HIST-US- Americas Subjection to Britain in a Nutshell

8/2/2019 HIST-US- Americas Subjection to Britain in a Nutshell

1/39

AMERICA'S SUBJECTION TO BRITAIN, IN A NUTSHELL

The below Compilation of facts were taken from my research papers and excerpts of my emailresponses to others. I am trying to cut down on the size of the information and my commentary,to let the facts speak for themselves. I am using old email since the facts remain the same,along with questions possessed to me.

To help in researching the below facts I have broken them into differnt topics. You can do a textsearch of the following topics, or do a word search, using your word processor.

1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS.2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS?3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS.4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM.5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER.6. THE KING RULES BY VAGUE STATUTES.

7. LAW OF MORTMAIN.8. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION WAS ABROGATED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS.

"The reason I guess no one has looked at the issue of the U.S. still being subject to Britain exceptfor the Informer and myself up until now, can only be, as a rule no one looks beyond what is asettled fact/belief or foregone conclusion. In other words Independence from Britain was assettled in the minds of Americans as God Almighty sitting on the throne and His Son seated at HisRight Hand." (quote from my email response)

THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (PEACE TREATY of 1783):

"In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.

It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potentPrince George the Third, by the grace of God, KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND,defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and PRINCE ELECTOR OFTHE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ETC., and OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, to FORGET all pastMISUNDERSTANDINGS AND DIFFERENCES that have unhappily interrupted the goodcorrespondence and friendship which they mutually wish to RESTORE,...."

"YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same, the yearly Rent ofTwenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The Firstpayment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which shall be in the year ofOur Lord One thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and SilverOre 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

The following quote is from section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of

1 of 39


2/39

Rights. Remember this when you read the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third section,(contained in this paper).

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

"But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and hissubjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantorto them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance orother duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this casenaturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it neverissued, and from tenants who never held under it?"MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70

"SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion due to us, our heirs andSuccessors, for the same; and Saving also, the right, title, and interest of all and every ourSubjects of the English Nation which are now Planted within the Limits bounds aforesaid, if any

be;..."The Carolina Charter, 1663

"KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, HAVE thought fitto Erect the same Tract of Ground, Country, and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullnessof 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 fromhenceforth will have it called..."The Carolina Charter, 1663

"Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an Act of Assembly of this State passedin 1787, to be law in this State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United Statesin 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the land. The treaty now underconsideration was made, on the part of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputiesfrom each state, to whom were delegated by the articles of confederation, expressly, "the soleand exclusive right and power of entering into treaties and alliances"; and being ratified andmade 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 lawhere, 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 decisionsaccordingly. And in 1789 was adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, whichdeclared that all treaties made, or which should be made under the authority of the UnitedStates, should be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every state should bebound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law in this State, and the confiscation act, so faras 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

2 of 39


3/39

hereafter come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, withinten years last past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or inany of the United States of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall takean 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. 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.)

"The two main issues as I see them in British Colony are; one, the financial obligations of the1213 Charter En #1, are still in effect, along with the Charters establishing America. Two, thelast sentence of the 1689 Bill of Rights En #2, proves the following:"

"That the Charters of the Colonies could never be overturned by a Declaration of Independence,or the 1787 treaty, otherwise known as the Constitution, I'm talking about the real subjectmatter, financial obligation. Title for the land was transferred to the states and then ceded byCharter to the federal government under Cestui que trust, but the contracted debt andobligation of the Colonial Charters, and the 1213 Charter could not be negated.

Rights could be granted to the citizens, subjects or combatants, which ever the case may be, butthe financial obligation cannot, nor could not be affected, because it involves parties not yetborn. This why King Charles I said, the 1689 Bill of Rights would not free the kingdom from theobligation of the 1213 Charter. This is why the United States Bank was given right of Charter inAmerica. George Washington had no choice but to succumb to the Rothchilds point man,Hamilton. Talk about deja vu, I mean does this not sound familiar. Our Bill of Rights was given tous, to give us the illusion of freedom. When the tax obligation of the Charters above marchedalong un-impeded and un-seen, by Americans and Britons alike. Read the Magna Carta again,they wanted the Pope's blessing for the 1215 Charter, this same Pope is the Pope in the 1213Charter where England and Ireland were given to him. He could not just give back his land,because of other parties not yet born. The Pope let the barons presume they were free and gave

his blessing to the 1215 Magna Carta, knowing to do so would in no way lawfully overturn thegrant made to him in the 1213 Charter. Also, it is apparent, it was recognized as law that youcould not even create a Charter, wherein you declared a previous grant or Charter null in voidunless the relevant parties agreed. How can a Charter be made void if parties to the Charter willnever cease to be born, an heir can always be found. To prove this, again what did the new kingCharles I do, even though the previous monarchy had come to an end, its obligations did not, thisis why he had to included paragraph III, a clause to protect the other parties of an earlierCharter."(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)

Endnote #1

Britannia: Sources of British History (1213)KING JOHN's Concession of England and Ireland to the Pope

In the matter of the election and installation of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury,King John, in the words of Pope Innocent III, had by "impious persecution", tried to "enslave" theentire English Church. As a result, the pope laid on England an interdict (1208-14), a sort ofreligious "strike", wherein no religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or innocent. Whenthis didn't work, the king, himself, was excommunicated. Caving-in under that pressure, Johnwrote a letter of concession to the pope, hoping to have the interdict and the excommunication

3 of 39


4/39

lifted (1213). John's concession which, in effect, made England a fiefdom of Rome, worked like acharm. The satisfied pope lifted lifted the yoke he had hung on the people of England and theirking.

