THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
(The Book 607 pages)
THE UNITED STATES
IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
EXTORTING
TAXES FOR THE CROWN!
A DOCUMENTARY REVIEW
OF CHARTERS AND TREATIES
August 17, 1996
An introduction by the "Informer"
This is the latest from a man who visits me quite often. He
and another man researched my theory that we have never been free
from the British Crown. This disc shows the results. I have
states that we will never win in their courts. This shows
conclusively why. We have the hard copy of the treaties that are
the footnotes. This predates Schroder's material, my research of
the 1861 stats by Lincoln that put us under the War Powers
confiscation acts, and John Nelson's material. All our material
supports that the real Principal, the King of England, still rules
this country through the bankers and why we own no property in
allodium. This is why it is so important to start OUR courts of
God's natural (common) Law and break away from all the crap they
have handed us. This is one reason Virginia had a law to hang all
lawyers but was somehow, by someone, (the King) set aside to let
them operate again. Some good people put in the original 13th
amendment so that without the lawyers the King could not continue
his strangle hold on us. James shows how that was quashed by the
King. I am happy that James' research of six months bears out my
theory, that most people would not listen to me, that we are still
citizen/subjects under the kings of England. My article called
"Reality" published in the American Bulletin and the article of
mine on the "Atocha case," wherein Florida in 1981 used it's
sovereignty under the British crown to try to take away the gold
from the wreck found in Florida waters supports this premise.
James makes mention of the Law dictionaries being England's Law
Dict. you will not is lists the reign of all the Kings of England.
It never mentions the reign of the Presidents of this country.
Ever wonder Why? Get this out to as many people as you can.
The Informer.
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.
Forgotten Amendment
The Articles of Confederation, Article VI states: "nor shall
the united States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any
Title of nobility."
The Constitution for the united States, in Article, I Section
9, clause 8 states: "No Title of nobility shall be granted by the
united States; and no Person holding any Office or Profit or Trust
under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of
any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,
from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
Also, Section 10, clause 1 states, "No State shall enter into
any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque or
Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but Gold
and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
Attainder, ex post facto of Law impairing the Obligation of
Contracts, or grant any Title of nobility."
There was however, no measurable penalty for violation of the
above Sections, Congress saw this as a great threat to the freedom
of Americans, and our Republican form of government. In January
1810 Senator Reed proposed the Thirteenth Amendment, and on April
26, 1810 was passed by the Senate 26 to 1 (1st-2nd session, p. 670)
and by the House 87 to 3 on May 1, 1810 (2nd session, p. 2050) and
submitted to the seventeen states for ratification. The Amendment
reads as follows:
"If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim,
receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without
the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension,
office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king,
prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of
the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of
trust or profit under them, or either of them."
From An "American Dictionary of the English Language, 1st
Edition," Noah Webster, (1828) defines nobility as: "3. The
qualities which constitute distinction of rank in civil society,
according to the customs or laws of the country; that eminence or
dignity which a man derives from birth or title conferred, and
which places him in an order above common men."; and, "4. The
persons collectively who enjoy rank above commoners; the peerage."
The fore-mentioned Sections in the Constitution for the united
States, and the above proposed Thirteenth Amendment sought to
prohibit the above definition, which would give any advantage or
privilege to some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or
exercise political power. Thirteen of the seventeen states listed
below understood the importance of this Amendment.
Date admitted Date voted for Date voted against
to the Union the Amendment the Amendment
1788 Maryland Dec. 25, 1810
1792 Kentucky Jan. 31, 1811
1803 Ohio Jan. 31, 1811
1787 Delaware Feb. 2, 1811
1787 Pennsylvania Feb. 6, 1811
1787 New Jersey Feb. 13, 1811
1791 Vermont Oct. 24, 1811
1796 Tennessee Nov. 21, 1811
1788 Georgia Dec. 13, 1811
1789 North Carolina Dec. 23, 1811
1788 Massachusetts Feb. 27, 1812
1788 New Hampshire Dec. 10, 1812
1788 Virginia March 12, 1819
1788 New York March 12, 1811
1788 Connecticut May 1813
1788 South Carolina December 7, 1813
1790 Rhode Island September 15, 1814
On March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280
(Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc." file, p. 299 for micro-
film):
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be
published an edition of the laws of this Commonwealth in which
shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the
Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto..."
The official day of ratification was March 12, 1819, this was
the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code. Virginia
ordered 4,000 copies, almost triple their usual order. Word of
Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the states and both
Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822.
