December 12, 2019

Crown Temple Person Scam

Share

Environmentalism’s Dominionist Agenda Exposed

Highly Accurate Opinion Piece, All the world is a stage, all of the politicos are actors participating in crisis acting social engineering; What they have done, the deception they have maintained is beyond imaginable and is so horrific it is even unbelievable for me when I know without a doubt it is all true. Everything outside of the legal structure of their family owned business where they have made everything and everyone not of their family property. Resources, human and otherwise disposable property.

By There is No Debt-Six Honest Men

POLAND, TERRORISM, OBEDIENCE, SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT, THE LOSS OF FREEDOMS FOR THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD, AND THE SIMPLE SOLUTION – PART VI

“Sustainabilities murderous depopulating ambitions…has always continually conformed to a uniform and miraculously exact lockstep approach in contriving to combine pretended solution for the world’s economic problems created by the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy’s bankers lie of economy, with that of environmental concerns in the guise of sustainable developments murderous depopulating, impoverishing and enslaving new environmental economy “–
“When we understand the necessity to prevent discovery of the Self-Ennobling Ones confiscatorybankers lie of economy and the single solution to it through Mathematically Perfected Economy, and ‘where’ their lie operates, and that ownership of all countries as wealth fleecing business corporations belong to the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy, we can see why it is that despite the differing working approaches to preserving the environment that people develop, approaches that work for the betterment of the environment and themselves,sustainabilities murderous depopulating ambitions has prevented them, and has always continually conformed to a uniform and miraculously exact lockstep approach in‘contriving’ to combine pretended solution for the world’s economic problems created by the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy’s bankers lie of economy, with that of environmental concerns in the guise of sustainable developments murderous depopulating, impoverishing and enslaving new environmental economy, that agree in‘exactly’ the same way for their solution across the world in reflecting a single mind-set even across population groups of people at different locations in the world, with different outlooks and conflicting interests, and furthermore, even more so strangely, with so-called political representatives of different countries at loggerheads with each other and on the verge of war,agreeing with sustainabilities murderous depopulating, impoverishing, and enslaving new economic enivronmental programme for all the people of the world.

How can this be so, unless of course all countries are compelled to respect a higher authorities wishes as property to those wishes. And that clearly means the ‘staged theatre’ of countries being somehow independent from each other and reflecting their governments governing by the consent of the people is exposed as but a sham.

We can then see and understand that the military and other public servants of all countries will be used to implement sustainabilities murderous programme when we take a cursory glance at key documents, and recognize the fabrication of events to allegedly defend people from the Self Ennobling Ones own sponsored terrorists with a loss of freedoms, as well as their parallel fabrication of events leading towards chaos and war, that simply further targets people as the enemy on behalf of the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy’s fear of theirconfiscatory bankers lie of economy being discovered; with all this done in order to clear the way for depopulating the planet that is in no way remotely overpopulated, perhaps then we can wake-up and alert each other in our own defense against the machinations of controlled insanity.

We must be mindful of ample evidence that has clearly shown, and continuous to do so, ‘key crucial events’ towards escalating significant phases in the implementation of sustainability, hidden from prying eyes with the use of double-speak and the distraction of fabricated disruptive events.

As the near-future ‘full implementation’ of sustainability and its call for destruction and depopulation approaches ever closer, huge clues are given to people facing imminent demise, when we ‘see’ some of those tasked with sustainabilities implementation distancing themselves when they finally come to realise what is required of them, that is to say, mass murder of people in general as the enemy.

Such events that warn people of near-future and imminent danger to their lives can be seen signaled in the media, with excuses to events given that somehow seem unconvincing or very odd indeed.

When the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy are made aware that significant events, or people, may derail their plans and make them obvious, any number of distractions are called for and put into operation by their employee corporate executive ‘acting politicians’ of their corporate countries, so that the Self-Ennobling Ones underlying hidden agenda is kept confused. This forms their modus operandi to confuse people and to continue concealing their plans from being understood by a broad enough populace that may unify in objecting and interferingdefensively to their plans.

Here then lies the necessity for the use of the strategy of ‘divide and conquer’, by setting a common populace at each others throats with theatrical fabrications as events that are designed to distract people away from the real underlying issues, using the able assistance of the Self-Ennobling Ones key political ‘actors’ as agents who understand that their roles scripted for them they previously played, may change when called to do so.

Perhaps it can now been seen why the owners of corporate countries, with the use of their distractive strategies of divide and conquer, can drive people at each others throats, or have them at the very least look in the wrong direction, by setting the stage for their key political actors to be scripted according to a different role as necessity requires. In this way the broader populace are discouraged from scrutinizing more closely an issue or issues exposing imminent danger to their well-being and lives, preventing them from waking up and unifying in defending themselves against a serious threat –”—Six Honest Men

To Summarise

What is being seen is a scheme of permanent confiscation decided on, long ago, with its ‘continuity’ of depopulation-planning, via:

– chemical warfare against people in the guise of:

vaccinations as poisonous contaminates precipatating desease,

the release of laboratory deseases requiring further vaccine contaminates,

corrupted medical institutions owned by the Self-Ennobling Ones chemical-pharmaceutical industries that provide unnecessarily dangerous cocktails of chemical-pharmaceuticals as medication, and

chemical and genetic attacks on dietary needs and the consumption of provisions, that together, all shorten longevity and precipitate further desease;

– pre-staged chaos to then excuse a loss of freedoms that sponsored terrorism had been tasked with; and

– the Self-Ennobling Ones political executives of all their corporate countries in agreement to coordinate the preplanning, re-hearsal and the build-up of military troops and exercises for precipatating world war, with the excuse provided to the wider world of, having to take the necessary defense measures against hostile provocations that have as their ulterior motives the acquisition of territorial control and resources by terroristic invasive means, which of course in reality forms the bases of excuses for further accelerated depopulation of people as targets in world war, all for the purposes of, working in parallel and concealing through Chaos,

the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy’s wealth confiscating bankers lie of economy that has automatically and irreversibly terminated the world’s economy in its deliberate designs as a confiscatory mechanism, to be this time replaced, finally, with a long ago preplanned scheme euphemistically termed, ‘sustainable development’, with its land-grabbing feudal ‘rewilding’ new environmental green economy put in the place of the bankers lie of economy, and justified on the bases of a pseudo-scientific climate change ‘fraud’ that deprives people of not only the use of carbon-based energy for their needs and growth, which of course, has been excused through a ‘conjured’ climate change ‘lie’ that determines carbon dioxide is now a pollutant, when in fact it has always been known as, and is, and will always remain a nutrient for vegetation, and continuing from there, a scheme for the purpose of, having the temerity of considering indirect drivers (people) to be pollutants as the enemy of divine-man (being those to be found ‘in their God’s grace’), and the environment, because indirect drivers exhale carbon dioxide as a by-product of metabolism in the conversion of energytaken from food to keep them healthy.

What is being seen then, is a depopulating scheme that has now confidently phased itself into a global administrative supreme bureaucratic ‘will’, as a false rule of law, entitled to operate only across the fictitious jurisdictional territories of all private corporate fictitious countries and not the jurisdictional territory of the physical world, for the imminent and final stages of ‘action’ into itsOrder of feudal-technocratic enslaving governance of the entire world on behalf of its owners will, by confiscating the physical world having permanently usurped ‘freewill’ given to people as their Father’s Will. So it seems.

A usurping ‘will’ that replaces and banishes Our Father’s dominion over the physical world and His Will for that world given to mean ‘freewill’ without the payment of wealth as tribute, with that of the ‘will’ of the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy and having to pay as tribute the price of wealth confiscation through their bankers lie of economy that can only be met by their sustainable developments murderous depopulation and permanent micro-managed enslavement.

 

Share

Is A Juris Doctorate A Know It All Degree? Was Scalia a GOD?

While alleged skeptics focus on how Scalia died and consider the probability that he was assassinated why is it not being considered that he went into seclusion retirement. After all he was secretly a Free Mason, a secret society member of St. Hubertus, openly a Roman Catholic. And a leftist posing as a fake rightist conservative. A servant of the Papacy. He obeyed them all of his life. So he either died a normal old mans death, or he is in on this distraction because he is one of them. He is not divided, was not divided by the Hegelian dialectical left versus right paradigm. He was part of the show.

If someone murdered him maybe {Yeah, a big MAYBE} it was a 13 year old MKultra sex slave tired of being held captive and abused by pedophiles. If that is the case there would be a coverup as well. The world is really this strange. If you cannot grasp that concept that is not my problem. This Supreme Court Justice was not special, he did not advocate for real Biblical Principles. He advocated for the destruction of freewill by playing his part of controlled opposition against leftism. Not liberalism, leftism. Anyone who has spent real time in various law dictionary’s and English Etymology dictionary’s knows damn well the language, words and terms we all use at different levels of comprehension are in fact weapons.

We likely will never know how Scalia died, and when he actually did die. And I for one don’t give a damn. If you take sides with the Devils secular governments of this world and this Vatican owned U.S. multi international corporation playing world cop is no exception, you’re simply a mind controlled idiot. Rough talk isn’t? Well if these Babylonian deceivers are still fooling your mind you deserve it.  These people of power have done the horrifically unimaginable behind closed doors.  

They are all above the law they subject upon their subjects. They are the Lawless Ones Spoken of in the Bible. Their Laws and institutions are in fact completely opposites and are rebellion against the Law of mans Creator. These agnostic masonic Babylonians are seditionists against true LAW. I believe this is the last time this example of rebellion will be allowed in the history of mans fall from perfection. 

Share

No More Eugenics and Genocide You Claim? I Beg To Differ!