John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine,count of Anjou, to all the faithful of Christ who shall look upon this present charter, greeting.

We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, thatinasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and inconsequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anythingworthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves andour kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us untodeath, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but ofour own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freelyconcede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church,and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England andthe whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our ownsins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and

holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of thatprudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope, we perform and swearfealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and theRoman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shallbe able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors aid ourheirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shallbe chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign, moreover, ofthis our own, we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession we will establish thatfrom the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms, for all the service and customswhich we ought to render for them, saving in all things the penny of St. Peter, the Roman churchshall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling, namely at the feast of St. Michael five hundredmarks, and at Easter five hundred marks, seven hundred, namely, for the kingdom of England,and three hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, saving to us and to our heirs our rights, libertiesand regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetuallyvalid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we orany one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being dulywarned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and thischarter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.

Endnote #2

Britannia: Sources of British HistoryBILL of RIGHTS, 1689

An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown

Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully,fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenthday of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date]

4 of 39


5/39

present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary,prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration inwriting made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following,

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges andministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion andthe laws and liberties of this kingdom;

By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the executionof laws without consent of Parliament;

By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused fromconcurring to the said assumed power;

By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a courtcalled the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;

By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and

in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;

By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent ofParliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;

By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papistswere both armed and employed contrary to law;

By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;

By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only inParliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and servedon juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were notfreeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude thebenefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed; And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted; And several

grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against thepersons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of thisrealm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and thethrone being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased AlmightyGod to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power)did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the

5 of 39


6/39

Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, andother letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for thechoosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meetand sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand sixhundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws andliberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections havingbeen accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respectiveletters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, takinginto their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in thefirst place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and assertingtheir ancient rights and liberties declare:

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authoritywithout consent of Parliament is illegal;

That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as

it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;

That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, andall other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;

That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant ofParliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;

That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions forsuch petitioning are illegal;

That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it bewith consent of Parliament, is against law;

That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to theirconditions and as allowed by law;

That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeachedor questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;

That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusualpunishments inflicted;

That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trialsfor high treason ought to be freeholders;

That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction areillegal and void;

6 of 39


7/39

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of thelaws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubtedrights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudiceof the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter intoconsequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged bythe declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a fullredress and remedy therein.

Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfectthe deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of theirrights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights andliberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster doresolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queenof England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown androyal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, duringtheir lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal

power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince andprincess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of thesame kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for defaultof such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of suchissue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporaland Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths haveallegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths ofallegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to theirMajesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical thisdamnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or anyauthority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any otherwhatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath orought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical orspiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms ofEngland, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolutionand desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon theirMajesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the twoHouses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence makeeffectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so thatthe same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said LordsSpiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly.

Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in

7 of 39


8/39

Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and thearticles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form byauthority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular therights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient andindubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed,adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall befirmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and allofficers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according tothe same in all time to come.

And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hathpleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation toprovide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon thethrone of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts theirhumblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think,and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicatedthe government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid,their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our

sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominionsthereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of thesaid realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions andauthorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirelyinvested and incorporated, united and annexed.

And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles tothe crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity,peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the saidLords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted,established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and

dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be andcontinue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of thesurvivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power andgovernment be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties duringtheir joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to theheirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the PrincessAnne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said LordsSpiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly andfaithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise thatthey will stand to, maintain and defend their said majesties, and also the limitation and

succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with theirlives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.

And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfareof this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying apapist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may beenacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall holdcommunion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry apapist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown andgovernment of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the

8 of 39


9/39

same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; andin all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved oftheir allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and beenjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed thesame in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing ormarrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who atany time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on thefirst day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sittingin his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons thereinassembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer thecoronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall firsthappen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made inthe thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, "An Act for the more effectualpreserving the king's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House ofParliament."

But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of thisrealm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make,

subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of themeeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queenshall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented andpleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, andshall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their saidMajesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commonsin Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and establishedaccordingly.

II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after thispresent session of Parliament no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any statute or any partthereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except adispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be speciallyprovided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day ofOctober in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any waysimpeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same forceand effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS?

"In May, 1775, Washington said: 'If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure [asseparation from Great Britain], you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked'- Healso said: 'It is not wish or interest of the government [meaning Massachusetts], or of any otherupon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence'"Ingersoll, North American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in Sources of theConstitution of the United States, c. Ellis Stevens, 1927, page 36.

