THE BRITISH LEGAL SYSTEM O9F MIXED COMMON AND ROMAN LAW HAS BEEN USED TO ENSLAVE US(A) (Re-post)
Eldon Warman
Guess which is the true flag of the People of the United States of America?
(See #1 attachment at the bottom of this article)
PROLOGUE
The following brief is believed to have been presented to a Grand Jury in the State of California circa 1982 in an attempt to correct judicial abuse of people involved in patriot and income tax protest movements. Many were being incarcerated as political prisoners of what is apparently a "shadow government" now in control of the USA. These patriots were attempting to educate as many of the general public as would hear their message. Unfortunately, short-sighted self-interest and apathy seem to have prevailed.
This narrative is based upon the American system, however, for Canadian readers, the American system of government and the Canadian system, are but "slips", or more appropriately "suckers" off the same plant, the British limited monarchy. Most of the following is, therefore, also directly applicable to the Canadian dilemma.
Before proceeding, you should know that there is a vast difference between 'British Common Law' and 'Anglo-Saxon Common Law'. To learn which is the true Common Law and which is the hoax; and, which version you may have been attempting to access in attempts to get out of 'admiralty law', go to:
Treason
(See #2 attachment at the bottom of this article)
Learn the facts about the Vatican's and British Crown's continued claimed ownership of the USA; and, their continued collection of 'tribute' from Americans through the Pope's 'Holy Roman Empire'.
Read about this here.
(See #3 attachment at the bottom of this article)
Additional, and VERY IMPORTANT information on this topic is available through LINKS at the end of PART THIRTEEN.
Editors note: Apologies to the original authors of this treatise. When this came to me the authors were anonymous.
New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is, therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law 'operating orders' or 'ship's orders'; as, all bodies politic and corporate are make-believe ships in the Roman system.
The UNITED STATES is a corporation, and Congress is a 'body politic' - both being Roman style incorporations (make-believe ships) under the original creation/ownership of the Pontifex Maximus (Pope) of the (still existent) Holy Roman Empire. All Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions; but, in fact, are 'ship's orders' of make-believe ships), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause. (In the US Constitution, it is the 'general welfare' clause). This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, or a designated officer (judge or Cabinet member) leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion. 'The CAPTAIN may deviate from ANY 'rules or regulations' when he DEEMS it necessary 'for the GOOD of the ship.' That is a basic maxim of the Law of the Sea, and totally within the 'common sense' realm of operating a ship relative to safety and profitability; however, it is devastating to the unalienable rights of an individual free will man or woman living upon the land.
Also, it has recently come to light that the court systems operate their admiralty type law within the confines of a 'contract' in all of the British, and former British Empire. The clerk of the court, the prosecuting attorneys, and the judges proffer the contract, and the defendant blindly and ignorantly accepts the offered contract by acquiescence and obedience to court orders and sentences. A defendant convicted and sentenced, even by a jury (in an admiralty/equity court) only need to inform the judge that he/she refuses the offered contract and/or sentence of the judge. As a contracting party, the defendant does not have to accept a contract by imposition against his/her free will. As has happened, when such a refusal of the contract is made, the judge will use legal trickery and bluster to attempt to get the defendant to accept another contract. The defendant need only to continue with: "I do not accept your sentence." Or, where applicable: "I do not accept your offer of contract." The latter statement may be placed upon served court documents and returned (signed and dated) to the clerk of the court.
INTRODUCTION
We have a problem and we are here to analyze that problem. Why do the courts refuse to admit certain arguments and cites of the United States Constitution? And further, find some in contempt of court if they persist in doing so? Why is there so little justice in our courts today? Our problem is, we have been fighting the wrong thing -- playing the wrong ball game.
We have found that we are not in Common Law under the Constitution -- in fact, we're not in Equity under the Constitution -- we are in Maritime Law (the Law of International Commerce -- Law Merchant, Admiralty Law, Military Law, and Prison or Warden Law).