 

The corporate controlled opposition environmentalism groups, such as the Sierra Club and all offshoot affiliated groups are supporting  the fortune 500 corporations and their false claims and criminal actions in every state and across the nation in this massive takeover of all resources public and private. A deep forensic analysis into the authors of the documents these groups are advocating for, those very idealisms are the intellectual property of these large fortune 500 multinational corporations. This leads us to the IMF, the World Bank, The Club of Rome, UNICEP, UNIDROIT, UNEP. Agenda 2100, for the purpose of Sacrificing the American citizenry on the Altar of the Bankers Lie of Economy for a Pretended Exchange of Sustainable Stability through The UNEP and Agenda 21’s  Genocidal, Depopulating, Impoverishment and Enslavement  New Green Order programme through economic strife, scarcity and financial ruination. All of these environmentalists are liars. They are pseudo intellectuals lacking intelligence advocating for their own demise in promoting pseudo sciences which provide only DEATH.

Thanks goes out to There Is No Debt and Six Honest Men;

Obama signs executive order, bypasses Congress, and legalizes all BLM land grabs

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=40858

We read –

(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

28 U.S. Code § 3002 – Definitions
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/3002

Reference material providing for clear, obvious and simple full disclosure to the ownership of the US:

OWNERSHIP OF LAW
Ownership of Law

The link to the WIPO database showing the US as copyrighted property has been deactivated. Its archived record on the internet has also been deactivated –

WIPO database constitution of US
http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5395

Archived record of WIPO database link of US constitution
https://web.archive.org/web/20151224204248/http://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/details.jsp?id=5395

Nevertheless, its copyrighted constitution is made available in pdf form –

The Constitution of the United States of America
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/us/us181en.pdf

Of further interest with regards to the USA that the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents provides, as background to the USA’s legal position, is that its constitution is over-ridden by international treaties, when we read, pages 13 and page 14 respectively –

page 13
U.S. CONST. ART. VI, CL. 2: “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, anything in the Constitution or laws of
any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

page 14
Treaties are expressly declared to be “the
supreme law of the land.”

Source:

International Privilege Issues: A United States View
WIPO Standing Committee on Patents
5 November 2014
http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_21/scp_21_ref_lewis.pdf

Definition of Notwithstanding

In spite of

Example for Educational Purposes Only

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,notwithstanding (in spite of) anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary.

Source:

notwithstanding
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/notwithstanding

The treaties under which the US abides to, as well as all other countries and regional bodies that are a member, are those of the United Nations. And as far as the ownership of the United Nations is concerned, its ownership can be discovered by reading the proofs below;

70 years ago after the Second World War –

Commemorating the UN charter
http://unsdn.org/commemorating-the-un-charter/

Charter of the United Nations
San Francisco, 26 June 1945
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cun/cun.html

We read –

“The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister…representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom…”

Source:

Atlantic Charter, jpeg
http://cdn.ebaumsworld.com/mediaFiles/picture/2193631/82786694.jpg

Atlantic Charter
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/atlantic.asp

~

Definition of And

Used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly:

‘bread and butter
they can read and write
a hundred and fifty’

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/and

~

Note.-

Both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister are representing His Majesty

We read –

” In the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, the Allies pledged adherence to this charter’s principles.”

“The Atlantic Charter set goals for the post-war world and inspired many of the international agreements that shaped the world thereafter.”

The policy was issued as a statement; as such there was no formal, legal document entitled “The Atlantic Charter”.

Source:

Atlantic Charter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_Charter

Note.-

The United Nations “pledges” adherence to the Atlantic Charter, means that the United Nations“allegiance” is to the Atlantic Charter. It is therefore the Atlantic Charter that is in ownership of the United Nations and it, the Atlantic Charter, is in turn in the ownership of the Office titled His Majesty, which Office of Monarchy will pass to the Heirs of that Office.

How interesting that we read, that even before the end of the Second World War, the Atlantic Charter ‘somehow’ prophetically determined the ‘designs’ of the post-war world.

~

The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) forms the central coordinating core instrument and forum of the United Nations, representing as ‘plenipotentiary’, the direct will of the Office of Monarch:

We read, second paragraph –

‘The ECOSOC serves as the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues, and for formulating policy recommendations addressed to member states and the United Nations system.’

Source:

United Nations Economic and Social Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Economic_and_Social_Council

Under the title heading, ‘ECOSOC at a Glance’, we read –

‘The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is the United Nations’ central platform for reflection, debate, and innovative thinking on sustainable development.’

Source:

About ECOSOC
http://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/about/

From Encyclopaedia Britannica, we learn –

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)…responsible for the direction and coordination of the economic, social, humanitarian, and cultural activities carried out by the UN. It is the UN’s largest and most complex subsidiary body…ECOSOC was established by the UN Charter (1945)…The council was designed to be the UN’s main venue for the discussion of international economic and social issues. ECOSOC conducts studies; formulates resolutions, recommendations, and conventions for consideration by the General Assembly; and coordinates the activities of various UN organizations…Most of ECOSOC’s work is performed in functional commissions on topics such as human rights, narcotics, population, social development, statistics, the status of women, and science and technology; the council also oversees regional commissions for Europe, Asia and the Pacific, Western Asia, Latin America, and Africa…At the ECOSOC World Summit in 2005, it was mandated that the council convene annual ministerial reviews, designed to monitor progress on internationally agreed development goals, and a biennial Development Cooperation Forum.

Source:

Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Economic-and-Social-Council

From the United Nations Environment Programmes (UNEP) office in New York, we read and learn –

‘The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), established in 1972, is the voice for the environment within the United Nations system…UNEP acts as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment. To accomplish this, UNEP works with a wide range of partners, including United Nations entities, international organizations, national Governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector and civil society.’

Source:

ABOUT UNEP
http://www.unep.org/newyork/AboutUNEP/tabid/52259/Default.aspx

We learn under the subheading, Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) –

‘The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the UN General Assembly in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit.’

Source:

UNEP Office New York
ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COUNCIL ECOSOC
http://www.unep.org/newyork/IntergovernmentalPolicyCoordination/EconomicandSocialCouncil/tabid/52272/Default.aspx

NGO Branch, Department of Economic and Social Affairs
About ECOSOC and its Subsidiary Bodies
http://csonet.org/?menu=123

~

Are we to understand the Atlantic Charter to be law, given to mean that it is the will and wish as personally owned private law, through that of the Office of His Majesty, and not that of a legal document constituting a bilateral offer.

From the preceding, it perhaps could be seen that the Atlantic Charter constitutes, in effect, a unilateral offer that brings into employment as employee’s, those that wish to accept ‘acting out their lives’ through continued employment to it. Then from there, it could be said and seen that the Offeror, having fulfiled an obligation to perform in making available the written instrument through which acceptance can be made to it, would have honoured his bargain. As with all else in line with ‘political charters’.

~

Definition of Unilateral Offer
https://www.translegal.com/legal-english-dictionary/unilateral-offer

Definition of Unilateral Contract
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/u/unilateral-contract.asp

Definition of Unilateral Contract
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/unilateral_contract

What’s the Difference Between Bilateral and Unilateral Contracts?
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/article/whats-the-difference-between-bilateral-and-unilateral-contracts.rl

~

Under the subheading, ‘Drafting the Declaration’, we read –

“One major change from the Atlantic Charter was the addition of a provision for religious freedom, which Stalin approved after Roosevelt insisted.”

Source:

Declaration by United Nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_by_United_Nations

Declaration by United Nations
http://legal.un.org/avl/images/ha/cun/06-l.jpg

We read –

“The Governments signatory hereto,
Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint
Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dated August 14, 1941, known as the
Atlantic Charter.”

Declaration by the United Nations (January 1, 1942)
http://web.ics.purdue.edu/~wggray/Teaching/His300/Handouts/1942-1-UN-Declaration.pdf

~

The Rothschilds’ Financing of Stalin
http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/rothschilds-financing-stalin/

Stalin researched the Rothschilds and Venetian Aristocracy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV4edRQWapg

Stalin researched the Rothschilds
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCI-GWsLdps

Francisco Lopes Suasso
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_Lopes_Suasso

~

1 January 1955 – Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations: original manuscript prepared for printing.
http://legal.un.org/avl/images/ha/cun/31-l.jpg

26 June 1945
The United Nations Charter open to the signatory page.
http://legal.un.org/avl/images/ha/cun/30-l.jpg

Historic Archives – photo
Charter of the United Nations
San Francisco, 26 June 1945
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/cun/cun.html

Sourced:

International Organizations
Charter of the United Nations, 1945
http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/instruments.html

~

Under the subheading, ‘Charter Provisions’, we read beneath the subtitle, ‘Preamble’, the words –

“We the peoples of the United Nations determined”

Source:

United Nations Charter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Charter

Note.-

A perculiar phrasing given the word, peoples, since the word, ‘people’, on its own is both singular and plural in number in its description of those individuals to be found in the physical world.

Whereas the term, peoples, cannot be of the physical world since the term, people, caters for that territory, and therefore, peoples is a description relating to someone’s personally owned private fictitious noun of their own making, within the territory of their imagination.

Furthermore, for the perculiar people to find themselves within the house of the United Nations, as the phrasing mis-leads us to believe, they would need to agree to accept an offer to be able to enter such a house and only then could they be found within its walls; setting aside the notions of personally owned private fictitious intellectual copywritten jurisdictional territory presented here as, the United Nations.

Charter of the United Nations (1945)
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Charter_of_the_United_Nations#Chapter_I_-_Purposes_and_Principles

The United Nations System – Principal Organs
http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/challenges-and-opportunities-in-international-business/section_09/a0f9cf51e2388f7267c425efb48c3160.jpg

Source:

5.3 The United Nations and the Impact on Trade
http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/challenges-and-opportunities-in-international-business/s09-03-the-united-nations-and-the-imp.html

 

The impact of human activity on biodiversity means human beings (indirect drivers) must be eliminated with the supporting justification of the climate change lie –

Biodiversity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iv8eI6tCpB8

Where the buck stops – The Club of Rome
http://www.agendatwentyone.wordpress.com/2010/06/28/the-club-of-rome-where-the-buck-stops/

Understanding the present in the light of the future by President Mikhail Gorbachev
http://www.gcint.org/rio20-understanding-the-present-in-the-light-of-the-future/

U.N.’s Shocking Millennium Agenda (21)
http://www.tapnewswire.com/2015/05/the-u-n-s-shocking-millennium-agenda-21/

We read –

Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”

Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister: “A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.”