Ohio published the new Amendment in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000
copies of the Constitution with the new Amendment to be printed for
use in the public schools, and again in 1831 for their Census
Edition. Indiana published the new Amendment in the Indiana
Revised Laws, of 1831 on P. 20. The Northwest Territories
published the new Amendment in 1833; Ohio published the new
Amendment again in 1831 and in 1833. Connecticut, one of the
states that voted against the new Amendment published the new
Amendment in 1835. Wisconsin Territory published the new Amendment
in 1839; Iowa Territory published the new Amendment in 1843; Ohio
published the new Amendment again, in 1848; Kansas published the
new Amendment in 1855; and Nebraska Territory published the new
Amendment six years in a row from 1855 to 1860. Colorado Territory
published the new Amendment in 1865 and again 1867, in the 1867
printing, the present Thirteenth Amendment (slavery Amendment) was
listed as the Fourteenth Amendment. The repeated reprinting of the
Amended united States Constitution is conclusive evidence of its
passage.
Also, as evidence of the new Thirteenth Amendments impending
passage; on December 2, 1817 John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of
State, wrote to Buck (an attorney) regarding the position Buck had
been assigned. The letter reads:
"...if it should be the opinion of this Government that the
acceptance on your part of the Commission under which it was
granted did not interfere with your citizenship.
It is the opinion of the Executive that under the 13th
amendment to the constitution by the acceptance of such an
appointment from any foreign Government, a citizen of the United
States ceases to enjoy that character, and becomes incapable of
holding any office of trust or profit under the United States or
either of them... J.Q.A.
By virtue of these titles and honors, and special privileges,
lawyers have assumed political and economic advantages over the
majority of citizens. A majority may vote, but only a minority
(lawyers) may run for political office.
After the War of 1812 was concluded the Treaty of Ghent was
signed and ratified (footnote 6). In Article 4 of the Treaty, the
United States gained what was already given in the Treaty of Paris
1783, namely islands off the U.S. Coast. Also, two men were to be
given the power to decide the borders and disagreements, if they
could not, the power was to be given to an outside sovereign power
and their decision was final and considered conclusive. In Article
9 it is admitted there are citizens and subjects in America. As
you have seen, the two terms are interchangeable, synonymous. In
Article 10 you will see where the idea for the overthrow of this
country came from and on what issue. The issue raised by England
was slavery and it was nurtured by the king's emissaries behind the
scenes. This would finally lead to the Civil War, even though the
Supreme Court had declared the states and their citizens property
rights could not be infringed on by the United States government or
Congress. This was further declared by the following Presidential
quotes, where they declared to violate the states rights would
violate the U.S. Constitution. Also, history shows that slavery
would not have existed much longer in the Southern states, public
sentiment was changing and slavery was quickly disappearing. The
Civil War was about destroying property rights and the U.S.
Constitution which supported these rights. Read the following
quotes of Presidents just before the Civil War:
"I believe that involuntary servitude, as it exists in
different States of this Confederacy, is recognized by the
Constitution. I believe that it stands like any other admitted
right, and that the States were it exists are entitled to efficient
remedies to enforce the constitutional provisions." Franklin
Pierce Inaugural Address, March 4, 1853 - Messages and Papers of
the Presidents, vol. 5.
"The whole Territorial question being thus settled upon the
principle of popular sovereignty-a principle as ancient as free
government itself-everything of a practical nature has been
decided. No other question remains for adjustment, because all
agree that under the Constitution slavery in the States is beyond
the reach of any human power except that of the respective States
themselves wherein it exists." James Buchanan Inaugural Address,
March 4, 1857 - Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 5.
"I cordially congratulate you upon the final settlement by the
Supreme Court of the United States of the question of slavery in
the Territories, which had presented an aspect so truly formidable
at the commencement of my Administration. The right has been
established of every citizen to take his property of any kind,
including slaves, into the common Territories belonging equally to
all the States of the Confederacy, and to have it protected there
under the Federal Constitution. Neither Congress nor a Territorial
legislature nor any human power has any authority to annul or
impair this vested right. The supreme judicial tribunal of the
country, which is a coordinate branch of the Government, has
sanctioned and affirmed these principles of constitutional law, so
manifestly just in themselves and so well calculated to promote
peace and harmony among the States." James Buchanan, Third Annual
Message, December 19, 1859 - Messages and Papers of the Presidents,
vol. 5.
So there is no misunderstanding I am not rearguing slavery.
Slavery is morally wrong and contrary to God Almighty's Law. In
this divisive issue, the true attack was on our natural rights and
on the Constitution. The core of the attack was on our right to
possess allodial property. Our God given right to own property in
allodial was taken away by conquest of the Civil War. If you are
free this right cannot be taken away. The opposite of free is
slave or subject, we were allowed to believe we were free for about
70 years. Then the king said enough, and had the slavery issue
pushed to the front by the northern press, which so formed northern
public opinion, that they were willing to send their sons to die in
the Civil War.