Editors note: New information about the US Constitution has come to light since this paper was written. That information may effect the value of some of the following information. The Constitution was never properly ratified; and, is, therefore, not a proper Common Law constitution. It appears that it is being used as a Roman Law "operating orders". All such Roman Law documents (so-called constitutions), when used as the guide to operate a country under Roman Law, always contain a "notwithstanding" clause. This allows the "captain of the ship", the President, leave to disregard any provision of such a constitution at his discretion.
Just what is this Law of Admiralty? Admiralty Law encompasses all controversies arising out of acts done upon or relating to the sea, and questions of prize. Prize is that law dealing with war, and the spoils of war -- such as capture of ships, goods, materials, property -- both real and personal, etc.
Another way to understand admiralty law -- it is the command enforcement necessary to maintain the good order and discipline on a ship, especially as a ship was operated in the mid-1700's. As the availability of crewmembers was a finite problem in the middle of the ocean, the enforcement of ship law had more to do with getting wayward crewmembers back into a state of obedience and usefulness, rather than as the imposition of lawful punishments -- the latter being the purpose of law enforcement on the land.
Maritime Law is that system of law that particularly relates to commerce and navigation. Because of this fact, as you will see, you don't have to be on a ship in the middle of the sea to be under Admiralty Jurisdiction. This jurisdiction can attach merely because the subject matter falls within the scope of Maritime Law -- and, bills, notes, cheques and credits are within the scope of Maritime Law.
Admiralty Law grew and developed from the harsh realities and expedient measures required to survive at sea. It has very extensive jurisdiction of maritime cases, both civil and criminal. Because of its genesis, it contains a harsh set of rules and procedures where there is no right to trial by jury, no right to privacy, etc. In other words, there are no rights under this jurisdiction -- only privileges granted by the Captain of the maritime voyage.
For instance: in this jurisdiction there is no such thing as a right not to be compelled to testify against oneself in a criminal case -- the Captain can; however, if he wishes, grant you the privilege against self-incrimination. There's no such thing as a right to use your property on the public highways -- but the Captain may grant you the privilege to do so, if he so chooses. There is no such thing as a right to operate your own business -- only a privilege allowed as long as you perform according to the captain's regulations.
Having identified the symptoms of the problem, we must diagnose the cause to find a solution. We have been fighting the effects too long while the disease rages unabated. Since we have identified the cause, and understand its nature and characteristics, we [hopefully] can build a winning case.
In marshalling our information and facts it is necessary to go back in time. Let us examine the evidence and facts: Back at the time, just before the revolution -- when our Colonies were festering and threatening revolt from the King -- when we had the Common Law of the Colonies. The King's men came over to collect their taxes. They didn't use the Common Law on us, they applied Admiralty Law on us -- arrested people, held Star Chamber proceedings and denied us our common rights as Englishmen.
This, more than any one thing, (sure, taxation without representation was part of it) -- but it was denial of our Common Law rights by putting us under Admiralty Law wherein the King was the Chancellor. His agents deprived us of jury trials, put us on ships, sent us down to ports in the British West Indies -- where many died of fever in the holds of ships -- and very few returned. This was one of the main reasons for the revolution in 1776.
What is the Common Law? Historically, the Common Law came from the Anglo-Saxon Common Law in England. It existed, and controlled and ruled the land of England previous to the reign of William the Conqueror [1066], when the Normans conquered Anglo-Saxon England. In it was the Golden Rule (Rule of Civil Justice) that in the negative form reads: "Do not unto others as you would not have others do unto you." P.S. The positive form deals with Social Justice.
Where did this law come from -- this Anglo-Saxon Common Law? Did it come from Christianity's introduction to England? Apparently not. . . It is on record in the Vatican --- The early Christian missionaries reported that the people of Northern Germany "already have the law". It is suspect that early Hebrew tin traders taught these people the law many years before Christ.
So what has happened? The English people had this simple and pure Common Law of rights and property rights. But there also existed along side of it, even in those days, the law of commerce, which is the Maritime Law. The earliest recorded knowledge we have of Maritime Law is in the Isle of Rhodes, 900 B. C. -- then there's the Laws of Oleron, Laws of the Hanseatic League, Maritime Law, which was part and parcel of their civil law. This is the law of commerce, whereas the Common Law was the law that had to do with the land, and with the people of the land.