Expose Agenda 21
https://www.facebook.com/ExposeAgenda21/posts/676836959023268

A quote taken from, Expose Agenda 21, facebook page –

“The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will
in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”
– Maurice Strong

The Earth Charter – Humanity’s Covenant with the Earth
http://www.green-agenda.com/earthcharter.html

WILDLANDS

TOWARDS A WILDER EUROPE DEVELOPING AN ACTION AGENDA FOR WILDERNESS AND LARGE NATURAL HABITAT AREAS
http://www.europarc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/2012_Wild_Europe_European_Commission_Towards_a_wilder_Europe.pdf

FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

A Little Background History of Pedigree

TOWARDS A WILDER EUROPE DEVELOPING AN ACTION AGENDA FOR WILDERNESS AND LARGE NATURAL HABITAT AREAS

It may do us good, to investigate a little more closely one of the participants, in league with the others, sponsoring the rewilding publication.

The participant in question is the, “Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts (UK)”, whose name is included, among others, at the bottom of the publications pages (acting as its back-cover), to which, together with the other participants, they so lavishly helped to facilitate its sponsorship, in drawing attention to the ambitions of Agenda 21’s Depopulating Programme of Rewilding Europe.

It is not here proposed that an in-depth analysis of this organizations philanthropic pursuits are examined, which unquestionably have done much good, but what is proposed, is to be made aware of the background connections behind these organizations, and their far reaching interests in influencing much of human progress, or as the individual is free to determine for themselves, their far reaching influence in deceivingly stifling human progress.

The case to be presented, is one of providing a sequence of openly available information in the form of website links, that admittedly show that ‘the owners’ behind various philanthropic organizations as ‘their founders’ to them, and not forgetting that that which is ‘founded’ by you is clearly owned by you, surely have strong ties to the contribution of Agenda 21’s ambitions of, ‘harmonising humanities numbers to the earth’s ability of providing sustenance for sustainability to be viable’.

“The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts or RSWT…was previously known by the names Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves and Royal Society for Nature Conservation.”

History –

“The forerunner of the RSWT, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, was established by Charles Rothschild in 1912. It aimed initially to draw up a list of the country’s best wildlife sites with a view to purchase for protection as nature reserves, and by 1915 it had drawn up a list of 284, known as Rothschild Reserves.”

Source:

Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society_of_Wildlife_Trusts

~

Nathaniel Charles Rothschild (9 May 1877 – 12 October 1923), known as “Charles”, was an English banker and entomologist and a member of the Rothschild family.

Family –

Charles Rothschild worked as a partner in the family bank NM Rothschild and Sons in London.

Nature conservation –

He was concerned about the loss of wildlife habitats, and in 1912 set up the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, the forerunner of The Wildlife Trusts partnership. In 1915 the Society produced a schedule of the best wildlife sites in the country, some of which were purchased as nature reserves.

Marriage –

In 1907 Charles Rothschild married Rozsika Edle von Wertheimstein (1870 – 30 June 1940), a Hungarian baroness and descendent of…one of the wealthiest families in Europe and had made their fortune over a century before the Rothschilds.

Source:

Charles Rothschild
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Rothschild

~

The Rothschild Reserves –

In 1912 Charles Rothschild founded the ‘Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves’ (SPNR).

More on the Rothschild Reserves –

“What was new about this approach to preserving ‘wild life’ was that it focussed on the habitatrather than just the individual species within it. It highlighted a growing belief that places needed protection from development and other damage. It showed a desire for an ordered and reasoned approach to acquiring nature reserves, in the face of increasign pressure on the natural world and culminated in a ‘shopping list’ of ideal sites – the Rothschild Reserves.”

“…the SPNR always established who the landowner was. The intention at this time was to purchase the land, turn it into a nature reserve and then hand it over to the National Trust to manage under special conditions.”

“It was believed that it was better to fence off nature and leave it to its own devices, rather than practically manage it…”

“The elite conservation crusaders could be seen to have inhabited a moral high ground where, from a lofty height, they shook their fists at progress in their quest for ‘primeval country’ and their desire to shut it off.”

Source:

The Wildlife Trusts, The Rothschild Reserves
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/rothschildreserves

~

Climate Change & Wildlife –

Climate change is a significant threat to the UK’s wildlife. The Wildlife Trusts believe thatnature should be central to both climate change adaptation (e.g. through the use of natural processes to reduce flood risk) and mitigation (e.g. through the protection and restoration of peat and peatlands to store and sequester carbon).”

“However there is now widespread agreement among scientists that we are living in an era of accelerated climate change, much of which can be attributed to increased human activity (for example through increased carbon emmissions from air pollution).”

Note.-

The words in the phrase, ‘widespread agreement among scientists’, are words that can only be attributed to ‘conflict-of-interest’ based political consesus science, and NOT ‘factual science’.

Climate change means that there are complex demands being placed on land for food, wildlife, recreation and development. Wildlife has adapted to climate change in the past but our modern landscapes – full of buildings, transport links and intensively managed farmland and fragmented natural habitats – present a new challenge to species. It is vital that we manage and use land sustainably, so it allows plants and animals to move and adapt to new conditions for survival as the climate changes. The Wildlife Trusts’ vision for A Living Landscape is working to bring about landscape scale restoration of the natural environment and adaptation to climate change, realising and using the multiple benefits provided by nature.”

“Protecting and restoring our natural environment and ecosystems is important in its own right…Flood prevention, crop pollination, carbon absorption, clean and healthy water sources – these benefits of our natural environment must all be considered and maximised as we prepare for the effects of climate change. Critically, we need to restore healthy, Living Landscapes that help to alleviate floods, control pollution and help us cope with extremes of temperature.”

“Many of The Wildlife Trusts’ Living Landscape schemes have been designed with climate change adaptation at the forefront. At the heart of Living Landscape approach is habitat restoration and connectivity.”

Source:

Climate Change & Wildlife
http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/climate-change

The Wildlife Trusts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wildlife_Trusts

~

Giammaria Ortes:
The Decadent Venetian Kook Who Originated The Myth of “Carrying Capacity”
http://american_almanac.tripod.com/ortes.htm

Recruiting the military for Agenda 21’s depopulation genocidal murder

Sustainbilities justification for depopulation, is that there are too many people to harmonise with the earth’s environment, and therefore depopulation is an absolute necessity. Of course, with the fraudulent excuse of false ‘climate change’ science as the driving force behind the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy’s ambitions for mass genocidal murder, it comes as no surprise that the Self-Ennobling Ones law enforcement and in particular their military are now positioning and prioritising their role towards sustainablities climate change depopulation ‘development’ agenda, to have the military engage in excused mass murder, on behalf of the Self-Ennobling Ones, covertly presented under a ‘new energy security strategy’ –

PENTAGON PREPARES FOR CENTURY OF CLIMATE EMERGENCIES AND OIL WARS
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Pentagon_prepares_for_century_of_climate_emergencies_and_oil_wars/45538/0/38/38/Y/M.html

~

GB 2293 SPNC
Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts
This catalogue was digitised by The National Archives as part of the National
Register of Archives digitisation project
The National Archive
National Registar of Archives – NRA 24457

Centre for Urban and Regional Studies University of Birmingham and Institute of Agricultural History
University of Reading
A list of the historical records of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation
Compiled by Philippa Bassett as part of a research project funded by the Social Science Research Council
August 1980

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/download/GB2293%20SPNC

~

World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF (formerly named the, World Wildlife Fund, WWF)

World Wildlife Fund / World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)

Founders –

Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld
Julian Huxley
Max Nicholson
Peter Scott
Guy Mountfort
Godfrey A. Rockefeller

The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international non-governmental organizationfounded on April 29, 1961, and is working on issues regarding the conservation, research and restoration of the environment. It was formerly named the World Wildlife Fund… It is theworld’s largest conservation organization with over 5 million supporters worldwide, working in more than 100 countries, supporting around 1,300[5] conservation and environmental projects. WWF is a foundation,[6] in 2010 deriving 57% of funding from individuals and bequests, 17% from government sources (such as the World Bank, DFID, USAID) and 11% from corporations.”

The group’s mission is “to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.”[7] Currently, much of its work focuses on the conservation of three biomes that contain most of the world’s biodiversity: oceans and coasts, forests, and freshwater ecosystems. Among other issues, it is also concerned withendangered species, pollution and climate change.”

Note.-

It is recommended that the entire page is read to acquire a brief working understanding and background to the WWF

Source:

World Wide Fund for Nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Fund_for_Nature

~

There is nothing cuddly about the WWF
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100030769/there-is-nothing-cuddly-about-the-wwf/

____

Use of the Glass Prism of Doublespeak to De-mystify Meaning

It becomes clear what the Self-Ennobling Ones agenda really is, for which they have worked diligently towards over a great deal of time, and how in the use of understanding “doublespeak”, they convey that agenda to each other worldwide, as well as to their mis-guided minions.

With a serious appreciation of “doublespeak”, we can come to see it in use for ourselves with negative events around the world demonstrably at odds with official explanations for them, given as one of a ‘rosy outlook’ for the future, when quite obviously the real situation on the ground points to ‘a planned grim outlook’ for the future.

The information to follow then must be interpreted through the light prism of “doublespeak”, through which wording is shone to separate its material for the purpose of seeing true meaning conveyed. That is to say, the opposite of what is presented.

This will no doubt mean, perhaps that given all the accompanying evidence, what is seen before us is not ‘crisis management’ to avert disaster and to ensure continuity for a ‘rosy outlook’ into the future, but through the prisim of doublespeak, what is seen before us are the Self-Ennobling Ones as gods at play, with their preplanned “games” devised for ‘managed controlled rehearsals’ to ensure discontinuity and great suffering through their devices and mechanisms of control.

REFERENCE MATERIAL:

Defininition of Doublespeak

– language that can be understood in more than one way and that is used to trick or deceive people

– language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth

Sourced:

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doublespeak

Definition of Doublespeak

Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of wordsIt may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war “peace”).

