March 20, 2018

COTUS Antithetical – Always Has been Always Will Be Act Of Rebellion Against Real Freewill

Ted Weiland  There’s only one standard by which everything (including the Constitution) is to be ethically evaluated: By Yahweh’s unchanging morality as reflected in His Ten Commandments and their respective statues and judgments. When the Constitution is actually examined by this standard (instead of a bunch of dead politicians’ cherry-picked quotations), it’s found to be anything but biblically compatible. In fact, there’s hardly an Article or Amendment that’s not antithetical, if not seditious, to Yahweh’s sovereignty and morality. For evidence, see free online book “Bible Law vs. Constitution: The Christian Perspective,” in which every Article and Amendment is examined by the Bible, at  Then, find out how much you REALLY know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey at and receive a complimentary copy of a book that EXAMINES the Constitution by the Bible.

Death Is The Only Way Out Of This Containment Facility Called Earth

Obviously some folks have been trying to get out of this place into someplace else outside of this place.. Perhaps someone that is here, was once on the other side and was forcefully removed from there to here for starting a rebellion..



How The Masses Are Controlled and Why Most Of Them Can’t See It

“The Pen is mightier than the sword.”~Alfred E Newman

The Ministry of Truth is mightier than the sword!!

Keep in mind that the greatest weapon the state has is not armored cars, flashbang grenades, automatic weapons, and storm trooper body armor.

No, it is the power of the Public Relations Regime to hypnotize and sedate the citizens mind.

Right/Left Hegelian Schools historically prove that the L/R dynamic is a synthetic design. Capital funded “Communism”, Capital funded “Fascism-Nazism”.
Capital funds the Dialectic gyre continuing to turn. This is not “theory” this is the inescapable lesson taught by an in-depth forensic analysis of history. A liar is an extremist thus they are all liars.. And have been throughout the history of this corporation occupying this country, land, continent.. They have lied about History, science, mathematics, physics, philosophies, biology, anthropology, geology, archaeology, radioactive dating.. And yes cosmology.. They brain wash the children in those schools of theirs.. It’s political programming.. That is as extreme as it gets.. They’ve turned the children against you all… Now they’re lying through their teeth about peace and security…Where have I read that before…



CNN’s Conspiracy Of Psychology Theories


Hey Davey Hogg!!!  I love the shirt brother….

Communist News Network Ministry Of Truth….



Go To Public School And Get Recruited Into Demolay


Most People Have No Idea What Is Going On

Besides the new technology that is constantly evolving I’ve noticed that with each presidential election the “laws” and the citations of either existing laws or laws being called out for, are usually already in place, have been for years, and we’re simply observing replay after replay of the same propaganda over and over again.. Same thing as the Movie remakes we keep observing, for example the Death Wish Script is coming out again.. Rinse and repeat.. I wonder about the incapacity to come up with new material.. I also wonder about the incapacity for most people to recall these various propagandized replays.. Everything is on automatic replay, different words different terms different faces and different places but same script.. Over and over and over.. I’m telling my friends right now to stop falling into the replay.. These are reruns guys… Step up and move up and ignore it.. Because it’s old bullshit…



The Highwayman

“The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life…The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber…Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful ‘sovereign,’ on account of the ‘protection’ he affords you.” —Lysander Spooner



Full Spectrum Federalist Dominance Spreading Like Malignant Cancer

Well worth the listen.. And a good description of today’s gatekeepers who go along to get along while saying NOTHING…



U.S. Citizens Are Real No-where Citizens Sitting In Their No-where Lands As Real Nobody’s

Elements of Ecclesiastical Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2 : to make liable : predispose

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

— sub·jec·tion \ noun

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Beatles – Nowhere man – Live in Munich 1966

This version is clearer;


On Public Lands Ownership And Historical Myths And Bubblegum Logic


A comparison of the United States Constitution and the United Nations charter. One is based upon the idea that rights are given by men playing God, the other is based upon the idea that rights are provided by men in control of Governments again playing god.. And neither concept has anything to do with the Biblical Covenant other than as the adversary of that document, nor YHWH’s numerous LAWS laid out in that document.. The majority of Bible believers fall short on comprehending the origins of Equity described in the Bible. before you take your “case” against these ranchers who lease land from the real owner of that land you probably better read a few books on negligence, tort law, and legal malpractice.. If you don’t you’re going to get yourself in a bind… Also several books on public lands tenant lease laws… Several books on the laws of contracts.. Especially concerning federal contracts… Several books on court rules. Several books on international law.. Books on the assignment of public lands lease by leasee with contractual agreements delegated by lessor.. Better read some books on Civil procedure.. Books on the War Powers Act.. Books on Admiralty Maritime Laws. Of course the Law of Nations can be quite helpful in understanding who owns public property and correctly explains the position of the sovereign man versus the citizen man…

Additionally I strongly recommend you read the Elements of ecclesiastical law by S.B. Smith (1895)ART. II Of American Canon Law, or of the National Canon Law of the United States, pages 53 – pages 54, which in part reads as follows, 106. Q. What is meant by American canon law ? A. By the national eccl. law of this country we understand the various derogations from the ” jus commune, ” or the different customs that exist among the churches in the United States, and are sanctioned or tolerated by the Roman Pontiff. We say, ” are sanctioned or tolerated by the Roman Pontiff ” ; for, as was seen, no national law can become legitimate except by at least the tacit or legal consent of the Pope. Again, the ” jus particulare ” of a nation always remains subject to the authority of the Holy See in such manner as to be repealable at any time by it. Hence, the jus nationale, or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign Pontiff. .Then of course a deep forensic analysis read search concerning legal scientific and political reverse language, double speak will help you quite a lot… Then maybe you can actually accomplish some real advocacy… Remember now, you’re only as strong as your weakest argument… or you can keep proving The first code in the U.S. code section that claims you’re incompetent in these matters which then states that incompetence is insanity, U.S. CodeTitle 1Chapter 1 › § 1 . That being said, The Traditions of Men Are Laws For Fictions – The ownership of man made up law is the ownership of the ‘traditions of men’, and as traditions, man made up laws are personally owned private fictions.. Hmmm.. The Bible has something to say about the traditions of men… And about fools thinking themselves wise…

“That issue of ‘Indepedence’, if it still hasn’t dawned on those who do not appreciate the revelation of everyone’s true ‘position’ world-wide, as that of being in involuntary servitude (slavery), by coming to an understanding of that ‘position’ through the distinction to be made between reality (real things or real nouns) and fiction (fictional or fictitious things or fictional nouns), and that shatters Machiavellian deception brought to the world at large by ‘the great and the good’, then perhaps ‘appreciation’ can be given greater clarity with reading The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 Article 4 shared below…”—Thereisnodebt

“According to the treaties that have been signed and are extant in International Law for the past 10 centuries, you cannot sue the state. This is the current system of “voluntary” forced labor using arbitrary private monopolistic powers.  However, “fighting” the system with the system or within the system, is never going to work.  The U.S. and its affiliate states have copyright on all of their “law”. “– If you use it without a variation by agreement, you are a tort-feasor.

 Say’s the state not YOU citizens…

He who owns the law owns it all…

Ownership of Law

The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 Article 4

Paris Peace Treaty of 1783

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

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

The Articles of Confederation Article XII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Article XI U.S. Constitution

States” All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

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

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

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

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

Article I Section 8 U.S. Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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