstitutional. Below are some excerpts from his veto message.

"It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer
amounts to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable,
the bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as
he chooses to appoint, for it declares that he shall 'punish or cause
to be punished'. Such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in
England for more than five hundred years. In all that time no people
who speak the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces
the whole population of the ten States- all persons, of every color,
sex and condition, and every stranger within their limits- to the most
abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute
over the slaves as this bill gives to the military officers over both
white and colored persons...."

"I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important.
Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like
this? I answer, 'Certainly not', if we derive our authority from the
Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which is
imposes."....

"...The Constitution also forbids the arrest of the citizen without
judicial warrant, founded on probable cause. This bill authorizes an
arrest without warrant, at pleasure of a military commander. The
Constitution declares that 'no person shall be held to answer for a
capital or otherwise infamous crime unless on presentment of a grand
jury'. This bill holds ever person not a soldier answerable for all
crimes and all charges without any presentment. The Constitution
declares that 'no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law'. This bill sets aside all process
of law, and makes the citizen answerable in his person and property to
the will of one man, and as to his life to the will of two. Finally,
the Constitution declares that 'the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in case of rebellion or
invasion, the public safety may require it'; whereas this bill
declares martial law (which of itself suspends this great writ) in
time of peace, and authorizes the military to make the arrest, and
gives to the prisoner only one privilege, and that is trial 'without
unnecessary delay'. He has no hope of release from custody, except the
hope, such as it is, of release by acquittal before a military
commission."

"The United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republican
form of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is not
palpably broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away
every vestige of republican government in ten States and puts the
life, property, and honor of all people in each of them under
domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority?"

"....,here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people at once. It
is based upon an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible
and found to be true upon no credible evidence. Not one of the
9,000,000 was heard in his own defense. The representatives of the
doomed parties were excluded from all participation in the trial. The
conviction is to be followed by the most ignominious punishment ever
inflicted on large messes of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds of
thousands and degrades them all, even those who are admitted to be
guiltless, from the rank of freeman to the condition of slaves." Veto
Message of President Johnson, March 2, 1867, Footnote #8

President Johnson did not realize the king ruled and that in 1845
Congress declared admiralty law to have come on land, nor did he
realize the relevance of the Insular Cases. I cover these in "A
Country Defeated In Victory" part 1 and in Footnote 11. Once the
judiciary decided to look the other way, the De jure Constitution's
days were numbered.

"As a result of these decisions, enforcement of the Reconstruction Act
against the Southern States, helpless to resist military rule without
aid of the judiciary, went forward unhampered. Puppet governments were
founded in these various States under military auspices. Through these
means the adoption of new state constitutions, conforming to the
requirements of Congress, was accomplished. Likewise, one by one,
these puppet state governments ratified the Fourteenth Amendment,
which their more independent predecessors had rejected. Finally, in
July 1868, the ratifications of this amendment by the puppet
governments of seven of the ten Southern States, including Louisiana,
gave more than the required ratification by three-fourths of the
States, and resulted in a Joint Resolution adopted by Congress and a
Proclamation by the Secretary of State, both declaring the Amendment
ratified and in force." Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The
Fourteenth Amendment. page 36

To regress just a moment, after the war, after the States rejoined the
Union, the representatives of the South took their seats in Congress.
Later the Thirteenth Amendment was passed in Congress by the Northern
States and the Southern States. By the 1787 Constitution they were
considered equal contracting partners of the Union. The powers
controlling the government had to replace their republican form of
government that had existed in the Southern States since they adopted
the 1787 Constitution.