Sourced:

Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

From the description given of “doublespeak”, the agenda behind the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy becomes clear –

‘Sustainablility and its development’, is a cruel deception in which a vast majority of people in the world, as victims of its ‘doublespeak hidden agenda’, work towards their own elimination, with the enslavement of the surviving few, housed in concentration camp ‘smart growth’ community dwellings, serving the rest of their miserable lives as serfs to the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy.

The prevailing mental condition then is controlled insanity –

Doublespeak is saying one thing and meaning another, usually its opposite.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/dblspkthennow.shtml

Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/doublethink.shtml

Reader – doublethink
http://www.orwelltoday.com/readerdoublethink.shtml

Doublespeak publications –

United Nations Publications
PDF Publications
https://unp.un.org/Browse80b2.html?pdf=1

Control of Raw Materials –

The Hunger Games (2012)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/

Note.-

What is of particular interest in the movie, The Hungar Games, is the backdrop through which the movie and the characters are framed. This backdrop of infrastructure is a future sustaiable development environment.

FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY

The Real Hungar Games (Sustainable Development post 2015) –

Ensuring Discontinuity through Management Game Play –

Food Chain Reaction: A Global Food Security Game
1250 24th Street, NW | Washington, DC 20037
info@foodchainreaction.org | © 2015 World Wildlife Fund, Inc.
http://foodchainreaction.org/

Note.-

We read –

About the Organizers

Food Chain Reaction is being produced by World Wildlife Fund and the Center for American Progress, with game design from CNA. Funding and technical support for Food Chain Reaction has been provided by Cargill with major support from Mars, Inc. Additional funding has been provided by Sealed Air Corporation.

Source:

Food Chain Reaction – A Global Food Security Game
About
http://foodchainreaction.org/index.php/about/

~

Organisational Structural Chart for the Control of Raw Material
http://www.larouchepub.com/graphics/1995/eir2249/Freem01.jpg

Source:

The Windsors’ Global Food Cartel: Instrument for Starvation
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_windsor_food.html

Primary Sourcing:

Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/1995/2249_food_intro.html

Alternative Sourcing:

Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/esp_sociopol_depopu38.htm

Hinting towards an arm of sustainable developments preplanned depopulation agenda –

How would your nearest city be affected by a bomb the size of that dropped on Hiroshima?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/11786876/How-would-your-nearest-city-be-affected-by-a-bomb-the-size-of-Hiroshima.html?frame=3399391

~

Note.-

To understand the necessity for war, using manufactured antagonism between countries as a veil to set about eliminating the true enemy (people), particularly timed for the need to distract from discovering the bankers lie of economy, and providing for the bonus of killing two birds with one stone, when it comes to meeting the requirements of obedience and Agenda 21’s depopulation goals.

SPECULATIVE DATES GIVEN FOR WORLD WAR III
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/speculative-dates-given-for-world-war-iii/

WHEN DID WORLD WAR III BEGIN ?

The prelude to war can be traced as far back as 2008, when we look at the information under the subtitle heading,

‘PRECAUTIONS TO TRAGEDY TAKE LITTLE TIME IN READING SIMPLY PRESENTED SOLUTION’,

to be found part way down the document –

VACCINES
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/02/20/vaccines/

_______

Archive for Club of Rome
http://thearrowsoftruth.com/tag/club-of-rome/

~

The 1001: A Nature Trust
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1001:_A_Nature_Trust

The 1001 Club
http://www.truedemocracy.net/hj32/05.html

The 1001 Club
Bankers, Intelligence Agents, and Raw Materials Executives Striving for a Sustainable Future
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_1001club01.htm

Sourced:

* pre-December 2014 archived version of the site – Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics
https://wikispooks.com/ISGP/index.html

Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics
http://isgp.nl/

ISGP
https://wikispooks.com/w/index.php?title=ISGP&redirect=no

1001 Club – Incomplete Membership List
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_1001club02.htm

The ‘1001 Club’ – a nature trust
http://canadianpatriot.org/archives/1133

~

Transnational Classes and International Relations
By Kees Van der Pijl
https://books.google.pl/books?id=dk4JBjkYCIIC&pg=PA124&lpg=PA124&dq=Prince+Bernhard+%2B+club+of+rome&source=bl&ots=B1w0Os4QeH&sig=ltIb9MTkTUJipCMsFLv0AQ_4EvA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CFEQ6AEwCGoVChMI4ZPavcfvxgIVBf1yCh2-sgMT#v=onepage&q=Prince%20Bernhard%20%2B%20club%20of%20rome&f=false

~

For Educational Purposes Only –

Dr. Claude Martin, Switzerland – Board Member, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Former Director General of WWF
http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=802

~

We read –

The department was separated from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1997

* Department for International Development (DFID)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_International_Development

~

We read –

The Duke of Edinburgh is the patron of many organisations, including WWF and the Duke of Edinburgh Award. The Duke was the first President of WWF-UK from its foundation in 1961 to 1982, and President of WWF-International from 1981 to 1996. He is now President Emeritus for WWF.
http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/borneo_forests/about_borneo_forests/borneo_prince_phillip.cfm

~

We read –

Their Patron is HRH The Prince of Wales.

The Wildlife Trusts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wildlife_Trusts

~

Our mission

To protect and sustainably manage natural ecosystems of the world; to conserve their biodiversity, with emphasis on threatened habitats and endangered species

How We Work –
http://www.worldlandtrust.org/about/how-we-work

~

World Conservation and Wildlife Trust
http://www.wcwtinternational.org/

~

United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Agency_for_International_Development

International Development United States Agency For
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue Nw
Washington, DC 20004
Web: http://www.usaid.gov

A privately held company in Washington, DC
http://www.manta.com/c/mb4n0yg/international-development-united-states-agency-for

International Development United States Agency For
Usaid M/Oaa/Cas
1300 Penn Avenue Nw Room 824-C
Washington, DC 20004 – View Map
Phone: (212) 713-4320
Web: http://www.usaid.gov
Own This Business?

A privately held company in Washington, DC
http://www.manta.com/c/mr4ry0l/international-development-united-states-agency-for

USAID Acronym List
http://www.usaidalumni.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/USAID-Acronym-List-020413.pdf

~

“Bernhard helped found the World Wildlife Fund (later renamed World Wide Fund for Nature), becoming its first President in 1961, and in 1970 establishing the WWF’s financial endowment “The 1001: A Nature Trust”. In 1954, he was a co-founder of the international Bilderberg Group, which has met annually since then to discuss corporate globalization…”

The Prince eventually went to work for the German chemical giant IG Farben, then the world’s fourth-largest company (which survives today as BASF, AGFA, and Bayer). After training, Bernhard became secretary to the board of directors at the Paris office in 1935.

“Prince Bernhard was a member of the “Reiter-SS”, a mounted unit of the SS and joined the Nazi party.[7] He later also joined the National Socialist Motor Corps.”

“With his global contacts, Bernhard in May 1954, was a key figure in organising a meeting at the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands for the business elite and intellectuals of the Western World to discuss the economic problems in the face of what they characterized as the growing threat from Communism. This first meeting was successful, and it became an annual gathering known as the Bilderberg Group. The idea for the European Union, first proposed by Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950, was encouraged at Bilderberg.”

Note.-

It is recommended that the entire page is read

Source:

Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Bernhard_of_Lippe-Biesterfeld

~

Anton Rupert
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anton_Rupert

~

Sir Julian Huxley is brother to Aldous Huxley

Souce:
Huxley, Arnold Family Tree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley#/media/File:Huxley-Arnold_family_tree.svg

“Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS[1] (22 June 1887 – 14 February 1975) was a British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and internationalist.”

“He was secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund and the first President of the British Humanist Association.”

“In 1959 he received a Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood – World Population. Huxley was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society and its president from 1959–1962.”

Later career –

“Huxley, a lifelong internationalist with a concern for education, got involved in the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and became the organization’s first director-general in 1946.”

“In a fortnight he dashed off a 60-page booklet on the purpose and philosophy of UNESCO, eventually printed and issued as an official document. There were, however, many conservative opponents of his scientific humanism. His idea of restraining population growth with birth control …”

“Huxley’s internationalist and conservation interests also led him, with Victor Stolan, Sir Peter Scott, Max Nicholson and Guy Mountfort, to set up the WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature under its former name of the World Wildlife Fund).”

Note.-

Recommended that the entire page is read

Source:

Julian Huxley
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley

~

UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy – The Task of Unifying the World Mind
https://orwelliania.wordpress.com/2013/02/17/unesco-its-purpose-and-its-philosophy-the-task-of-unifying-the-world-mind/

World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Pt 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELmUY4KFUZc

World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Pt 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecx_u0mUHh4

Global Depopulation and the Eugenics Agenda (Full)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHqdwmqu-h0

~

UNESCO –

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (French: Organisation des Nations unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture; UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN). Its purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.[1] It is the heir of the League of Nations’International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation.

Source:

UNESCO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO

~

UNESCO – It’s Evil Purpose and Philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iqv5Q8Ujj2s

~

“He was then married to Margaret “Margo” Kuhn Rockefeller for fifty three years.”

Godfrey A. Rockefeller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godfrey_A._Rockefeller

~

Margaret Kuhn Rockefeller daughter of Richard Parker Kuhn

Source:

Caroline Parker Kuhn
b. 26 January 1925, d. 30 April 2011
http://www.woodvorwerk.com/vorwerk/g0/p611.htm

Richard P. Kuhn 1916
1916 Class Crest
Cullum No. 5528 • Jun 28, 1963 • Died in Bedford Hills, New York
Interred in St. Matthews Churchyard, Bedford Hills, NY
https://apps.westpointaog.org/Memorials/Article/5528/

Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
http://www.nndb.com/company/062/000124687/

In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.

http://barefootsworld.net/docs/fedchart.txt

Source:

Who Is Running America ?
http://barefootsworld.net/usfraud.html

~

For Educational Purposes Only –

We note UNESCO’s founding influence in the settlement of the Self-Ennobling Ones intellectual copyright institutional agrrangements in securing inheritance rights, between themselves as gods, towards their successor-assigns as beneficiaries, when we read –

1. Introduction, page 533

“This essay returns to such an “old” conflict in the development of international copyright dating back to the signing of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works on 9 September 1886. Translation, a constant “ pierre d’achoppement” in the evolutionary history of the Berne Convention, caused problems from the outset. These returned with full force at the fourth conference for the revision of the Berne Convention in Stockholm on 11-14 June 1967. Described by one participant as “the worst experience in the history of international copyright conventions”, Stockholm marked the culmination of several years’ discussion on the viability of the international copyright regime to accommodate the needs of developing nations.”