William the Conqueror subjugated all the Saxons to his rule except London Town. The merchants controlled the city and their walls held off the invaders. The merchants were able to provision the city by ships and William's soldiers were not able to prevail. Finally, acknowledging that he could not take the City by force, he resorted to compromise. The merchants demanded "the "Lex Mercantoria" [the Maritime Law]. This was granted and remains to this day. The inner City of London has its special law where the Merchant's Law is the law of the City of London.
Protection of their shipping industry was one of the main reasons for the resistance by the merchants of London. The Saxon Common Law had no provision for fictitious persons (companies) or limited liability; but, recognized only natural persons and full liability. The Roman Civil Law was a derivative of the Maritime Law and is the basis of Civil Law in most European countries. Identifying features of Roman Common Law are the usage of precedent and judgement by magistrate(s) in courts of Summary jurisdiction.
At Runnymede, in 1215, the Barons of England forced King John to sign the Magna Carta, one of three primary documents establishing the fundamental rights of the English people to this day, {The others being the revision of the Magna Carta in 1225, the Petition of Rights [1628] and the Bill of Rights [1689]}. The primary objective and content of the Magna Carta was the prohibition of the use of Summary jurisdiction [the Roman or Admiralty Law] as a means of unauthorized taxation and seizure of property without due process of Law or just compensation. The colonists were, on the whole, very well schooled in the Common Law and were quite aware of the wrongs that King and Parliament were committing against them. This eventually forced them to rebel.
The Common Law that we had in our land is parallel to another ancient law. You will find that when our Founding Fathers set up the declaratory trust, known to us as the Declaration of "Independence", Jefferson listed 18 grievances and in each one of these grievances he showed how we were being denied our rights as free-born Englishmen. So, he made an appeal to the nations of the world that the acts being committed against the colonists were acts committed against the Laws of Nations, and it (the Declaration of Independence) became an ordinance, a public trust, within the Law of Nations -- and those Founding Fathers knew that they would have to fight to win the independence that they had so declared.
Editors note: It now appears that Jefferson used George Mason's 'Virginia Declaration of Rights' (June 12, 1776) as the basis for his Declaration of Independence (July 4, 1776); but Jefferson deleted the very specific 'property rights' included by George Mason. Read here.
After the English surrendered at Yorktown, the Articles of Confederation period followed. Then our Founding Fathers implemented the Constitution into this Public Trust, which was the mechanism to provide for us our hopes and aspirations. In the Constitution you will find principles; but, not necessarily those found in the Declaration of Independence.
Editor's note: To learn the reality of the grand deception by the Founding Fathers, read here.
Some of the writers of the Constitution thought it was a little too restrictive. It was generally conceded, for instance, that the people had the right to bear arms, but they also knew that if we ever were placed or allowed ourselves to be brought under Maritime Admiralty Law concerning our persons and property, we would have dire need of a guarantee for our rights -- thus, the ten amendments were added to the Constitution, and that became the substantive part of the Constitution. Article III, Section 2, of the Constitution defines the Maritime Admiralty jurisdiction.
How have we been tricked out of our Common Law rights; and, into the Admiralty courts? How has equity as well as Admiralty been corrupted? How has the Federal Government made it almost impossible for us to receive our constitutional rights -- our substantive rights in the Constitution?
Now, to understand the Constitution -- we must examine the Declaration of Independence and those 56 men who signed it, and pledged their lives, liberty, family, property, and their honor to this sacred trust. All of these men were very knowledgeable and learned in the Common Law -- they knew the law because they studied the law, they may not have had a high school education (many of them). But they could read, and they read and studied law. They were men of the age of reason and they knew and they understood. They knew exactly what the king was doing. They knew the law.
Knowledge is a very important thing. And, as James Madison wrote years ago: "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives." Education should never be terminal! The First Amendment to the US Constitution cites "Freedom of Religion" that in actual fact is "Freedom of Education" since the church controlled education, at the time of its writing.