The southern States were not fighting so much for the slave
issue, but for the right to own property, any property. These
property rights were granted by the king in the Treaty of 1783,
knowing they would soon be forfeited by the American people through
ignorance. Do you think you own your house? If you were to stop
paying taxes, federal or state, you would soon find out that you
were just being allowed to live and pay rent for this house. The
rent being the taxes to the king, who supplied the benefit of
commerce. A free man not under a monarch, democracy, dictatorship
or socialist government, but is under a republican form of
government would not and could not have his property taken. Why!
The king's tax would not and could not be levied. If the Americans
had been paying attention the first 70 years to the subterfuge and
corruption of the Constitution and government representatives,
instead of chasing the money supplied by the king, the Conquest of
this country during the Civil War could have been avoided. George
Washington had vision during the Revolutionary War, concerning the
Civil War. You need to read it. footnote 7
Civil War and The Conquest that followed
The government and press propaganda that the War was to free
the black people from slavery is ridiculous, once you understand
the Civil War Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The black
people are just as much slaves today as before the Civil War just
as the white people are, and also we find ourselves subjects of the
king/queen of England. The only thing that changed for black
people is they changed masters and were granted a few rights, which
I might add can be taken away anytime the government chooses. Since
the 1930's the black people have been paid reparations to buy off
their silence, in other words, keep the slaves on the plantation
working. I do not say this to shock or come across as prejudiced,
because I'm not. Here's what Russell Means said, for those that
don't remember who he is, he was the father in the movie called,
"Last Of The Mohicians". Russell Means said " until the white man
is free we will never be free", the we he is referring to are the
Indians. There has never been a truer statement, however the
problem is the white people are not aware of their enslavement.
At the risk of being redundant; to set the record straight,
because Lord only knows what will be said about what I just said
regarding black people, I believe that if you are born in this
country you are equal, period. Forget the empty promises of civil
rights, what about you unalienable natural rights under God
Almighty. All Americans are feudal tenants on the land, allowed to
rent the property they live on as long as the king gets his cut.
What about self-determination, or being able to own allodial title
to property, which means the king cannot take your property for
failure to pay a tax. Which means you did not own it to begin
with. The king allows you to use the material goods and land.
Again this is financial servitude.
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state;
individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government,
i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance
with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate
Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933.
The king controlled the government by the time the North won
the Civil War, through the use of lawyers that called the shots
behind the scenes, just as they do now and well placed subjects in
the United States government. This would not have been possible if
not for England destroying our documents in 1812 and the covering
up of state documents of the original 13th Amendment.
According to International law, what took place when the North
conquered the South? First, you have to understand the word
"conquest" in international law. When you conquer a state you
acquire the land; and those that were subject to the conquered
state, then become subject to the conquers. The laws of the
conquered state remain in force until the conquering state wishes
to change all or part of them. At the time of conquest the laws of
the conquered state are subject to change or removal, which means
the law no longer lies with the American people through the
Constitution, but lies with the new sovereign. The Constitution no
longer carries any power of its own, but drives its power from the
new sovereign, the conqueror. The reason for this is the
Constitution derived its power from the people, when they were
defeated, so was the Constitution.
The following is the definition of Conquest:
"The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of
arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the
vanquished to submission to its empire."
"The intention of the conqueror to retain the conquered
territory is generally manifested by formal proclamation of
annexation, and when this is combined with a recognized ability to
retain the conquered territory, the transfer of sovereignty is
complete. A treaty of peace based upon the principle of uti
possidetis (q.v.) is formal recognition of conquest."
"The effects of conquest are to confer upon the conquering
state the public property of the conquered state, and to invest the
former with the rights and obligations of the latter; treaties
entered into by the conquered state with other states remain
binding upon the annexing state, and the debts of the extinct state
must be taken over by it. Conquest likewise invests the conquering
state with sovereignty over the subjects of the conquered state.
Among subjects of the conquered state are to be included persons
domiciled in the conquered territory who remain there after the
annexation. The people of the conquered state change their
allegiance but not their relations to one another." Leitensdorfer
v. Webb, 20 How. (U.S.) 176, 15 L. Ed. 891.
"After the transfer of political jurisdiction to the conqueror
the municipal laws of the territory continue in force until
abrogated by the new sovereign." American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1
Pet. (U.S.) 511, 7 L. Ed. 242. Conquest, In international Law. -
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
What happened after the Civil War? Did not U.S. troops force
the southern states to accept the Fourteenth Amendment? The laws
of America, the Constitution were changed by the conquering
government. Why? The main part I want you to see, as I said at
the beginning of this paper, is watch the money and the commerce.