2. Brussels, June 1948, page 534

“The Bureaux Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (BIRPI), located in Berne, was the administrative seat from the inception of the treaty, and oversaw revision conferences in Berlin (1908), Rome(1928) and then Brussels (1948).”

subtitle, 2. Brussels, June 1948, page 535

“The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),played an important role in trying to redress a situation in which, in copyright terms, the world emerged from the war “virtually split into two entirely separate and independent parts”. Launched in 1945 as successor to the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC), UNESCO anchored its copyright policy in the 1948 Declaration on Human Rights.”

TIND Comment.-

UNESCO’s strategic deceptive foil of cover as camouflage, in the use of its development of “collectivist” terms for a “Declaration on Human Rights”, won them the approval of their competing proposals for the Self-Ennobling Ones to accept, as the best means of providing for an excuse to convince the victims of designed eugenicist wars, to relegate their ‘freedoms of independence’ to closer cooperation, or corporation, by compelling acquiescence of the general populace to such terms, out of “fear” of a repeat performance of world war, in it being said, that closer cooperation would quell the brutal urges of man.

They, the general populace at large, having no inkling whatsoever, that their compulsion to accept these copywritten terms had been by design, would also have no inkling, that UNESCO’s proposals had the further advantage of completely blinding them into not coming to an understanding that what was copywritten by them in turn, through the Self-Ennobling One’s instruments of deception, (without qualification under registration of ‘noncommital-to-contract’ to copywritten-countries, but merely to record), would effectively provide the means for the Self-Ennobling Ones agencies to ‘collectively’ interfere in the ownership of their intellectual property.

Interfere as superior authorities to a now admitted subordinate position of a registrant, and that through copyright registration ‘without qualificaiton’, it was an admission that registrants were mentally incapable of maintaining their own affairs, in the same way a child lacked the mental capacity to provide for themselves, by demonstrably not understanding the requirements of speaking-up in their own self-interests, as an adult would understand to do, given their circumstances in the world as being functionally independent, and with the recognition that that independence brings, of having the cognition to voice that independence in line with their self-interests and circumstances.

Failure to speak-up, would no doubt reflect on their mental capacities as being immature and in need of assistance by rightly remaining in the charge of an adult parental figure providing for stewardship, to guide and decide what would be in their best interests. Such arrangements, of course, could find their victims intellectual rights the subject of ‘profitable confiscation’ by any number of ‘seemingly’ legitimate means.

The reader to the preceding may remain unperturbed, since as it ought to be well known, any formal relationships entered into, calls for honesty in the interests of fairness for obvious, fair and full disclosure to be provided – for the very reason that genuine ‘fairness’ can only be the basis of authenticity and therefore legitamcy – otherwise, whatsoever arrangements were entered into without full disclosure made known as to the true nature of the operations of the parties to a relationship, would justly render those arrangements ‘null and void’. And that being the case, without having even to speak of ‘the requirements of justice’.

Continuing, page 535

“Prior to the Brussels conference, UNESCO had already noted how copyright was a “barrier” to the “free flow of culture among all the peoples of the world”. In the next few years, UNESCO instigated a number of copyright initiatives culminating in 1952 with The Universal Copyright Convention(UCC).

In sum, the UCC offered an international multilateral convention with lower levels of protection than Berne, thus providing a vehicle for the US to come into the fold of multilateral international copyright agreements. Several specificities in national legislation kept the US outside Berne until 1989; these were primarily the compulsory registration of copyright and the controversial manufacturing requirement, which afforded English-language books copyright protection in the US only if manufacturedon American soil. As a compromise between the formal registration required by US law and the no formalities-Berne framework, the UCC introduced the use of a ©symbol, making it possible for the US and other countries to sign the UCC without having to change their national legislation.”

Source:

Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS :THE BERNE CONVENTIONAND THE 1967 STOCKHOLM DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE REVISITED
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén
http://www.academia.edu/432552/_Colonial_Copyright_Postcolonial_Publics_the_Berne_Convention_and_the_1967_Stockholm_Diplomatic_Conference_Revisited_

United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_International_Bureaux_for_the_Protection_of_Intellectual_Property

World Intellectual Property Organisation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Intellectual_Property_Organization

Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world:
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
http://www.geneva.quno.info/pdf/WIPO(A4)final0304.pdf

~

We read –

“It is the heir of the League of Nations’ International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation.”

Source:

UNESCO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNESCO

Of course, the League of Nations was the first fictitious global corporate institution, ready in waiting, to ‘tranisition’ the people of the world into ‘the idea of global governance’ after the scare tactics of fear in World War One (WWI), soon to be replaced with its permanent successor, after the follow up of WWII to ‘secure’ the establishment of the strategy of fear in bringing about an immovable seat for the readiness of permanent global governance in the form of the United Nations –

League of Nations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Nations`

~

In developments further unifying and solidifying the Self-Ennobling Ones fictitious interests in stealthly centralizing the means with which to confiscate the physical realm, we read, they have superseded and made obsolete the Universal Copyright Convention for that of the World Trade Organisation’s ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)’ –

“Since almost all countries are either members or aspiring members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and are thus conforming to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS), the UCC has lost significance.”

Source:

Universal Copyright Convention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Copyright_Convention

Again, we note the understandings reached concerning issues of creative intellectual property rights, when we learn of those acting on behalf of the authors to creative property, organizing their interests through their forums to settle on agreement, when we read, 1. Introduction, page 1, of, ‘Selling Books: The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights in the 1930s’ –

After a series of bilateral agreements the main European book trading countries enacted in cooperation with culturally aware publishers and authors a multilateral agreement, the Berne Convention, in 1886. Although the American states passed the first Inter-American copyright agreement at the same time, the Convention of Montevideo in 1889, it was the Berne Convention, which proofed to be a reliable political instrument in the course of the twentieth century pointing the way ahead when intellectual property rights were institutionalized on a global scale first with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1967 followed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994.

Source:

Selling Books: The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property
Rights in the 1930s
Isabella Löhr, University of Leipzig
http://www.ebha.org/ebha2007/pdf/Loehr.pdf

~

But wait, returning to the excellent writings from COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS, those who don’t understand the dangers fictions can pose, are to be further deluded into thinking that they matter, with this –

7. Epilogue: Geneva, October 2007, page 549

“In October 2007, the WIPO Development Agenda was established by the WIPO General Assembly. Scholars have hailed it as a possible new departure for the international intellectual property regime, which has been completely dominated since 1994 by the trade-based rationales of WTO and the infamous Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS has eclipsed and helped render the UCC “wholly peripheral to the current international copyright framework” and is targeted for critique by developing nations, echoing concerns already articulated already in 1967. The Stockholm Protocol, a satellite “disconnected from its orbit”, is another instrument relegated to the cemetery where intellectual property texts go to die. Yet, each of these texts is part of the historical foundation from which the Development Agenda draws inspiration.

Although it remains to be seen what clout the Development Agenda will have to redress past wrongs and more recent sins in the power relations between developed and developing nations, it proposes substantial changes in both its general direction and WIPO governance. In 1884, 1885, and 1886 only a handful of nations were present to formulate the original Berne Convention, and they represented a diplomatic elite. Fifty-seven states and more than 400 inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations were present in Stockholm. At present, WIPO counts 184 member nations and over 250 NGOs among those who participate in Geneva deliberations. NGOs now out weigh states in total number, greatly accelerating the presence of civil society in these global arenas, suggesting, to Ruth Okediji, that states are not as important in setting the agenda as they used to be.”

Source:

Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS :THE BERNE CONVENTIONAND THE 1967 STOCKHOLM DIPLOMATIC CONFERENCE REVISITED
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén
http://www.academia.edu/432552/_Colonial_Copyright_Postcolonial_Publics_the_Berne_Convention_and_the_1967_Stockholm_Diplomatic_Conference_Revisited_

World Network of Biosphere Reserves in Europe and North America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Network_of_Biosphere_Reserves_in_Europe_and_North_America

Further history bringing sustainable development’s Agenda 21 into being –

* UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme in the mountains of Central and Eastern Europe:
past experiences and future possibilites
Martin F. Price
Environmental Change Unit,
University of Oxford,
United Kingdom
http://www.npsumava.cz/gallery/8/2426-sg1_price.pdf

About the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB)
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/ecological-sciences/man-and-biosphere-programme/about-mab/

Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-sustainable-development/

Doublespeak
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doublespeak

Acquiring acceptance through double-speak to micro-manage every single aspect of the lives of the people of the world on the bases of climate-change fraud for total full-spectrum targeted depopulation and enslavement –

The New Climate Economy Report 2016
http://2014.newclimateeconomy.report/

Note.-

Scroll down to bottom to view climate economy’s advocates. Sample descriptions of a couple of these advocates and their affairs surrounding sustainable developments climate economy and depopulation is given:

Global Green Growth Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Green_Growth_Institute

UN Partners with Global Green Growth Institute
http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/un-partners-with-global-green-growth-institute-on-climate-action/

World Resources Institute
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Resources_Institute

John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._and_Catherine_T._MacArthur_Foundation

We note with particular interest the remarks made under the title heading, ‘Support to eugenics on past’ –

The article forgets the support of this foundation to eugenics on past and to ecology and abortion today.Agre22 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22

Talk:John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AJohn_D._and_Catherine_T._MacArthur_Foundation

And of course, we can see under the subtitled heading, ‘The Bellagio Center’, that the foundations MacArthur Fellows have ties with the Rockefeller Foundation –

Rockefeller Foundation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation

The US Science Czar who allegedly holds extreme views on genocidal depopulation has strong ties with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation –

The Triumph of Environmental Alarmism: Science ‘Czar’ John Holdren and the Woods Hole Research Center
https://capitalresearch.org/2009/10/the-triumph-of-environmental-alarmism-science-czar-john-holdren-and-the-woods-hole-research-center/

Webster Tarpley & Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination (FULL VIDEO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ls2j3aI_lRw

Obama’s Science Czar John P. Holdren Confronted on Population Control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fElM6Ov1TIg

Population Council
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_Council

In the 3rd paragraph we find that among its partners striving for depopulation and permanent enslavement with the shackles of sustainable developments climate economy, the Self-Ennobling Ones United Nations also counts on the assistance it recieves from the Population Council –

Population and Women Programme
http://www.un.org/partnerships/YPAPopulationAndWomen.htm

The fourth bullet point in, BY THE NUMBERS, sees the Population Council willingly involved in demographics issues for what ‘appears’ to be a good cause –

WOMEN & POPULATION
http://www.unfoundation.org/who-we-are/impact/by-the-numbers/women-population.html?referrer=https://www.google.pl/

Case 24
Curbing Global Population Growth: Rockefeller’s Population Council
Rockefeller Foundation, 1952
Steven Schindler
http://www.cspcs.sanford.duke.edu/sites/default/files/descriptive/rockefellers_population_council.pdf

Commission on Population and Development
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/commission/index.shtml

Commission on Population and Development
Forty-eighth session
http://www.papersmart.unmeetings.org/ecosoc/cpd/48th-session/agenda/

Strengthening the demographic evidence base for the post-2015 development agenda
http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/commission/sessions/2016/index.shtml

Leading World Bank Demographer: Vaccination Campaigns Part Of Population Reduction Policy
http://www.globalresearch.ca/leading-world-bank-demographer-vaccination-campaigns-part-of-population-reduction-policy/5307235

Population control on the Swiss agenda
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/no-room-at-the-inn_population-control-on-the-swiss-agenda/34609710

Who runs the show? Article documents how U.S. (globalist) foundations don’t just fund Canadian environmentalist groups – they help fund the Canadian government!
http://www.canadianliberty.com/?p=13359

Alex Jones and his guest brilliantly expose succintly the plans of the Self-Ennobling Ones and their High Priest self-validating clergy of Amon Ra’s depopulating and enslaving programme without having to wade through volumes of text –

The Roots of Technocracy with Expert Patrick M. Wood
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BcBKMLiy2XE&feature=youtu.be

Source:

The World Depopulation Agenda
http://www.depopulation.newworldorderuniversity.com/Wordpress/

Note.-

What Alex Jones’ and Patrick Wood’s discussion lacks is ‘genuine true solution’ to the mind-paralysing information they provide that gives, simply and easily, a means to understand how to counter the elites provocations and attacks to no longer fall into the traps of their schemes that have people running around in circles and relying on others to save them:

Genuine Simple Solution Begins With Simply Presented Factual Understanding

What is that key-knowledge that amiable providers of news never ever seem to provide with a few exceptions. Take a look for yourselves –

HOW TO STOP PLAYING THE ELITIST’S MATRIX THROUGH A SIMPLE UNDERSTANDING OF THE MECHANICS OF THE MATRIX

Firstly, know thyself –

Rule Thyself Lest Ye Be Ruled
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/rule-thyself-lest-ye-be-ruled/

Secondly, understand where it is that the matrix happens –

Read the simply presented information titled, ‘OF FICTIONS (The world of the imagination)’, approximately 1/2 way down the link given as –

OWNERSHIP OF LAW
https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/04/25/ownership-of-law/

Thirdly, understand how you’re bought and your livelihood confiscated in being used to work towards your own eugenicist self-destruction –

MATHEMATICALLY PERFECTED ECONOMY vs USURY PLAY LIST
https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=4F0FC0AC39B3086A

Primer:

https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/10/28/wake-up-youre-being-taken-for-a-fool-deconstructing-terms/

Fourthly, stand back and take a look at how it all comes together –

https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/the-business-of-knowing-your-place/

And finally, understand how the ‘renaming’ of eugenics has come into operation today –

Quote:

This 1926 Eugenics Exhibit Sums Up What the Elite Think About You and Your Family
http://truthstreammedia.com/2015/09/28/this-1926-eugenics-exhibits-sums-up-what-the-elite-think-about-you-and-your-family/

“Again, eugenics didn’t end when it fell out of favor during World War II; it was simply forced to go underground. It got renamed and buried in what they hope would sound like more benign scientific areas, like genetics, human ecology, and bioethics. The Rockefeller Foundation and other elite family foundations quietly continued their quest for population control of the general “riff raff” through different means.”

https://thereisnodebt.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/the-final-curtain-learning-to-see-and-know-of-the-unimaginable-or/

Share

The Public And Private Lands Ownership Con Game Revisited

Think you own the public lands?

Who would want to be a co owner, risking their own private property and goods, being part of the national collateral, or even being “president” CEO, of a corporation, any corporation, with a financial portfolio such as this, the U.S. corporations national debt is at $19 trillion with unfunded liabilities of $123.3 trillion. Sounds kinda risky to me.. Hmmmm… NO THANKS!

the UNITED STATES the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
(all capital letters–a fiction–a corporation) the United States of America the United States (intent or defined to be the corporate US), a ” Corporation” with a legislature was established, with all the apparatus of a distinct government created (Incorporated) by (Presidential) Legislative Act, February 21, 1871 Forty-first Congress, Session III, Chapter 62, page 419

On June 20, 1874, the President with advice of Senate abolished and replaced the 1871 government with a commission consisting of three persons. 18 Stat. at L. 116, chap. 337

A subsequent act approved June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. at L. 102, chap. 180) was enacted stating that the District of Columbia should ‘remain and continue a municipal corporation,’ as provided in 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to said District
(brought forward from the act of 1871)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. CAMDEN IRON WORKS, 181 U.S. 453 (1901)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/181/453/case.html

METROPOLITAN R CO v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 132 U.S. 231 (1889)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/132/1/case.html

Corporate Officers
“… But by the Act of June 11, 1878 (20 Stat. chap. 180), a permanent form of government for the District was established. It provided …and that the commissioners therein provided for should be deemed and taken as officers of such corporation.”
The District of Columbia v. Henry E. Woodbury, 136 U.S. 472 (1890)

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/dccases/woodbury.htm

“United States” is the “District of Columbia” incorporated. “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State” Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785, Also: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287

In UNITED STATES CODE, Title 28, in Section 3002 Definitions, it states the following:
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;

So, anyone want to explain to us how, 300+ million contractual “person” sub contractors contracting with a superior corporation, are really the owners of it all. Every other corporate model around the world is the exact opposite. This one’s special. Go to work this morning and fire all those CEO’s. I wanna watch. Since none of you hold title to anything showing ownership of this corporate model, who does?

The States and it’s inhabitants claim this land as theirs, patriots claim they have allodial title to the land. How can this be when they never owned it to begin with?

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

The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the sixth article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783, in the same manner as those of natural persons; and their title, thus protected, it confirmed by the ninth article of the Treaty of 1794, so that is could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding for the defect of alienage.” The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. (Footnote-annotated, Definitive Treaty of Peace).

“The capacity of private individuals (British subjects), or of corporations, created by the crown, in this country, or in Great Britain, to hold lands or other property in this country, WAS NOT affected by the revolution. The proper courts in this country will interfere to prevent an abuse of the trusts confided to British corporations holding lands here to charitable uses, and will aid in enforcing the due execution of the trusts; but neither those courts, nor the local legislature where the lands lie, can adjudge a forfeiture of the franchises of the foreign corporation, or of its property. The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the 6th article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 in the same manner as those of natural persona; and their title, thus protected, is confirmed by the 9th article of the Treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding, for the defect of alienage. The termination of a treaty, by war, DOES NOT divest rights of property already vested under it. Nor do treaties, in general, become extinguished, ipso facto, by war between the two governments. Those stipulating for a permanent arrangement of territorial, and other national rights, are, at most, suspended during the war, and revive at the peace, unless they are waived by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made.” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.

“….Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government — they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation — the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have they may have it from Spain, they may have it from Prussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.” Edmund Burke, speech on conciliation with America, pages 71-72, March 22, 1775.

 

Share

No More Fake News

Share

The United States is still a British Colony Revisited

 

“It has been many years since the first time I read this as hundreds of other articles and subjects have served to divert my attention from the most informative and convincing of them all. Since foul political manipulations are like rotting flesh and give off detestable odors, one should rely on their sense of smell to guide their mind to the source. This master-piece of research is really all one needs to locate the rotten corpse. Now you will know what, where, when, why, and how we are living in a Nation Beguiled. Since the cultural Marxists who dominate so much of American politics, the media and the universities have captured our attention with trivial lies and exaggerations in an insane effort to keep our minds off the obvious location of tyranny, we must now concentrate on the truth. I have only one suggestion for the fastest total comprehension, and that is to read part 3 first. Read it and weep, it’s damning evidence of our apathy!”

Originally by James Montgomery.

The trouble with history is, we weren’t there when it took place and 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 and don’t let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect teaching, keep you from the truth.

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

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

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

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

“Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.” Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that “a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown.”….”in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire.”

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

-CITE-

26 USC Sec. 1491

HEAD-

Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax

-STATUTE-

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

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

(2) the sum of –

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

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

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

-MISC1-

AMENDMENTS

1978 – Pub. L. 95-600 substituted ‘estate or trust’ for ‘trust’ wherever appearing.

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

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

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

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

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT

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

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following is the definition of tribute (tax).

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

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

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

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

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

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

The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815.

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

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

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

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

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

The Carolina Charter, 1663 footnote #5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the following quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the internet, address can be made available.