Now, there is a chronological sequence of events that placed us where we are today. We can almost assure you that you will reject, or want to reject, parts of what you are about to see and hear. There is a theory known as the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (TCD) that holds that the mind involuntarily rejects information not in line with previous thoughts and/or actions. Brace yourself, the following message may be entirely different from anything you heretofore believed to be true. If you are unaware, you are unaware of being unaware!
Proceed to PART TWO THREE FOUR FIVE SIX SEVEN EIGHT NINE TEN ELEVEN TWELVE THIRTEEN Any Questions? cmlaw1.htm
***********************************************************
(# 1)
Have You Been Hornswoggled?
Which Flag is Which?
by Richard McDonald
The people of the United States actually have two national flags: one for our military government and another for the civil. Each one has fifty stars in its canton and thirteen red and white stripes, but there are several important differences.
Although most Americans think of the Stars and Stripes (above left) as their only flag, it is actually for military affairs only. The other one, meant by its makers for wider use (peacetime), has vertical stripes with blue stars on a white field (above right). You can see this design, which bears civil jurisdiction, in the U.S. Coast Guard and Customs flags, but their service insignias replace the fifty stars.
I first learned of the separate, civil flag when I was reading Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Scarlet Letter, published in 1850. The introduction, titled "The Custom House," includes this description:
From the loftiest point of its roof, during precisely three and a half hours of each forenoon, floats or droops, in breeze or calm, the banner of the republic; but with the thirteen stripes turned vertically, instead of horizontally, and thus indicating that a civil, and not a military post of Uncle Sam's government, is here established.
It took me two years of digging before I found a picture that matched what he was describing: my second clue was an original Illuminated History of North America (1860). If this runs against your beliefs, look up those two references.
History book publishers contribute to the public's miseducation by always picturing the flag in military settings, creating the impression that the one with horizontal stripes is the only one there is. They don't actually lie; they just tell half the truth. For example, the "first American flag" they show Betsy Ross sewing at George Washington's request, was for the Revolution - of course it was military.
The U.S. government hasn't flown the civil flag since the Civil War, as that war is still going on. Peace has never been declared, nor have hostilities against the people ended. The government is still operating under quasi-military rule.
You movie buffs may recall this: In the old Westerns, "Old Glory" has her stripes running sideways and a military yellow fringe. Most of these films are historically accurate about that; their stories usually took place in the territories still under military law and not yet states. Before WWII, no U.S. flag, civil or military, flew within the forty-eight states (except in federal settings); only state flags did. Since then, the U.S. government seems to have decided the supposedly sovereign states are its territories too, so it asserts its military power over them under the "law of the flag."
Today the U.S. military flag appears alongside, or in place of, the state flags in nearly all locations within the states. All of the state courts and even the municipal ones now openly display it. This should have raised serious questions from many citizens long ago, but we've been educated to listen and believe what we are told, not to ask questions, or think or search for the truth.
NOTES
1. hornswoggled: deceived. The term comes from the traditional image of cuckolded husbands wearing horns.Editor
2. canton: The rectangular section in the upper corner of a flag, next to the staff.
3. The Scarlet Letter: An Authoritative Text, edited by Sculley Bradley, W. W. Norton, New York, 1978, pp. 7-8.
4. There is also a picture of the Coast Guard flag in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of the English Language Unabridged, G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield, Mass., 1966.
5. For more about the law of the flag, see "A Fiction-at-Law . . ," in the printed version of Perceptions Magazine May/June1995, Issue 9, page 11.