9 of 39


10/39

"Jay did not favor independence from Britain. His absence from the signing of the Declaration ofIndependence was noted by Thomas Jefferson."Copyright c 1995 by LeftJustified Publiks. All rights reserved.

"Mr. Chairman ... I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my own mind. When I askedthe question. I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this questionand America may depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of acompact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearlya consolidated government. The question turns. Sir, on that poor little thing--the expression, Wethe people, instead of the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that theprinciples of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy,like England--a compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to secure theliberty of the latter? is this a Confederacy, like Holland--an association of a number ofindependent States, each of which retain its individual sovereignty?...."Patrick Henry's speech of June 5, 1788

REMEMBER THIS PREDICTION OR PATRICK HENRY, WHEN YOU SEE WHAT WASHINGTON DID BELOW

AFTER CALLING OUT THE MILITIAS.

"....My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defendingour rights: or, of waging war against tyrants: It is urged by some Gentlemen, that this new planwill bring us an acquisition of strength, an army, and the militia of the States: This is an ideaextremely ridiculous: Gentlemen cannot be in earnest. This acquisition will trample on yourfallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded theuniverse: Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militiais put into the hands of Congress?"Patrick Henry's speech of June 5, 1788

"That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligentamong mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages. If it be demonstrated that theadoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then, Sir, I acknowledge that adoption oughtto follow: But, Sir, if this be a truth that its adoption may entail misery on the free people ofthis country. I then insist, that rejection ought to follow. Gentlemen strongly urge its adoptionwill be a mighty benefit to us: But, Sir, I am made of such incredulous materials that assertionsand declarations, do not satisfy me. I must be convinced, Sir. I shall retain my infidelity on thatsubject, till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly satisfactory to myunderstanding....."Patrick Henry's speech of June 7, 1788

"....Consider how the only remaining defence we have left is destroyed in this manner; Besidesthe expences of maintaining the Senate and other House in as much splendor as they please,thereis to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers: the powers of a King: He is tobe supported in extravagant magnificence: So that the whole of our property may be taken bythis American Government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salariesthey please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure: I might be thought too inquisitive.

For I never will give up the power of direct taxation, but for a scourge: But I beseech Gentlemen,

10 of 39


11/39

at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation:Patrick Henry's speech of June 7, 1788

In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, 1789-1897 I discovered the following:Gentlemen of the Senate:

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An act repealing after the last day ofJune next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying othersin their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating thesame," I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district ofMassachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island andProvidence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; thedistrict of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consistof the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; thedistrict of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, toconsist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State ofDelaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to

consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of NorthCarolina; the district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of theState of Georgia."Page 99 March 4, 1791

In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he declares the district of Columbia to becreated and it's borders established, he says further:"And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March havegiven further authority to the President of the United States...."

THE FOLLOWING IS EMAIL THAT WENT WITH THE ABOVE QUOTE:

This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the Statesof ......This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25,1791, to do business in the State of......, but is actually the District State. Subjection of theStates of..... was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist,such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring themto obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States ofthe Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the Statesboundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican

form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place ifdelegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District,making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District.Washington extend this District without Constitutional authority. Washington put in placeofficers of the District to oversee the District States. As a result of the military rule imposed byWashington, District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines andimprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States. THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BYGEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED. The Judicial Districts were created by the

11 of 39


12/39

Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers,thereby HE created District States, so the federal government could use the militias to crush thetax protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington's order. Since the Judicial Districts alreadyexisted, why did they recreate them? Washington said he was dividing the United States intoDistrict States. He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE STATES, not creating districtsin the states, DIVIDING THE STATES into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you would not DIVIDETHEM, because the states were already divided. How can you DIVIDE, SEPARATE the states, madeby the state and federal Charters/Constitutions? Why do this when Congress already had thepower to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution? This was an excuse to DIVIDEthe states into DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia/Congress anddelegating to the President, authority given to Congress to suppress insurrection, under Art. I,sec. 8.

Second, the use of any military power before Congress declares war, by direction of thePresident is done by him as Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stopthe President unless they impeach him, or when they declare war they can stop the Presidentwith their power of the purse, unless the President were to then declare a national emergency,as Commander-in-Chief, overriding Congress, in effect declaring himself king, or in our case

anyone holding that office, which we now have. I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergencypowers claimed by the President, but unless the Judiciary declares the President out of line, youor I cannot change this, unless you or I were elected President, and declared this powerun-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to protect public policy. Around andAround it goes. Again this power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction, insularcapacity, see DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), which was allowed by the Judiciary,beginning with what Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare what Congresswas doing as un-Constitutional, and up to Washington to not take power delegated to Congress.This power was affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the 1850's by the insular cases.This created precedent for Congress to continue to cede power to the President, delegated tothem in the Constitution.