"Despite the fact that the southern States had been functioning
peacefully for two years and had been counted to secure ratification
of the Thirteenth Amendment , Congress passed the Reconstruction Act,
which provided for the military occupation of 10 of the 11 southern
States. It excluded Tennessee =66rom military occupation and one must
suspect it was because Tennessee had ratified the Fourteenth Amendment
on July 7, 1866. The Act further disfranchised practically all white
voters and provided that no Senator or Congressman from the occupied
States could be seated in Congress until a new Constitution was
adopted by each State which would be approved by Congress. The Act
further provided that each of the 10 States was required to ratify the
proposed Fourteenth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment must become
a part of the Constitution of the United States before the military
occupancy would cease and the States be allowed to have seats in
Congress." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403

The way they chose to do it was pass the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, the Northern States that put the amendment up in Congress
figured the Southern States would ratify. Wrong, the amendment fell
short of passing the House and the Senate. The action taken next by
the Northern States will go down in history as the most unlawful act
ever taken by any government in the world. Since the amendment would
not pass lawfully, the Northern States decided to rip the 1787
Constitution up and take over the government. How did they do this?
They told the Southern States that refused to vote for the amendment
they no longer were members of Congress, denying lawful States
suffrage in the Union. In order to get the amendment through Congress
the Northern Senators also removed a seated Senator from New Jersey to
give them two-thirds in the Senate, and counted 30 abstention votes in
the House as yes votes to pass the Fourteenth Amendment in the House.
See Footnote #12

Observing how 'a renegade group of men from the Northern States', MY
NOTE in quotes, actual text in brackets (Congress) had taken the
Constitution into its own hands and was proceeding in willful
disregard of the Constitution, on the 15th of January, 1868- Ohio, and
then on March 24, 1868- New Jersey, voted to withdraw their prior
ratifications and to reject.

The following, is an excerpt from Joint Resolution No.1 of the State
of New Jersey of March 24, 1868, when they rescinded their prior
ratification and rejected:

"It being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the
same, should be proposed by two thirds of both Houses of Congress, the
authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of
the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said
two Houses eighty representatives form eleven States of the Union,
upon the pretence that there were no such States in the Union; but,
finding that two-thirds of the remainder of said Houses could not be
brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed
and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United
States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than
the possession of power, without the right and in palpable violation
of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing
this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal
suffrage in the Senate and thereby nominally secured the vote of
two-thirds of the said Houses."

"The object of dismembering the highest representative assembly in the
Nation, and humiliating a State of the Union, faithful at all times to
all of its obligations, and the object of said amendment were one- to
place new and unheard of powers in the hands of a faction, that it
might absorb to itself all executive, judicial and legislative power,
necessary to secure to itself immunity for the unconstitutional acts
it had already committed, and those it has since inflicted on a too
patient people."

"The subsequent usurpation of these once national assemblies, in
passing pretended laws for the establishment, in ten States, of
martial law, which is nothing but the will of the military commander,
and therefore inconsistent with the very nature of all law, for the
purpose reducing to slavery men of their own race to those States, or
compelling them, contrary to their own convictions, to exercise the
elective franchise in obedience to dictation of a fraction in those
assemblies; the attempt to commit to one man arbitrary and
uncontrolled power, which they have found necessary to exercise to
force the people of those States into compliance with their will; the
authority given to the Secretary of War to use the name of the
President, to countermand its President's order, and to certify
military orders to be by the direction of the President' when they are
notoriously known to be contrary to the President's direction, thus
keeping up the forms of the Constitution to which the people are
accustomed, but practically deposing the President from his office of
Commander-in-Chief, and suppressing one of the great departments of
the Government, that of the executive; the attempt to withdraw from
the supreme judicial tribunal of the Nation the jurisdiction to
examine and decide upon the conformity of their pretended laws to the
Constitution, which was the Chief function of that August tribunal, as
organized by the fathers of the republic: all are but amplified
explanations of the power they hope to acquire by the adoption of the
said amendment."

"To conceal from the people the immense alteration of the fundamental
law they intended to accomplish by the said amendment, they gilded the
same with propositions of justice..."

"It imposes new prohibitions upon the power of the State to pass laws,
and interdicts the execution of such part of the common law as the
national judiciary may esteem inconsistent with the vague provisions
of the said amendment; made vague for the purpose of facilitating
encroachment upon the lives, liberties and property of the people."