About the author: Richard McDonald is a California Citizen domiciled in The California state Republic. He does legal research and has his own site on the web, The Citizens Forum File area. hornswog.htm
************************************************************************************************************
(#2) (Treason)
DetaxCanada® THE MEN AND WOMEN HOLDING POSITIONS OF AUTHORITY IN
THE HOAX GOVERNMENTS OF CANADA
AND THE IMPOSTOR CROWN OF CANADA
ARE COMMITTING HIGH TREASON
AGAINST THE CANADIAN PEOPLE
Posted: March 1st, 2002
Latest update: Nov 30, 2007
Thomas Jefferson wrote in the USA Declaration of Independence: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
It is obvious that Jefferson gained his inspiration from:
Virginia Declaration of Rights (June 12, 1776) Drafted by: George Mason
Article I: That all men are by nature equally free and independent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
It should be noted here that the primary unalienable (meaning: a value cannot be ascertained) right is 'life'. The secondary unalienable rights are 'property' and 'liberty'. 'Property' is absolutely necessary for the maintenance of life - the maintenance of one's body. 'Liberty' is absolutely necessary to take one's produce to market - to travel to one's place of work where labour, the primary property, may be exchanged for the necessary property to maintain life - food, shelter and clothing.
The 'Pursuit of Happiness' (Hope of Happiness) is vital for one's mental and physical health.
Notice that Jefferson 'conveniently' left the property right out of the Declaration of Independence. Modern charters of rights use the term 'security of person'.
Since 'person' is a legal status (corporate slave status) attached to one's body, the statement is meaningless relative to rights.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
Article II: That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and servants, and at all times amenable to them.
Article III: That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
Conclusion drawn from the above quote: 1. We, the People are creations of God - NOT creations of government.
2. The RIGHTS of LIFE, LIBERTY, PROPERTY and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS are bestowed upon us by our Creator - NOT by government.
3. We, the People create government and install kings, queens, prime ministers or presidents as our servant.
4. As creator of government, we are the "MAJESTY", and government is our servant.
5. When the men and women, acting as members of a SERVANT government, scheme to overthrow the "MAJESTY" of the MASTER and subjugate or destroy the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE, there exists the crime of HIGH TREASON.
6. The Canadian People have NOT had one iota of opportunity to participate in deciding whether we will have the Monarch of Great Britain as the Crown of Canada, what form of government we will have in Canada, or any opportunity to write or ratify a constitution.
From the 1893 Dictionary of Law: Treason. Betrayal, treachery, breach of faith or allegiance.
Treason may exist only as between allies: it is a general appellation to denote not only offenses against the king and government, but also accumulation of guilt which arises whenever a superior reposes a confidence in a subject or inferior, between whom and himself there subsists a natural, a civil, or even a spiritual relation, and the inferior so abuses that confidence, so forgets the obligations of duty, subjugation, and allegiance, as to destroy the life of the superior.
When disloyalty attacks majesty itself it is called, by way of distinction, high treason, equivalent to the 'crimen loesoe majestatis' of the Romans.
High treason is the most heinous civil crime a man can commit. If indeterminate, this alone is sufficient to make a government degenerate into arbitrary power.
The Treasonous Acts Against Canadians The Canadian Governments, at all levels, by use of a "STRAWMAN", a sound alike name of the name by which you have been called all your life, but usually spelled in all capital letters or family name first, and called a "PERSON". The deceit is in the government's (Crown) making the family name as the paramount name, a "surname", where the root word "sur" means over, above, primary, and the given name(s) as a reference name. This is opposite to the intentions of one's parents, and opposite of the origin and status of a "family" name - that being a reference name for the primary, or given names. That fraudulent name is then inscribed on a government money value instrument called a 'birth certificate'. In one's using/acknowledging the birth certificate name as being "one and the same" as oneself, that fraud intended name, it carries with its use, the status of 'plantation slave'.
The 'all caps' spelling is a code signifying that the slave has been pledged as a debtor in the bankruptcy of the Crown. All western nations were declared bankrupt in 1930. The deceit by government in teaching people to use the birth certificate name through the educational system makes all Canadians SUBJECT to the CROWN by changing our status to that of a FEUDAL SERF of the MIDDLE AGES. For several hundred years, the British Monarchy bestowed 'privileges' (falsely called rights) on 'subjects' (sometimes called 'citizens'), but this ceased with the 1930 bankruptcy.