Third, the Districts Washington created answered directly to the Commander-in-Chief, notCongress. In order for these Districts to be created by the President, Congress had to give thePresident power outside of the Constitution, as declared by Washington himself. Martial law canbe used as soon as the military is called upon to put down insurrection or fight a war. Washingtoncreated District States, not state districts, and the military occupied the Pennsylvania Districtuntil the insurgents went home, Washington said these Districts were created for putting downthe rebellion, however they were never disbanded when the rebellion ended." END EMAIL

3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS

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

12 of 39


13/39

In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should beadopted declaring it to be their opinion "That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans toobedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain."The History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 617-9

"If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you, at thesame time, a surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these objectswhich you tax at home, she has performed her part to the British revenue. But with regard to herown internal establishments, she may, I doubt not she will, contribute in moderation. I say inmoderation, for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself. She ought to be reserved to awar, the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to have, must beconsiderable in her quarter of the globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially. Forthat service - for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire - my trust is in her interest inthe British Constitution. My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection which grows fromcommon names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are tieswhich, through light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the Colonists always keep the ideaof their civil rights associated with your government, they will cling and grapple to you, and noforce under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance."

Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

"But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the aggregate of many states under one commonhead, whether this head be a monarch or a presiding republic."Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

"What was it Franklin said, when asked what government have you given us, in reply he said aRepublic. Our fore fathers were protecting their ass-ets and seeking to remain subject to theking in a hidden way. For which they were to receive further privileges. I would love to be ableto look into the old English records and see if their personal land holdings in England increased,after the 1783 Peace Treaty and the 1787 Constitution/Charter were approved, by anunsuspecting public."(quote from my email response)

"Men may lose little in property by the act which takes away all their freedom. When a man isrobbed of a trifle on the highway, it is not the two-pence lost that constitutes the capitaloutrage."Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

"The people heard, indeed, from the beginning of these disputes, one thing continually dinned intheir ears, that reason and justice demanded that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be

compelled to contribute."Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

"Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges havemade it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be."Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

Adam Smith also gives incite into the kings mind set in regards to the colonies paying for thebenefits they receive from him, and as to the contributions they should pay and how it is to bedone.

13 of 39


14/39

"Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said,came all back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer byany expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it wasan expense laid out upon the improvement of our own property and for the profitableemployment of our own people."1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

OUR FORE FATHERS WANTED THE BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX TO THEKING.

"Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in thepeople to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are notrepresented, and from their local and other circumstances, can not properly be represented inthe British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in theirseveral provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in allcases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in suchmanner 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 OPERATIONOF SUCH ACTS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, as are BONA FIDE, restrained to the regulation ofour external commerce, for the PURPOSE OF SECURING THE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THEWHOLE EMPIRE TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY, and the COMMERCIAL BENEFITS OF ITS RESPECTIVEMEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on theSUBJECTS 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 ANDPRIVILEGES GRANTED and confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their severalcodes of provincial laws." Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774

"Need I say more, I have been ridiculed by some for what I have said, in respect to our continuedsubjection to England, and I am sure Al has to. The above quote is further evidence that the kingdid not relinquish his contract/Charters and land grants/patents to the United States. Instead hepreserved his ability to receive gain through his taxes for his investment.

The below quotes will make you realize that the present tax system was put in place by the kingand is completely British, and the way they chose to continue to receive the king's profit from hisinvestment, as declared in his Charters."

(quote from my email response)

4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM.

"Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the fourfollowing maxims with regard to taxes in general.

I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, asnearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue

14 of 39


15/39


16/39

ought certainly to alleviate it, the temptation to commit the crime. Fourthly, by subjecting thepeople to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax-gatherers, it may exposethem to much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictlyspeaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at which every man would be willingto redeem himself from it. It is in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes arefrequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign."1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

"It is not contrary to justice that both Ireland and America should contribute towards thedischarge of the public debt of Great Britain. That debt has been contracted in support of thegovernment established by the Revolution, a government to which the Protestants of Irelandowe, not only the whole authority which they at present enjoy in their own country, but everysecurity which they possess for their liberty, their property, and their religion; a government towhich several of the colonies of America owe their present charters, and consequently theirpresent constitution, and to which all the colonies of America owe the liberty, security, andproperty which they have ever since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in thedefence, not of Great Britain alone, but of all the different provinces of the empire; theimmense debt contracted in the late war in particular, and a great part of that contracted in the

war before, were both properly contracted in defence of America."1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