"It enlarges the judicial power of the United States so as to bring
every law passed by the State, and every principle of the common law
relating to life, liberty, or property, within the jurisdiction of the
Federal tribunals, and charges those tribunals with duties, to the due
performance of which they, from their nature and organization, and
their distance from the people, are unequal."

"It makes a new apportionment of representatives in the National
courts, for no other reason than thereby to secure to a faction a
sufficient number of votes of a servile and ignorant race to outweigh
the intelligent voices of their own."

"This Legislature, feeling conscious of the support of the largest
majority of the people that has ever been given expression to the
public will, declare that the said proposed amendment being designed
to confer, or to compel the States to confer, the sovereign right of
elective franchise upon a race which has never given the slightest
evidence, at any time, or in any quarter of the globe, of its capacity
of self-government, and erect an impracticable standard of suffrage,
which will render the right valueless to any portion of the people was
intended to overthrow the system of self-government under which the
people of the United States have for eighty years enjoyed their
liberties, and is unfit, from its origin, its object and its matter,
to be incorporated with the fundamental law of a free people."

(The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the
threat that it poses to our democratic government, Pinckney G.
McElwee, South Carolina Law Quarterly 1959)

Did the political outrage of all history stop there? No!
In order to ratify the amendment in the States, Congress declared war
on the Southern States by passing the Reconstruction Acts. Declaring
the Southern States had unlawful State governments. They placed the
States under martial law, creating military districts which still
exist today. Is not the Fourteenth Amendment still in existence today?
Nothing has changed. They replaced the lawful State governments with
puppet governments, so the Fourteenth Amendment would be ratified by
the required 3/4 of the States and would not readmit any State until
ratification of the amendment was complete. The illusion is since you
vote for your officials, "we can't be under military occupation". The
privilege to vote would end if your State tried to remove the
Fourteenth Amendment.

Back to President Johnson's veto, the unlawful Congress then over road
his veto. Now picture this, you have a lawful President who vetoed the
unconstitutional Reconstruction Acts, passed by a de facto Congress.
Then the unlawful Congress overrides his veto since they have a
Republican majority in the Congress after denying the representation
to the Democratic Southern States. This Congress under the 1787
Constitution had no lawful authority to conduct business under the
1787 Charter much less destroy the office of the President. What do
you call this? It was a political take over, a coup d'etat.

The Fourteenth Amendment was proposed by Congress to the States for
adoption, through the enactment by Congress of Public Resolution No.
48, adopted by the Senate on June 8, 1866 and by the House of
Representatives on June 13, 1866. That Congress deliberately submitted
this amendment proposal to the then existing legislatures of the
several States is shown by the initial paragraph of the resolution."
Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment.
page 28

1. Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866
(House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584 - Senate Journal 1866, p.471.).

2. Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p 68 - Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).

3. Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p 76 - Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).

4. Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866
(House Journal 1866. p. 210-213 - Senate Journal 1866, p.183.).

5. North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866
(House Journal 1866 - 1867. p. 183 - Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 138.).

6. Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866
(House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291 - Senate Journal 1866, p. 262.).

7. South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p. 284 - Senate Journal 1866, p. 230.).

8. Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 60 - Senate Journal 1867, p. 62.).

9. Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867
(House Journal 1866-67, p. 108 - Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 101.).

10. Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 9, 1867
("Joint Resolution" as recorded on page 9 of the "Acts of the General
Assembly," Second Session, January 28, 1867) (McPherson,
"Reconstruction," p. 194; "Annual Encyclopedia," p. 452.).

11. Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 223 - Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).

12. Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 1141 - Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).

13. Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867
(McPherson, "Reconstruction," p. 194.).

14. Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868
(House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 - Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.).

15. New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868
("Minutes of the Assembly" 1868, p. 743 - Senate Journal 1868, p.
356.).