Since that time, these 'privileges', including 'due process of law' has been slowly removed, and the 'slaves' have been subjected to increased forced extraction of their labour and life (life is time spent) by way of taxation and inflation of fiat counterfeit money. This is how people have been deprived of the protections of such documents as the Magna Carta 1225, the Habeas Corpus Act, the Bill of Rights, The Petition of Rights, and more recently, Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights.
The Romans had an expression for disobedient slaves, called "homo sacer", where the disobedient slave was deprived of all rights of due process of law. The disobedient slave could be murdered at will by "officers of Caesar" without any reprisal, just as modern police can murder people with their guns or tasers without fear of criminal justice, based upon their own testimony of right.
This is a deliberate act of HIGH TREASON against the People of Canada, as it results in the loss of the Creator bestowed rights of LIFE, LIBERTY and PROPERTY, and the right to a common law court (due process of law).
Queen Elizabeth II has allowed her name to be prostituted to this evil scheme in direct violation of her oath of office as Monarch of the British Commonwealth of Nations. In her oath, she swore on the Holy Bible that she would uphold and defend the rights of the People over which she reigns as Monarch.
There is a question as to whether the Monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has any right to be called the Monarch or the Crown of Canada, as the right to succession in the BNA Act (section 2) granted to the successors and heirs of Queen Victoria was struck by the British Imperial Parliament in 1893.
Any claim of absolute sovereignty rights by the English Monarchy was shown to be non-existent in the Magna Carta of 1215. [Actually 1225, as the 1215 Magna Carta was voided by the Pope.] Yet, over PERSONS, be they natural persons (man under contract of servitude with the Crown, and without right of free will - except for obedience) or artificial corporate bodies, as created by the Crown, there is absolute rights of the MASTER over the servant exhibited by the Crown over the People.
The Crown, whether it be in so-called right of Canada or of a province, by deviously changing our status before their corrupt courts as being corporate members created by the Crown, has deprived us of our lawful courts and plundered our lives which have been expended in labour to obtain the very necessities of life.
In ALL cases in a court in Canada, where Canadians are taken to court for disobedience to a statute, or regulation therein, they are considered a 'CORPORATE ENTITY/NATURAL PERSON/MEMBER'. This fact is an unknown to most Canadians. People believe that they are dealing directly with the Canadian Justice system as a full liability man or woman with full rights.
England has been under the Roman system since King John signed over England FOREVER as a vassal state to the Holy Roman Empire/Pontiff/Vatican in 1213. All human institutions are make-believe ships/incorporations in the Roman system. Thus, All corporations and corporate (crew)members are a legal fiction, and are SUBJECTS of the Crown. The British Crown is subject to, or under the Crown of the City of London, the Vatican owned financial, legal and professional controls capitol of the Holy Roman Empire. So, the Crown referred to in Canada is most likely the 6 pointed City of London Crown (a corporation), not the British Crown. The Canadian people have a basic RIGHT to Common Law , and as such, are NOT SUBJECTS of the Crown for the imposition of corporate ADMINISTRATIVE Law - the ONLY type of law which is found in the Canadian Court system. This subterfuge is totally in the realm of legal sleaze and trickery for the purpose of denying your God Given RIGHTS.
In using the term "Common Law", I refer to the Anglo-Saxon Common Law. The English Monarchy began the defrauding of the English people of their individual rights protecting Anglo-Saxon Common Law in a concerted effort by King Edward I in conspiracy with the Pope of Rome sometime around 1300 AD. The term "common law" and "English common law" was concocted as a fraud; and, is in fact, a system derived directly from Roman civil law - commonly called "dictator's law". As Roman Municipal Law, it points to Mercantile Law used against debtors, as 'municipal' means a debtor territory. Considering that Anglo-Saxon Common Law period of England preceded the Norman Conquest of England by some 500 years, we have evidence of this fraud posted on the Canadian Federal Justice website:
"The common law, which developed in Great Britain after the Norman Conquest, was based on the decisions of judges in the royal courts. It is called judge-made law because it is a system of rules based on "precedent". Whenever a judge makes a decision that is to be legally enforced, this decision becomes a precedent: a rule that will guide judges in making subsequent decisions in similar cases. The common law is unique in the world because it cannot be found in any "code" or "legislation"; it exists only in past decisions. However, this also makes it flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances."