"The expense of the peace establishment of the colonies was, before the commencement of thepresent disturbances, very considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can bedrawn from them ought certainly to be saved altogether. This constant expense in time ofpeace, though very great, is insignificant in comparison with what the defence of the colonieshas cost us in time of war. The last war, which was undertaken altogether on account of thecolonies, cost Great Britain, it has already been observed, upwards of ninety millions. TheSpanish war of 1739 was principally undertaken on their account, in which, and in the French warthat was the consequence of it, Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of

which ought justly to be charged to the colonies. In those two wars the colonies cost GreatBritain much more than double the sum which the national debt amounted to before thecommencement of the first of them. Had it not been for those wars that debt might, andprobably would by this time, have been completely paid; and had it not been for the colonies,the former of those wars might not, and the latter certainly would not have been undertaken. Itwas because the colonies were supposed to be provinces of the British empire that this expensewas laid out upon them. But countries which contribute neither revenue nor military forcetowards the support of the empire cannot be considered as provinces. They may perhaps beconsidered as appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of the empire. But if theempire can no longer support the expense of keeping up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay it

down; and if it cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense, it ought, at least, toaccommodate its expense to its revenue. If the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal to submitto British taxes, are still to be considered as provinces of the British empire, their defence insome future war may cost Great Britain as great an expense as it ever has done in any formerwar. The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, amused the people with theimagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire,however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire, but theproject of an empire; not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has cost,which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likelyto cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the

16 of 39


17/39

monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shown, are, to the great body of the people, mere lossinstead of profit."1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER.

Exchequer: "The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of record, set up by Williamthe Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of thecrown, and to recover the king's debts and duties. It was called exchequer, "scaccharium," fromthe 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 ofthe 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 thecollection 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'sbench, but to the common pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on accountof its double capacity, as a court of law and a court of equity [44] also. It is a very ancient courtof record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, through regulated andreduced to its present order by King Edward I; and intended principally to order the revenues ofthe 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, andwith which these Commentaries have no concern; and the court or judicial part of it, which isagain 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 mattersinvolving government revenue."Ballentine's Law Dictionary

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

A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31 Edw. III. C. 12, to determinecauses upon writs of error from the common-law side of the exchequer court. It consisted of thechancellor, treasurer, and the "justices and other sage persons as to them seemeth." The judgeswere 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 intheir place as an intermediate court of appeal between the three common-law courts andParliament. It consisted of the judges of the two courts which had not rendered the judgementin the court below. It is now merged in the High Court of Justice."

17 of 39


18/39

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

The equity court of the exchequer: "57. The court of equity is held in the exchequer chamberbefore 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 ofthe kingdom, or parliamentary barons; and thence to have derived their name: which conjecturereceives great strength form Bracton's explanation of magna carta, c.14, which directs that theearls 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 billfiled 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'sbench, and exchequer, was entirely separate and distinct; the common pleas being intended todecide all controversies between subject and subject; the king's bench to correct all crimes andmisdemeanors that amount to a breach of the peace, the king being then the plaintiff, as suchoffenses 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 andnonpayment thereof is an injury to his jura fiscalia (fisical rights). But, as by a fiction almost allsorts of civil actions are now allowed to be brought in the king's bench, in like manner by anotherfiction all kinds of personal suits may be prosecuted in the court of exchequer. For as all theofficers and ministers of this court have, like those of other superior courts, the privilege ofsuing and being sued only in their own court; so exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead allmanner of persons in the same court of equity that they themselves are called into. They havelikewise privilege to sue and implead one another, or any stranger, in the same kind ofcommon-law actions (where the personalty only is concerned) as are prosecuted in the court ofcommon 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 theirjurisdiction, which was established merely for the benefit of the king's accountants, and isexercised by the barons only of the exchequer, and not the treasurer or chancellor. The writupon which the plaintiff suggests that he is the king's farmer or debtor, and that the defendanthath done him the injury or damage complained of; quo minus sufficient exist, by which he is theless able, to pay the king his debt or rent. And these suits are expressly directed, by what iscalled the statute of Rutland, to be confined to such matters only as specially concern the kingor his ministers of the exchequer. And by the articuli super cartas it is enacted that no commonpleas 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 theking's accountant. The surmise of being debtor to the king is therefore become matter of formand mere words of course, and the court is open to all the nation equally.

The same holds with regard to the equity side of the court: for there any person may file [46] abill against another upon a bare suggestion that he is the king's accountant; but whether he is soor not is never controverted. In this court, on the nonpayment of titles; in which case thesurmise of being the king's debtor is no fiction, they being bound to pay him their first-fruits, andannual tenths. But the chancery has of late years obtained a large share in this business."Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555

18 of 39


19/39

Definition of a legal fiction: For a discussion of fictions in law, see chapter II of Maine's AncientLaw, and Pollock's note D in his edition of the Ancient Law. Blackstone gives illustrations of legalfictions on pages 43, 45, 153, 203 of this book. Mr Justice Curtis (Jurisdiction of United StatesCourts, 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 oragainst citizens of the state which created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to thecontrary is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court ofthe United States.

There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law, presumes all the members arecitizens of the state which created the corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse thatpresumption'; 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 notthe slightest reason to suppose that it will ever be departed from by the court. It has beenrepeated 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, theyhave applied it in some cases which go beyond, much beyond, these decisions to which I havereferred. So that when a suit is to be brought in a court of the United States by or against acorporation, 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 itsconsequences as if you could allege, and did allege, that the corporation was a citizen of thatstate.