The Fourteenth Amendment says the government debt can not be
questioned. Why? Because now the king wants all the gold, silver
and copper and the land. Which can easily be done by increasing
the government debt and making the American people sureties for the
debt. This has been done by the sleight of hand of lawyers and the
bankers.
The conquering state is known as a Belligerent, read the
following quotes.
Belligerency, is International Law
"The status of de facto statehood attributed to a body of
insurgents, by which their hostilities are legalized. Before they
can be recognized as belligerents they must have some sort of
political organization and be carrying on what is international law
is regarded as legal war. There must be an armed struggle between
two political bodies, each of which exercises de facto authority
over persons within a determined territory, and commands an army
which is prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war. It is not
enough that the insurgents have an army; they must have an
organized civil authority directing the army."
"The exact point at which revolt or insurrection becomes
belligerency is often extremely difficult to determine; and
belligerents are not usually recognized by nations unless they have
some strong reason or necessity for doing so, either because the
territory where the belligerency is supposed to exist is contiguous
to their own, or because the conflict is in some way affecting
their commerce or the rights of their citizens...One of the most
serious results of recognizing belligerency is that it frees the
parent country from all responsibility for what takes place within
the insurgent lined; Dana's Wheaton, note 15, page 35." Bouvier's
Law Dictionary
Belligerent, In International Law.
"As adj. and noun. Engaged in lawful war; a state so engaged.
In plural. A body of insurgents who by reason of their temporary
organized government are regarded as conducting lawful hostilities.
Also, militia, corps of volunteers, and others, who although not
part of the regular army of the state, are regarded as lawful
combatants provided they observe the laws of war; 4 H. C. 1907,
arts, 1, 2." Bouvier's Law Dictionary
According to the International law no law has been broken.
Read the following about military occupation, notice the third
paragraph. After the Civil War, title to the land had not been
completed to the conquers, but after 1933 it was. I will address
this in a moment. In the last paragraph, it says the Commander-in-
Chief governs the conquered state. The proof that this is the case
today, is the U.S. flies the United States flag with a yellow
fringe on three sides. According to the United States Code, Title
4, Sec. 1, the U.S. flag does not have a fringe on it. The
difference being one is a Constitutional flag, and the fringed flag
is a military flag. The military flag means you are in a military
occupation and are governed by the Commander-in-Chief in his
executive capacity, not under any Constitutional authority. Read
the following.
Military Occupation
"This at most gives the invader certain partial and limited
rights of sovereignty. Until conquest, the sovereign rights of the
original owner remain intact. Conquest gives the conqueror full
rights of sovereignty and, retroactively, legalizes all acts done
by him during military occupation. Its only essential is actual
and exclusive possession, which must be effective."
"A conqueror may exercise governmental authority, but only
when in actual possession of the enemy's country; and this will be
exercised upon principles of international law; MacLeod v. U.S.,
229 U.S. 416, 33 Sup. Ct 955, 57 L. Ed. 1260."
"The occupant administers the government and may, strictly
speaking, change the municipal law, but it is considered the duty
of the occupant to make as few changes in the ordinary
administration of the laws as possible, though he may proclaim
martial law if necessary. He may occupy public land and buildings;
he cannot alienate them so as to pass a good title, but a
subsequent conquest would probably complete the title..."
"Private lands and houses are usually exempt. Private movable
property is exempt, though subject to contributions and
requisitions. The former are payments of money, to be levied only
by the commander-in-chief...Military necessity may require the
destruction of private property, and hostile acts of communities or
individuals may be punished in the same way. Property may be
liable to seizure as booty on the field of battle, or when a town
refuses to capitulate and is carried by assault. When military
occupation ceases, the state of things which existed previously is
restored under the fiction of postliminium (q.v.)"
"Territory acquired by war must, necessarily, be governed, in
the first instance, by military power under the direction of the
president, as commander-in-chief. Civil government can only be put
in operation by the action of the appropriate political department
of the government, at such time and in such degree as it may
determine. It must take effect either by the action of the treaty-
making power, or by that of congress. So long as congress has not
incorporated the territory into the United States, neither military
occupation nor cession by treaty makes it domestic territory, in
the sense of the revenue laws. Congress may establish a temporary
government, which is not subject to all the restrictions of the
constitution. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 Sup Ct. 770, 45
L. Ed. 1088, per Gray, J., concurring in the opinion of the court."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary
Paragraph 1-3 of the definition of Military Occupation
describes what took place during and after the Civil War. What
took place during the Civil War and Post Civil War has been legal
under international law. You should notice in paragraph 3, that at
the end of the Civil War, title to the land was not complete, but
the subsequent Conquest completed the title. When was the next
Conquest? 1933, when the American people were alienated by our
being declared enemies of the Conquer and by their declaring war
against all Americans. Read the following quotes and also
(footnote 8).