16. California rejected the 14th Amendment on March 3rd, 1868
("Journal of the Assembly" 1867-8, p. 601).

17. Oregon rejected the 14th Amendment by the Senate on October 6,
1868 and by the House on October 15, 1868 proclaiming the Legislature
that ratified the Amendment to have been a "defacto" Legislature (U.S.
House of Representatives, 40th Congress, 3rd session, Mis. Doc. No
12).

Did the military occupation ever come to an end? No!

Did the military presence leave the streets? Yes. Technically do you
have to have a military presence visible in the streets, for military
occupation and martial law to exist? No! Can the
military/Commander-in-Chief/Congress, transfer this power to the civil
authorities? Yes. Read the following cases, and Lincoln's General
order 100, Footnote #9

"But there is another description of government, called also by
publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more
aptly denominated a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing
characteristics are (1) that its existence is maintained by active
military power within the territories, and against the rightful
authority of an established and lawful government; and (2) that while
it exists it must necessarily be [229 U.S. 416, 429] obeyed in civil
matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in
submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers,
for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful
government. Actual governments of this sort are established over
districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually
administered directly by military authority, but they may be
administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less
directly by military force." Thornington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, 19 L.
ed. 361, 363. Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913

"While it is held to be the right of a conqueror to levy contributions
upon the enemy in their seaports, towns, or provinces which may be in
his military possession by conquest, and to apply the proceeds to
defray the expenses of the war, this right is to be exercised within
such limitations that it may not savor of confiscation. As the result
of military occupation, the taxes and duties payable by the
inhabitants to the former government become payable to the military
occupant, unless he sees fit to substitute for them other rates or
modes of contributions to the expenses of the government. The moneys
so collected are to be used for the purpose of paying the expenses of
government under the military occupation, such as the salaries of the
judges and the police, and for the payment of the expenses of the
army." Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913

To also prove that military occupation still exists, ask yourself
this. Is the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified under duress,
military occupation; and written and passed by a de facto Congress
still in existence? Yes! If a State would today remove the Fourteenth
Amendment and the statutory laws this amendment created from their
State laws, do you think the federal government would send in the
military again? Of course it would. So did the military occupation
end? I hope by now you know the answer to that.

Have you never wondered why the government sends your tax dollars all
over the world via the IMF and the World Bank etc. etc., with
Americans paying the bill, without ever putting this up for a vote?
Read the following quote.

"In New Orleans v. New York Mail S. S. Co. 20 Wall. 387, 393, 22 L.
ed. 354, it was said, with respect to the powers of the military
government over the city of New Orleans after its conquest, that it
had 'the same power and rights in territory held by conquest as if the
territory had belonged to a foreign country and had been subjugated in
a foreign war. In such cases the conquering power has the right to
displace the pre-existing authority, and to assume to such extent as
it may deem proper the exercise by itself of all the powers and
functions of government. It may appoint all the necessary officers and
clothe them with designated powers, larger or smaller, according to
its pleasure. It may prescribe the revenues to be paid, and apply them
to its own use or otherwise. It may do anything necessary to
strengthen itself and weaken the enemy. There is no limit to the
powers that may be exerted in such cases, save those which are found
in the laws and usages of war." Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222 1901

To drive home the relevance of British Colony part 1&2 and what I just
said above about taxes, read and understand the below quotes from the
Declaration of Rights, September 5, 1774. Maybe it will sink in, we
are taxed by Britain and we have not only asked for it but, demanded
the benefits supplied by the king, past and present.

GO FIGURE????

"Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free
government, is a right in the people to participate in their
legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented,
and from their local and other circumstances, can not properly be
represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and
exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial
legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be
preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only
to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been
heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case,
and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY
CONSENT TO THE OPERATION OF SUCH ACTS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, as
are BONA FIDE, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce,
for the PURPOSE OF SECURING THE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE WHOLE
EMPIRE TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY, and the COMMERCIAL BENEFITS OF ITS
RESPECTIVE MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or
ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the SUBJECTS IN AMERICA, without
their consent." Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774 (The
forefathers wanted the commercial benefits without paying the taxes
that go hand in hand, it does not work that way Patriots.)