Council of State

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

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

“The other council, more generally to be called by the governor, once yearly, and no oftener, but for very extraordinary and important occasions, shall consist for the present, of the said council of state, and of two burgesses out of every town, hundred, or other particular plantation, to be respectively chosen by the inhabitants: which council shall be called The General Assembly, wherein (as also in the said council of state) all matters shall be decided, determined, and ordered by the greater part of the voices then present; reserving to the governor always a negative voice. And this general assembly shall have free power, to treat, consult, and conclude, as well of all emergent occasions concerning the public weal of the said colony and every part thereof, as also to make, ordain, and enact such general laws and orders, for the behoof of the said colony, and the good government thereof, as shall, from time to time, appear necessary or requisite;…” An Ordinance and Constitution of the Virginia Company in England. Footnote #4
The job of the 1st Council of State was to make sure the governor followed the king’s wishes. The 2nd was the general assembly, the laws they passed had to conform to the king’s law.

Read the following quote:

Whereas in all other things, we require the said general assembly, as also the said council of state, to imitate and follow the policy of the form of government, laws, customs, and manner of trial, and other administration of justice, used in the realm of England, as near as may be even as ourselves, by his majesty’s letters patent, are required.
Provided, that no law or ordinance, made in the said general assembly, shall be or continue in force or validity, unless the same shall be solemnly ratified and confirmed, in a general quarter court of the said company here in England, and so ratified, be returned to them under our seal; it being our intent to afford the like measure also unto the said colony, that after the government of the said colony shall once have been well framed, and settled accordingly, which is to be done by us, as by authority derived from his majesty, and the same shall have been so by us declared, no orders of court afterwards, shall bind the said colony, unless they be ratified in like manner in the general assemblies. In witness whereof we have hereunto set our common seal the 24th of July, 1621. . . .An Ordinance and Constitution of the Virginia Company in England. footnote #4
The Council of State still exists to day, although it has been modified several times. The first major change came in the 1776, North Carolina Constitution, read the below quotes:

“That the senate and house of commons, jointly, at their first meeting, after each annual election, shall, by ballot, elect seven persons to be a council of state for one year; who shall advise the governor in the execution of his office; and that four members shall be a quorum; their advice and proceedings shall be entered in a journal, to be kept for that purpose only, and signed by the members present; to any part of which any member present may enter his dissent. And such journal shall be laid before the general assembly when called for by them.” footnote #9
“The governor, for the time being, shall have power to draw for and apply such sums of money as shall be voted by the general assembly, for the contingencies of government, and be accountable to them for the same. He also may, by and with the advice of the council of state, lay embargoes, or prohibit the exportation of any commodity, for any term not exceeding thirty days, at any one time in the recess of the general assembly; and shall have the power of granting pardons and reprieves, except where the prosecution shall be carried on by the general assembly, or the law shall otherwise direct; in which case, he may, in the recess, grant a reprieve until the next sitting of the general assembly; and he may exercise all the other executive powers of government, limited and restrained, as by this constitution is mentioned, and according to the laws of the State. And, on his death, inability, or absence from the State, the speaker of the senate, for the time being, and in case of his death, inability, or absence from the State, the speaker of the house of commons, shall exercise the powers of government, after such death, or during such absence or inability of the governor, or speaker of the senate, or until a new nomination is made by the general assembly.” footnote #9
“That, in every case, where any officer, the right of whose appointment is, by this constitution, vested in the general assembly, shall, during their recess, die, or his office by other means become vacant, the governor shall have power, with the advice of the council of State, to fill up such vacancy, by granting a temporary commission, which shall expire at the end of the next session of the general assembly.” footnote #9
Also take notice who was not allowed to serve as Council of State:

“That no treasurer shall have a seat, either in the senate, house of commons, or council of state, during his continuance in that office, or before he shall have finally settled his accounts with the public, for all the moneys which may be in his hands, at the expiration of his office, belonging to the State, and hath paid the same into the hands of the succeeding treasurer.”
“That no officer in the regular army or navy, in the service and pay of the United States, of this State or any other State, nor any contractor or agent for supplying such army or navy with clothing or provisions, shall have a seat either in the senate, house of commons, or council of state, or be eligible thereto; and any member of the senate, house of commons, or council of state, being appointed to,and accepting of such office, shall thereby vacate his seat.”
“That no member of the council of state shall have a seat, either in the senate or house of commons.”
“That no secretary of this State, attorney-general, or clerk of any court of record, shall have a seat in the senate, house of commons, or council of state.” footnote #9
The king continued to rule through the Council of State until several things were in place, his bank, his laws and tradition. The king succeeded by the acceptance of the American people that they were free, along with the whole of our history not being taught in our schools. The next change to the Council of State came at the conquest of this country, I referred to this in part 1, and in A Country Defeated In Victory.

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

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

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

The Federal Reserve, Taxes and Tax Court

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

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

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

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

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

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

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

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

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

Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

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

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

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

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

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

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MY DREAM

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

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

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

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

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

Keep in mind you cannot control your dreams. Does God Almighty still communicate through dreams as he did with George Washington? The Bible makes it clear He does. Whether this dream is a product of uncontrolled imagination while asleep, or insight from the Holy Spirit, I will only say, let history decide. I am satisfied of the dreams origin, because of its fulfillment through recent knowledge, that wasn’t known at that time. I hope you will read the rest of the documentation in the footnotes following this commentary.

External Links

Footnote #1 – Chronology of North Carolina Governors and Original Virginia Colony, page 15

Footnote #2 – Virginia Charter, 1609, page 18

Footnote #3 – Virginia Charter, 1621, page 27

Footnote #4 – Charter creating the Council of State,1621, page 29

Footnote #5 – Carolina Charter, 1663, page 31

Footnote #6 – Carolina Charter granting Proprietorship to eight lords, 1669, page 42

Footnote #7 – Florida Charter, 1763, page 65

Footnote #8 – Hudson Bay Charter, 1670, page 69

Footnote #9 – North Carolina Constitution,1776, page 80

Footnote #10 – North Carolina Constitution, 1789, and latter amendments, page 88

Footnote #11 – Congressional Record, page 127

PART 3
Will the real government please stand up!
After writing British Colony parts 1 and 2, I was amazed how some people react, when confronted with information that goes against their prior programming. It is as if to even consider the possibility that their belief system may be incorrect, was a threat to their mental well being. They were going to deny any truth that threatens their belief structure. The good news is those with such a reaction were of the minority. This is promising, because it shows Americans can still think past years of incomplete teaching, concerning our history. Those in the negative believe the information had to be bogus and they could not believe the government could wrong them.

So this third part is for them, to show them that government has and does lie to them and violates their trust on major issues. As always this information and supporting documents, are given so the reader can form their own opinion. Other writers, I will mention one since he uses a pen name, the Informer, has also done extensive research on this subject and has been forced to come to the same conclusions. (Check out the latest work of the Informer, his new book called, THE NEW HISTORY OF AMERICA.)

The information the Informer and I have found is so clear and undeniable, even the doubting thomas’ will have to face reality. Not to make us right, but for America to become aware of lost history, that neither of us formed, but are willing to be criticized in its reporting to correct great error.
Addendum
I will begin with the touch stone of the patriot community, the Fourteenth Amendment. Everyone knows about the citizenship issue. I raised another issue concerning the 4th section of the Fourteenth Amendment in British Colony part 1, and issues regarding sec. 3, in court documents found in Footnote 13. Doubting thomas’ think this is a conspiracy theory.In the new propaganda movie called “Conspiracy Theory”, the establishment wants you to think that anyone that believes there is someone behind the scenes calling the shots is mentally unbalanced. What the doubting thomas’ do not realize, is this is a big puzzle and is hard to recognize, and can be incorrectly viewed. The biggest problem is, it can be put together more than one way, totally changing its appearance and outcome. The doubting thomas’ may say how is it you think you have the correct pieces? My answer is, I shoot a lot of archery, in archery you shoot for the bullseye, not the less important areas outside the bullseye. You have to stay focused on what are the core issues, not the side issues/collateral issues, where valuable time is lost. I conduct my research in this way. Two, I rely on God Almighty to keep me pointed in the right direction. Three, I always tell you not to take my word without checking the subject out for yourself. Most people if plagued with a recurring headache, take a pain reliever, and the headache appears to go away. When in fact all you have done is deal with a symptom, that caused the headache. You have not dealt with the cause. Many patriots today are dealing with the symptoms, like taxes, driving v. traveling and the zipcode, etc. etc. All are important issues and have their place, but they are not the root cause of our problem. Until the cause of the affliction is researched, exposed and then removed, nothing will change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Presidential Proclamation No. 153,

General Records of the United States,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas rejected the 14th Amendment on October 27, 1866
(House Journal 1866, pp. 578-584 – Senate Journal 1866, p.471.).
Georgia rejected the 14th Amendment on November 9, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p 68 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).
Florida rejected the 14th Amendment on December 6, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p 76 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 8.).
Alabama rejected the 14th Amendment on December 7, 1866
(House Journal 1866. p. 210-213 – Senate Journal 1866, p.183.).
North Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 14, 1866
(House Journal 1866 – 1867. p. 183 – Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 138.).
Arkansas rejected the 14th Amendment on December 17, 1866
(House Journal 1866, pp. 288-291 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 262.).
South Carolina rejected the 14th Amendment on December 20, 1866
(House Journal 1866, p. 284 – Senate Journal 1866, p. 230.).8. Kentucky rejected the 14th Amendment on January 8, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 60 – Senate Journal 1867, p. 62.).
Virginia rejected the 14th Amendment on January 9, 1867
(House Journal 1866-67, p. 108 – Senate Journal 1866-67, p. 101.).
Louisiana rejected the 14th Amendment on February 9, 1867
(“Joint Resolution” as recorded on page 9 of the “Acts of the General Assembly,” Second Session, January 28, 1867) (McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 194; “Annual Encyclopedia,” p. 452.).
Delaware rejected the 14th Amendment on February 7, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 223 – Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).
Maryland rejected the 14th Amendment on March 23, 1867
(House Journal 1867, p. 1141 – Senate Journal 1867, p. 808.).
Mississippi rejected the 14th Amendment on January 31, 1867
(McPherson, “Reconstruction,” p. 194.).
Ohio rejected the 14th Amendment on January 15, 1868
(House Journal 1868, pp. 44-50 – Senate Journal 1868, pp. 33-38.).
New Jersey rejected the 14th Amendment on March 24, 1868
(“Minutes of the Assembly” 1868, p. 743 – Senate Journal 1868, p. 356.).
California rejected the 14th Amendment on March 3rd, 1868
(“Journal of the Assembly” 1867-8, p. 601).
Oregon rejected the 14th Amendment by the Senate on October 6, 1868 and by the House on October 15, 1868 proclaiming the Legislature that ratified the Amendment to have been a “defacto” Legislature (U.S. House of Representatives, 40th Congress, 3rd session, Mis. Doc. No 12).
Did the military occupation ever come to an end? No!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GO FIGURE????