According to the present decisions, it is not necessary you should say that the members of thatcorporation are citizens of Massachusetts. They have passed beyond that. You have only to saythat the corporation was created by a law of the state of Massachusetts, and has its principalplace of business in that state; and that makes it, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the same as ifit were a citizen of that state"See Pound, Readings in Roman Law, 95n. Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553

6. THE KING RULES BY VAGUE STATUTES.

Statue of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540)

"You will have to read the below statute many times to understand what the king is saying. It

was obviously made to be vague and ambiguous, it contains two sentences, the first is 658 wordslong, the second is 166 words long, not counting punctuation. I have included the followingcommentary to help your understanding of the below statute. The king is saying that some of therepresentatives of the Catholic Church and some of his subjects have received grants of landfrom the king. The king is also saying they are in violation of certain provisions contained in thegrants and land patents. Portions of these grants and land patents were granted to 3rd partyentities by his 1st party grantees, through the kings grants and charters, having been granted tothem. Because of contractual provisions contained in the grants and land patents being violated,the land was declared to revert back to the original grantees who received grants from the king.

19 of 39


20/39

As stated in section 1, this statute deals with land twice removed from the king; to preserve theclarity of his grants and land patents, in conjunction with the law of mortmain. You will see thatthe 1st party grantors, included ecclesiastical and religious persons, as well as secular. Thisstatute does not change grants between the king, and the 1st party grantees and land patentees.

#7, section I should make you think. If any tax or rent due, (as declared in #5, section I), underthe kings grants or Charters, are not paid, the land reverts back to the king, as if the Grants andCharters were never written. This is the same language of intent, used in the 1689 Declaration ofRights, third section, and the 25 section, in the 1776 North Carolina Bill of Rights, of the NorthCarolina 1776 Constitution, which established the North Carolina Corporation.

In section II, the king extends this statue to all grants made by him, now or in the future. Thekey and purpose to this statute is contained in #2, section I, no stranger is to enjoy a benefit ofany Grant or Charter, if they are not a grantee and benefactor, without paying a rent or tax, see#5, section I. The main target of this statute was the Catholic Church, because they were notpaying the tax due under the grants made to them.

However, as shown in previous email the Vatican owned the land they were being taxed for,under the 1213 Charter. I am sure this is why the Vatican refused to pay a tax, because theownerof the land does not tax himself. Since the states were the benefactors from the 1783 PeaceTreaty, not the inhabitants, and they later transferred their original Grant from the king to theUnited States Constitution/Corporation, making the inhabitants of the states strangers, maybenow you know how and why we are taxed, and when the tax is not paid, the land reverts back tothe benefactor of the of the kings original land grants, the United States Corporation, thetrustee administering the trust/Constitution/Charter."(quote from my email response)

Under The Statues of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540) (a) Parties

St. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 84,--Where before this time divers, as well temporal as ecclesiastical andreligious persons, have made sundry leases, demises and grants to divers other persons, of sundrymanors, lordships, forms, meases, lands, tenements, meadows, pastures, or otherhereditaments, for term of life or lives, or for term of years, by writing under their seal or seals,containing certain conditions, covenants and agreements to be performed, as well on the partand behalf of the said lessees and grantees, their executors and assigns, as on the behalf of thesaid lessors and grantors, their heirs and successors; (2) and forasmuch as by the common law of

this realm, no stranger to any covenant, action or condition, shall take any advantage or benefitof the same, by any means or ways in the law, but only such as be parties or privies thereunto,by the reason whereof, as well all grantee of reversions, as also all grantees and patentees ofthe King our sovereign lord, of sundry manors, lordships, granges, forms, meases, landstenements, meadows, pastures, or other hereditaments late belonging to monasteries, and otherreligious and ecclesiastical houses dissolved, suppressed, renounced, relinquished, forfeited,given up, or by other means come to the hands and possession of the King's majesty since thefourth day of February the seven and twentieth year of his most noble reign, be excluded to haveany entry or action against the said lessees and grantees, their executors or assigns, which thelessors for the breach of any condition, covenant or agreement comprised in the indentures of

20 of 39


21/39

their said leases, demises and grants: (3) be it therefore enacted by the King our sovereign lord,the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and byauthority of the same, That as well all and every person and persons, and bodies politic, theirheirs, successors and assigns, which have or shall have any gift or grant of our said sovereign lordby his letters patents of any lordships, manors, lands, tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes,portions, or any other hereditaments, or of any reversion or reversions of the same, which didbelong or appertain to any of the said monasteries, and other religious and ecclesiastical houses,dissolved, suppressed, relinquished, forfeited, or by any other means come to the King's handssince the said fourth day of February the seven and twentieth year of his most noble reign, orwhich at any time heretofore did belong or appertain to any other person or persons, and aftercame to the hands of our said sovereign lord, (4) as also all other persons being grantees orassignees to or by our said sovereign lord the King, or to or by any other person or persons thanthe King's highness, and the heirs, executors, successors and assigns of every of them, (5) shalland may have and enjoy like advantage against the lessees, there executors, administrators andassigns, by entry for non-payment of the rent, or for doing of waste or other forfeiture; (6) andalso shall and may have and enjoy all and every such like, and the same advantage, benefit andremedies by action only, for not performing of the other conditions, covenants or agreementscontained and expressed in the indentures of their said lesses, demises or grants, against all and

every the said lessees and farmers and grantees, their executors, administrators and assigns, asthe said lessors or grantors themselves, or their heirs or successors, ought, should, or might havehad and enjoyed at any time or times, (7) in like manner and form as if the reversion of suchlands, tenements or hereditaments had not come to the hands of our said sovereign lord, or asour said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, should or might have had and enjoyed in certaincases, by virtue of the act made at the first session of this present parliament, if no such grantby letters patent had been made by His Highness.