"Resolved, 7. That these, His Majesty's colonies, are likewise
entitled to all the IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED and confirmed to
them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their several codes of
provincial laws." Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774

As further proof, are not all States divided into military Districts?
At first glance you may not think so. However, look at your District
Courts, in your State. They are the enforcement arm of the admiralty
law/kings law and legislation passed on a daily basis. As I said
before the voting Districts are also left over from the Reconstruction
Acts. In every court room a military flag is flown, a war flag not the
Title 4, flag of peace. Are you not required to obtain a license from
the de facto government for every aspect of commerce, and the use of
their military script/fiat money? Americans are taxed and controlled
in the following ways, to name a few:

1. Social Security number - license to work.

2. Drivers license - permission to conduct commerce and travel on the
military roads.

3. Occupational license - permission to perform a God given right.

4. State and local privilege license - license to work in the State,
county or city.

5. Marriage license - permission for a right granted by God Almighty.

6. Hunting and Fishing license - government taxing property of God
Almighty, etc.etc.etc.

Every license or permit is a use tax and is financial slavery, you are
controlled in every aspect of your life. All licenses came about after
the Fourteenth Amendment and the military occupation, which we are now
under. The reason all this has taken place in America is, to colonize
the world for Britain. The United States has been the enforcement
arm/cannon fodder for Britain since the Civil War.

"The decisions wherein grounds were found for avoiding a ruling on the
constitutionality of the Reconstruction Act leave the impression that
our highest tribunal failed in these cases to measure up to the
standard of the judiciary in a constitutional democracy. If the
Reconstruction Act was unconstitutional, the people oppressed by it
were entitled to protection by the judiciary against such
unconstitutional oppression." Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of
The Fourteenth Amendment. page 34

"The adversary or the skeptic might assert that, after a lapse of more
than eighty years, it is too late to question the constitutionality or
validity of the coerced ratifications of the Fourteenth Amendment even
on substantial and serious grounds. The ready answer is that there is
no statute of limitations that will cure a gross violation of the
amendment procedure laid down by Article V of the Constitution."
Tulane Law Review, The Dubious Origin Of The Fourteenth Amendment.
page 43

If you want to read more about the military occupation and the War
Powers Act, read Footnote #11. This issue concerning the Constitution
has to be understood by the Patriots, before you can help others see
the illusion. We Patriots need to be able to tell others how we
arrived in this condition. But, this will never happen as long as we
defend a dead treaty, and expect a lawful remedy from a de facto
government.

Is it any wonder why Americans look at us like were nuts. We defy a de
facto government and take its benefits. We curse its judges and praise
a de facto Constitution that, denies the judges the ability to give
remedy to the enemy. We praise the legal document that gave Congress
the power to declare us as enemies and curse the Congress for their
action. Wake up Patriots! How do you expect Americans to listen to the
truth, when we are so easily made to look like fools by the government
propaganda machine, and we make it easy for them. We tell the American
people the sky is falling, but never give them a remedy, other than
keeping the same damn document that enslaved us. We do not tell the
American people that there was life before the Civil War Occupation
and the Fourteenth Amendment unlawful Constitution, so fear of the
unknown will keep them from wanting to learn. The only remedy I see,
except for God Almighty's Judgement, is to expose the fraud. See
Footnote 13.