The primary feature of Roman Municipal Law, a variation of Roman Civil Law, [derived from Maritime Law], used by the deceitful English Monarchy, and it's so-called justice system, was/is the "notwithstanding clause". The Monarchy called this 'Equity'. This clause derives from the fact that Roman Law is based upon all commercial and political organizations, in fact all human institutions, being make-believe ships.
All 'ship's orders' - laws, rules and regulations concerning the ship, have within them the necessary right and duty of the captain to disregard any such rules or regulations when he deems it necessary for the 'good' of the ship. The complete "flexible and adaptable" feature of so-called English or British common law is nothing more than the common usage of the notwithstanding clause to insure that the Crown's pleasures, prerogatives and privileges come before the individual rights of the people.
Thomas Paine (1737-1809), the great American philosopher of man's individual rights and freedoms, wrote in his book Rights Of Man (page 218): "Government by precedent, without any regard to the principle of the precedent, is one of the vilest systems that can be set up." In Paine's day, government's primary reason for existence was the justice system.
We can see how "flexible and adaptable" this fraudulent English common law is by the way Canadian and American judges use the Anti-Government Movement Guide Book to institute treasonous actions against Canadians (and Americans, as the case may be) when people use unalienable rights or statute and/or constitutional law to defend themselves against government extortion rackets.
So, What is my understanding regarding the nature of Anglo-Saxon Common Law?
The Anglo-Saxon Law had no Statutes, Acts, Rules, Regulations, Edicts, Precedents or Magistrates[Judges]. There was only ONE Law - "Do not unto others as you would not have others do unto you." A sheriff was administrator for keeping the peace, and jury assembly. He was then enforcer of jury decisions. The jury was selected from the community of other free will men [peers = equal in status]. The jury decided whether the accused, [or the accuser] was using his/her free will in a moral manner, basing their decision solely on the Golden Rule - God's Law. The assembled jury appointed a foreman as the speaker and administrator.
As the above quote from the 1893 Dictionary of Law states: "High treason is the most heinous civil crime a man can commit. If indeterminate, this alone is sufficient to make a government degenerate into arbitrary power."
Government, bodies politic, are corporations wherein men in administrative positions supposedly have protection against the actions they do by the "corporate veil". All corporations are "make-believe" ships, based upon the Roman Empire system, which itself was based upon the ancient Persian model whereby the ship was the entity, and the men on board as crewmembers were non-volitional (non-free-will minded) body parts with only the duty to obey the captain's orders.
But, this make-believe corporate veil protection to do as they please is only a fictional game. Men (and women) who do damage to another while in a contract (oath of office) to be a servant to the People are full liable for their unlawful actions when it entails HIGH TREASON. The PENALTY for HIGH TREASON is DEATH BY HANGING - and that penalty is still in effect in Canada.
In the USA Supreme Court records, we find:
TREASON:
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an act or acts of treason.
U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980);
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821)
What's To Be Done?? I would suggest reading a Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
written by Éttiene de la Boétie of France around 1560.
To learn about legal rights of which you should become
very aware, study: Tyranny
My primary answer is the Magna Carta Kanata Project.
Eldon G. Warman
**************************************************************************************************************************
(#3) An Expose
An Expose' THE UNITED STATES
IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
EXTORTING TAXES FOR THE CROWN!
A DOCUMENTARY REVIEW
OF CHARTERS AND TREATIES
August 17, 1996
PART ONE of SIX
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 stated 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 Dictionary. You will note it 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. Therefore, it can be changed to fit someone's 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. 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 in the footnotes at the end of this paper. 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.
Esquire ??
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-
(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 Declared Upon America
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 Assessment, 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.
Feb. 27, 1812
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 4th, 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)
END PART ONE
Proceed To PART TWO
Copyright acknowledgment: Presented as free information in public domain.
Format editing by: ELDON WARMAN
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
www.biblebelievers.org.au/cmlaw1.htm