II. Moreover be it enacted by authority aforesaid, That all farmers, lessees and grantees oflordships, manors, lands, tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any otherhereditaments for term of years, life or lives, their executors, administrators and assigns, shalland may have like action, advantage and remedy against all and every person and persons andbodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, which have or shall have any gift or grant ofthe King our sovereign lord, or of any other person or persons, of the reversion of the samemanors, lands, tenements, and other hereitaments so letten, or any parcel thereof, for anycondition, covenant or agreement contained or expressed in the indentures of their lesse orleases, as the same lessees, or any of them might and should have had against the said lessorsand grantors, their heirs and successors; (2) all benefits and advantages of recoveries in value byreason of any warranty in deed or in law by voucher or otherwise only excepted.Fn#1

Footnote #1 "The Statute deals only with actions by the assignee of the reversion against the

lessee or his assignee, and actions by the lessee or his assignee against the assignee of thereversion; and not with actions by the lessor against the assignee of the lessee, or e contra,which actions seem therefore to be governed by the common law."1 Smith, L. C. (10th ed.) 74

7. LAW OF MORTMAIN.

This statute, by King Edward I, was aimed at preventing land passing to the hands of immortalinstitutions, and thus out of the control and taxation system operated by the state. The Churchwas the main target.

21 of 39


22/39

(Stubbs' "Charters," p. 457.)

The king to his Justices of the Bench, greeting. Where as of late it was provided that religiousmen should not enter into the fees of any without the will and licence of the lords in chief ofwhom these fees are held immediately; and such religious men have, notwithstanding, laterentered as well into their own fees as into those of others, appropriated, them to themselves,and buying them, and sometimes receiving them from the gift of others, whereby the serviceswhich are due of such fees, and which at the beginning, were provided for the defence of therealm, are unduly withdrawn, and the lords in chief do lose their escheats of the same; we,therefore, to the profit of our realm, wishing to provide a fit remedy in this matter, by advice ofour prelates, counts and other subjects of our realm who are of our council, have provided,established, and ordained, that no person, religious or other, whatsoever presume to buy or sellany lands or tenements, , or under colour of gift or lease, or of any other term or title whateverto receive them from any one, or in any other craft or by wile to appropriate them to himself,whereby such lands and tenements may come into mortmain under pain of forfeiture of thesame. We have provided also that if any person, religious or other, do presume either by craft orwile to offend against this statute it shall be lawful for us and for other immediate lords in chief

of the fee so alienated, to enter it within a year from the time of such alienation and to hold itin fee as an inheritance. And if the immediate lord in chief shall -be negligent and be not willingto enter into such fee within the year, then it shall be lawful for the next mediate lord in chief,within the half year following, to enter that fee and to hold it, as has been said; and thus eachmediate lord may do if the next lord be negligent in entering such fee as has been said. And if allsuch chief lords of such fee, who shall be of full age, and within the four seas and out of prison,shall be for one year negligent or remiss in this matter, we, straightway after the year iscompleted from the time when such purchases, gifts, or appropriations of another kind happen tohave been made, shall take such lands and tenements into our hand, and shall enfeoff otherstherein by certain services to be rendered thence to us for the defence of our kingdom ; saving tothe lords in chief of the same fees their wards, escheats and other things which pertain to them,and the services therefrom due and accustomed. And therefore we command you to cause theaforesaid statute to be read before you, and from henceforth firmly kept and observed. Witnessmyself at Westminster, the 15th day ofNovember, the 7h year of our reign.

From Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages,(London: George Bell and Sons, 1910), 148-149

"The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.

2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is againstthe laws of mortmain.3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far is against the laws of alienage.4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a certain line of successors; and sofar changes the course of descents.5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat; and so far is against the laws offorfeiture and escheat.6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; and so far is against the laws ofdistribution.7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the national authority; and so far is

22 of 39


23/39

against the laws of monopoly.8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the laws of the States; for sothey must be construed, to protect the institutions from the control of the State legislatures;and so, probably, they will be construed. I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid onthis ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, norprohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single stepbeyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possessionof a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, beendelegated to the United States, by the Constitution.

Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more orless, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of theseveral States; such as those against mortmain, the laws of alienage, the rules of descent, theacts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly?"WORDS THAT MADE AMERICAN HISTORY, p. 184, quoted in "A Country Defeated In Victory" part I

Thomas Jefferson argued against a United States Bank being chartered in this country, onereason was, it violated the laws of Mortmain. Which proves Jefferson believed we weresovereigns equal to the king. However, in one of the few court cases in this Country onMortmain, the judge declares that the law of Mortmain never existed in this country. The judgewas saying by his decision, that, no sovereigns ever existed in this country, countering Jefferson'sbeliefs. Jefferson makes it clear that to allow this Bank and those that control it(Rothchilds/England), will impoverish the American people and transfer the Lands of Americainto Banks hands, never to be obtained again by the American people, thus Jefferson's argumentof Mortmain. Was Jefferson right about the plight of the American people, read the below quote?Also read "A Country Defeated In Victory", I prove that England was behind the United StatesBank, also Englands involvment continued during the thirties, the time period of the belowquote.

Congressman Lemke: "....This nation is bankrupt; every State in this Union is bankrupt; thepeople of the United States, as a whole, are bankrupt. The public and private debts of thisNation, which are evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other written instruments about toabout $250,000,000,000, and it is estimated that there is about $50,000,000,000 of which thereis no record, making in all about $300,000,000,000 of public and private debts. The totalphysical 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 theevidence 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

8. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION WAS ABROGATED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT.

"The lawful de jure united States government which was created by the 1787Constitution/Treaty, between the States, was made null and void by the fraudulent Congress,

23 of 39


24/39

that passed the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a bold and broad statement, but I will prove it."(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)

"When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissolublerelation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guarantees of republican governmentin the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into theUnion was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into thepolitical 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 placefor 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 ofher legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterlywithout operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of the Union, and of everycitizen of the State, as a citizen of the United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. Itcertainly 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 awar for conquest of subjugation."Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403

"December 8, 1863 President Lincoln declared by proclamation, amnesty and reconstruction forthe southerners so they could be readmitted into the Union. This action along with what Lincolnwas doing with the money is why Lincoln had to be killed. The South could not be allowed backinto the Union without their enfranchisement. Compare the readmittance oath in PresidentLincoln's proclamation of 1863, to the following oath requirement required by Congress, underthe Reconstruction Acts."(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)

"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 ofthe United States, twenty-one years of age and upwards, resident in each county or parish in theState or States included in his district, which registration shall include only those persons whoare qualified to vote for delegates by the act aforesaid, and who shall have taken and subscribedthe following oath or affirmation: "I, _____, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) in the presence ofAlmighty 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 beendisfranchised for participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United States, nor forfelony committed against the laws of any State or of the United States; that I have never been amember of any State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in any State andafterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or given aid or comfortto the enemies thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress of the UnitedStates, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as anexecutive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, andafterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfortto the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support the Constitution and obey the laws of the

24 of 39


25/39

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 oathand 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 havevoting districts in every county in the America.

You will also notice that, the oath makes you declare that you were not disenfranchised, bytaking part in the Civil War.

Which means that, before the Civil War Americans were franchised citizens, incorporated. Icovered this in part 1; by the States adoption of the Constitution, those that lived in the Statesbecame legal residents, incorporated/enfranchised, instead of Sui Juris freemen. Which wasgranted to them by the Declaration of Independence, and in North Carolina, for North Caroliniansthis was reaffirmed by the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, see British Colony part 2."

(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)

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 profitunder the Government of the United States either in the civil, military, or naval departments ofthe public service, excepting the President of the United States, shall, before entering upon theduties of such office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or other emolumentsthereof, take and subscribe the following oath or affirmation: "I, A B, do solemnly swear (oraffirm), that I have never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I have been acitizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement topersons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought nor accepted nor attemptedto exercise the functions of any office whatever, under any authority or pretended authority, inhostility to the United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any pretendedgovernment, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimicalthereto; and I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I willsupport and defend the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign anddomestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligationfreely, 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 saidoath, so taken and signed, shall be preserved among the files of the Court, House of Congress, orDepartment to which the said office may appertain. And any person who shall falsely take thesaid oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction, in addition to the penalties nowprescribed 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 andhostilities to be over.

25 of 39


26/39

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. NationalArchives and Records Service.

On August 20, 1866 (14 Stat. 814); the President proclaimed that the insurrection in the State ofTexas 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 behenceforth so regarded in that State, as in the other States before named in which the saidinsurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid proclamation of the second day ofApril, 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 ofAmerica."

President Johnson vetoed the Acts because they were unconstitutional. Below are some excerptsfrom 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 manysubordinates as he chooses to appoint, for it declares that he shall 'punish or cause to bepunished'. Such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than fivehundred years. In all that time no people who speak the English language have borne suchservitude. It reduces the whole population of the ten States- all persons, of every color, sex andcondition, and every stranger within their limits- to the most abject and degrading slavery. Nomaster ever had a control so absolute over the slaves as this bill gives to the military officersover both white

HIST-US- Americas Subjection to Britain in a Nutshell

Documents

Transcript of HIST-US- Americas Subjection to Britain in a Nutshell