Until you accept the truth about the Constitution you will not be able
to understand the information in British Colony part 1&2. I will end
this research paper in this way. Someone asked me, "are you not afraid
to be killed by the government"? I told them what Shadrach, Meshach,
and Abendnego said:

"If it be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the
burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of thine hand, O
king, But if not, be it known unto thee, O king, that we will not
serve thy gods, nor worship the golden image which thou hast set up."
Daniel 3:17-18

Mark Twain: "You see, my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country,
not to institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real
thing; it is the thing to watch over and care for and be loyal to;
institutions extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can
wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the
body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout
for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags--that is a loyalty of
unreason; it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy; was invented by
monarchy; let monarchy keep it. I was from Connecticut, whose
constitution declared "That all political power is inherent in the
people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and
instituted for their benefit, and that they have at all times an
undeniable and indefensible right to alter their form of government in
such a manner as they think expedient." Under that gospel, the citizen
who thinks that the Commonwealth's political clothes are worn out and
yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal;
he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this
decay does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate, anyway, and it
is the duty of others to vote him down if they do not see the matter
as he does."
Quintal
2005-07-16 23:12:03 UTC
francom.esoterisme,fr.soc.complots,fr.soc.politique,alt.conspiracy

Who Owns You?

1. The IRS is not a U.S. Government Agency. It is an Agency of the
IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE
U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967,
Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

2. The IMF is an Agency of the UN. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. Pg.
816)

3. The U.S. Has not had a Treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. Ch.214 pg.
654)

4. The U.S. Treasury is now the IMF. (Presidential Documents Volume
29-No.4 pg.113, 22 U.S.C. 285-288)

5. The United States does not have any employees because there is no
longer a United States. No more reorganizations. After over 200 years
of operating under bankruptcy its finally over. (Executive Order
12803) Do not personate one of the creditors or share holders or you
will go to Prison.18 U.S.C. 914

6. The FCC, CIA, FBI, NASA and all of the other alphabet gangs were
never part of the United States government. Even though the "US
Government" held shares of stock in the various Agencies. (U.S. V.
Strang , 254 US 491, Lewis v. US, 680 F.2d, 1239)

7. Social Security Numbers are issued by the UN through the IMF. The
Application for a Social Security Number is the SS5 form. The
Department of the Treasury (IMF) issues the SS5 not the Social
Security Administration. The new SS5 forms do not state who or what
publishes them, the earlier SS5 forms state that they are Department
of the Treasury forms. You can get a copy of the SS5 you filled out by
sending form SSA-L996 to the SS Administration. (20 CFR chapter 111,
subpart B 422.103 (b) (2) (2) Read the cites above)

8. There are no Judicial courts in America and there has not been
since 1789. Judges do not enforce Statutes and Codes. Executive
Administrators enforce Statutes and Codes. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464,
Keller v. PE 261 US 428, 1 Stat. 138-178)

9. There have not been any Judges in America since 1789. There have
just been Administrators. (FRC v. GE 281 US 464, Keller v. PE 261 US
428 1Stat. 138-178)

10. According to the GATT you must have a Social Security number.
House Report (103-826)

11. We have One World Government, One World Law and a One World
Monetary System. *

12. The UN is a One World Super Government. *

13. No one on this planet has ever been free. This planet is a Slave
Colony. There has always been a One World Government. It is just that
now it is much better organized and has changed its name as of 1945 to
the United Nations. *

14. New York City is defined in the Federal Regulations as the United
Nations. Rudolph Gulliani stated on C-Span that "New York City was the
capital of the World" and he was correct. (20 CFR chapter 111, subpart
B 422.103 (b) (2) (2)

15. Social Security is not insurance or a contract, nor is there a
Trust Fund. (Helvering v. Davis 301 US 619, Steward Co. V. Davis 301
US 548.)

16. Your Social Security check comes directly from the IMF which is an
Agency of the UN. (Look at it if you receive one. It should have
written on the top left United States Treasury.)

17. You own no property, slaves can't own property. Read the Deed to
the property that you think is yours. You are listed as a Tenant.
(Senate Document 43, 73rd Congress 1st Session)

18. The most powerful court in America is not the United States
Supreme Court but, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. (42 Pa.C.S.A.
502)

19. The Revolutionary War was a fraud. See (22, 23 and 24)

20. The King of England financially backed both sides of the
Revolutionary war. (Treaty at Versailles July 16, 1782, Treaty of
Peace 8 Stat 80)

21. You can not use the Constitution to defend yourself because you
are not a party to it. (Padelford Fay & Co. v. The Mayor and Alderman
of The City of Savannah 14 Georgia 438, 520)

22. America is a British Colony. (THE UNITED STATES IS A CORPORATION,
NOT A LAND MASS AND IT EXISTED BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR AND THE
BRITISH TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796.) Respublica v. Sweers 1
Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The Society for Propagating
the Gospel, &c. V. New Haven 8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80,
IRS Publication 6209, Articles of Association October 20, 1774.)

23. Britain is owned by the Vatican. (Treaty of 1213)

24. The Pope can abolish any law in the United States. (Elements of
Ecclesiastical Law Vol.1 53-54)

25. A 1040 form is for tribute paid to Britain. (IRS Publication 6209)

26. The Pope claims to own the entire planet through the laws of
conquest and discovery. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)

27. The Pope has ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of
people. (Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493)

28. 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)

29. We are slaves and own absolutely nothing not even what we think
are our children. (Tillman v. Roberts 108 So. 62, Van Koten v. Van
Koten 154 N.E. 146, Senate Document 43 & 73rd Congress 1st Session,
Wynehammer v. People 13 N.Y. REP 378, 481)

30. Military Dictator George Washington divided the States (Estates)
into Districts. (Messages and papers of the Presidents Vo 1, pg 99.
Websters 1828 dictionary for definition of Estate.)

31. "The People" does not include you and me. (Barron v. Mayor & City
Council of Baltimore. 32 U.S. 243)

32. The United States Government was not founded upon Christianity.
(Treaty of Tripoli 8 Stat 154.)

33. It is not the duty of the police to protect you. Their job is to
protect the Corporation and arrest code breakers. Sapp v. Tallahasee,
348 So. 2nd. 363, Reiff v. City of Philadelphia, 477 F.Supp. 1262,
Lynch v. N.C. Dept of Justice 376 S.E. 2nd. 247.

34. Everything in the "United States" is For Sale: roads, bridges,
schools, hospitals, water, prisons airports etc. I wonder who bought
Klamath lake. Did anyone take the time to check? (Executive Order
12803)

35. We are Human capital. (Executive Order 13037)

36. The UN has financed the operations of the United States government
for over 50 years and now owns every man, women and child in America.
The UN also holds all of the Land in America in Fee Simple. *

37. The good news is we don't have to fulfill "our" fictitious
obligations. You can discharge a fictitious obligation with another's
fictitious obligation. *

38. The depression and World War II were a total farce. The United
States and various other companies were making loans to others all
over the World during the Depression. The building of Germanys
infrastructure in the 1930's including the Railroads was financed by
the United States. That way those who call themselves "Kings," "Prime
Ministers," and "Fuher,"etc could sit back and play a game of chess
using real people. Think of all of the Americans, Germans etc. who
gave their lives thinking they were defending their Countries which
didn't even exist. The millions of innocent people who died for
nothing. Isn't it obvious why Switzerland is never involved in these
fiascoes? That is where the "Bank of International Settlements" is
located. Wars are manufactured to keep your eye off the ball. You have
to have an enemy to keep the illusion of "Government" in place. *

39. The "United States" did not declare Independence from Great
Britain or King George. *

40. Guess who owns the UN?

* Caveat Redemptor - Verify for yourself
Mara Jade Skywalker
2005-07-17 12:15:05 UTC
Post by Quintal
francom.esoterisme,fr.soc.complots,fr.soc.politique,alt.conspiracy
The United States is still a British Colony
D'après certains ici, c'est le contraire:
"Great Britain is already a United States colony"

--
Mara Jade Skywalker - ***@tiscali.be
http://www.starwars.com/databank/character/marajadeskywalker/eu.html
"Les pingouins sont cinglés!" ("Madagascar", DreamWorks, 2005)
D'Iberville: saviez-vous que... http://diberville.blogspot.com/
--