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

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

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

Social Security number – license to work.
Drivers license – permission to conduct commerce and travel on the military roads.
Occupational license – permission to perform a God given right.
State and local privilege license – license to work in the State, county or city.
Marriage license – permission for a right granted by God Almighty.
Hunting and Fishing license – government taxing property of God Almighty, etc.etc.etc.
Every license or permit is a use tax and is financial slavery, you are controlled in every aspect of your life. All licenses came about after the Fourteenth Amendment and the military occupation, which we are now under. The reason all this has taken place in America is, to colonize the world for Britain. The United States has been the enforcement arm/cannon fodder for Britain since the Civil War.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Share

I’m Spartacus

 

Kings that build kingdoms need subjects. Subjects need liberty=rights=privileges granted them by the Kings. Citizen=subject=slave=animal. King nation builders = Sovereigns..So they build a corporate model which is their intellectual property and they tricked the average man into joining their Kingdom=community by contracting with their corporate kingdom thus becoming their human resource subject subjugated to their corporate authority. In the beginning it can be pretty nice yet as the kings administer their management of their corporate creation the subjects are eventually subjugated to more and more rules and less and less liberty rights privileges. This has happened several times in history and has happened to the United States Corporation. This man made RICO operation has nothing to do with your natural GOD GIVEN Freewill that unfortunately the majority of men and women are in confusion about. You average man have been conned since birth. They have contracted you into slavery and they have legally identified you as their property by renaming what you are, as a human, individual, PERSON, a corporate entity, as homo sapiens. There are other definitions as well, citizen, subject and the loathed slave just an animal. What has occurred is a transfer of property, man being the intellectual property of another, your Creator GOD cannot be claimed by these man made entities. The man must be deceived into surrendering his true identity and entering into contract with these kingdoms. This corporation is multi national, it is the various nations within the United Nations. All under the control of the Whore of Revelation. So when you rebel and demand your liberty, your rights that they have designed for you, you’re demanding more slavery. Because it is their creation, their corporation thus their intellectual property. Its no different than going into your bosses office at work and telling him how he is going to treat you in his place of business.  He just points to the door and say’s you’re fired.  These kings ignore you until you get a few followers then they crush you, even kill you. This crap has been going on all throughout world history. Nothing has changed in world history except they’ve learned to disguise the slavery almost perfectly. Maybe you’ve seen the movie Spartacus, or other rebellions revolutions and civil wars. Wars which were expensive thus they designed the perfectly disguised system of slavery which is why only a few discover it and attempt to expose it. What is needed is reconciliation with our True King the author of the book of Mathew in the New Testament. Only He will end this slavery. Only He will repair HIS Earth..

Share

The Constitution Delusion

The "Constitution" Delusion - Part I



ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST

by James Hazel

You will find the enclosed articles, published under the Masthead of
THE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST, to be factual and provocative. They raise
disturbing questions concerning the basis of modern government. These
questions MUST BE ANSWERED by individuals who are in search of personal
Liberty. Failure to solve the riddles posed by a bewildering
Constitution can result, at best, in wasted energy and spirit-crushing
frustration. At worst, failure may result in individual tragedies and
collective catastrophe.

But an individual cannot answer questions he does not know how to ask;
or solve riddles of which he is unaware. That’s where you come in! It’s
important that these questions, issues and "riddles" be brought to the
attention of numerous Americans. 

It is essential that a dialogue begin to take place concerning the
intentions and covert motives behind the Constitution; and of that
instrument’s real purposes, as well as its grave, deleterious effects
throughout the history of America. Many of the issues raised in my
enclosed articles, have NEVER BEEN ARTICULATED BEFORE!
These are indeed novel, CUTTING EDGE CONCEPTS. As you will soon realize
-- they are well-documented; and you may wonder why no one, in over 200
years, has raised them before. You will find one answer to that
question in 'THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GULLIBILITY,' which is included herein. 

For the benefit of your subscribers and readers, I urge you to reprint
any or all of the enclosed ANTI-CONSTITUTIONALIST articles that you
find of interest. I will appreciate your giving appropriate credit for
the source. 

I also publish some powerful, mind-boggling, and thoroughly- documented
reviews and commentaries -- for details, contact: James Hazel, P.O. Box
863, Mount Angel, OR 97362. 

I Thank you in advance for taking the time to examine and review the
enclosures. But be forewarned: they may knock your socks off! 

THAT CUNNING CONSTITUTION On September 17, 1787, thirty-nine clever
businessmen proposed a Constitution for the United States of America.
Today, those 39 men are memorialized as the Founding Fathers. A more
perfect title for the consortium would be the Fleecing Fathers! 

With unparalleled conceit, they styled themselves: "We, the People of
the United States." Never before in history had there been a legal body
named "the People of the United States." In the Union of Independent
States, under the Articles of Confederation, there were citizens of a
State and residents or inhabitants of a State, but no collective status
named People of a State or of States. The Fleecing Fathers coined the
name for themselves. Their motives were as sinister as the Constitution
they tagged after their new name; after:
"We, the People of the United States, in Order to Form a More Perfect
Union..." 

The Charter they crafted was as hallucinatory [emphasis added] as a
President’s State of the Union address; wordsmithed to appear
innocuous, but in language calculated to slash, kill and indenture the
innocents who are lulled to sleep by euphonic rhetoric.

Their proposed constitution was advertised as the blueprint for eternal
bliss; for peace, safety and order for all free men then living, and
for their generations ad infinitum.

BUT IN FACT, it provided for that constitution to be a commercial
establishment; to be erected in an unapproachable place, above, around,
but most particularly BETWEEN the wealthy States of the Union whose
names it plagiarized. The face of the Preamble and the seven Articles
of Incorporation literally reveal to whom the profits and benefits are
assigned: to the Fleecing Fathers (We, the People) and their linear
descendants. 

Did you think the Constitution was a Warm, Fuzzy Sacred Puppy!? 

LITTLE KNOWN FACTS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION 1. "We, the People of the
United States" includes ONLY those 39 men who signed the Constitution
on September 27, 1787. 

2. The only Public Authority vested in the 39 Signers was to "propose
amendments to the Articles of Confederation." In 1781, those Articles
of Confederation had established a perpetual Union of States. 

3. The Constitution established an entirely different Union, without
abolishing the perpetual Union. Its authors did not propose amendments
to the Articles of Confederation. They acted individually and
collectively in their private capacity. 

4. The Constitution is a private-law instrument which establishes a
commercial monopoly. Its primary "place of business" or Seat of
Government is between and above the States of the perpetual Union. 

5. The Constitution does not act directly on citizens of the States in
perpetual Union except on those citizens who voluntarily or tacitly
consented to be subject to its terms. 

6. The perpetual Union consisted of only those 13 sovereign States
which joined under the Articles of Confederation. No other States have
ever been added to that Union. 

7. All 50 "states," which are members of the "United States" pursuant
to the Constitution, are all "new States" or "statuses"; including the
original 13 state-names; surreptitiously appropriated from the 13
States in perpetual Union. 

8. Inhabitants, citizens or residents of the 37 district-states which
have been admitted to the different, more perfect Union by the
Congress, since the first 13 new States were admitted in 1789, have no
standing to claim the rights which are reserved to citizens of the
sovereign States in perpetual Union. They may claim their Natural
Birthrights, with no organized government to support and adjudicate
their claims. Or they may claim the puny, revocable privileges offered
by the Constitution in exchange for their allegiance and servile
servitude. 

THE CONSTITUTION: BLUEPRINT FOR HUMAN BONDAGE The 39 authors of the
Constitution, resorted to virtually every editorial trick in the book
to draft an instrument which would enable them, and their heirs, to
enslave whoever would dare cross, or be born into, their private
es-State. 

The instrument is all about enslaving the mass of men under the
euphemism of voluntary servitude. To interpret their motives and
methods, we examine the Corporate Articles which concern human slavery:
Article I, Section 9, Clauses 1, 4 and 5, and Article V (which refers
to Article I, Section 9). The most pertinent Clause of Article I,
provided as follows: 

"The Migration or importation of such Persons as any of the States now
existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the
Congress prior to the Year 1808, but a tax or duty may be imposed on
such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person." 

The 39 inventors of the Private Commercial Constitution were not
concerned with eventually abolishing slavery of black men, but with
extending coercive servitude to include ALL men other than themselves
and their posterity, while collecting a tax on import and export of
slaves, for the corporate coffer. 

As provided by Article VII, the Constitution was erected as an
Establishment (i.e., a place of business or commerce) on imaginary
lines ABOVE and BETWEEN the States which would ratify or agree to it,
and which would thereby collectively grant the 39 "We, the People" the
private corporate charter they proposed and applied for.
Having acquired absolute jurisdiction over the "places" drawn by
imaginary lines; they thereafter had the right to charge tolls, fees,
duties or taxes for any person or thing that may cross their private
property. 

Other provisions, including provision for establishing the corporate
headquarters in a district (of Columbia), situated between states; and
the promulgation of new Articles (known as the "13th and 14th
amendments"), with their prolific byelaws, made completion of their
scheme of mass enslavement, possible. 

DECODING THE MOTHER OF ALL RIDDLES When is this Union not the Union? 

In the Preamble of their Corporate Charter, known affectionately as the
Constitution for the United States of America, the Fleecing Fathers
voiced their intent to Form a more perfect Union. At first glance, a
literate student might suspect that the authors of the Articles of
Incorporation were unschooled in English Grammar. After all, what
educated person would add to a superlative, as in more perfect? First
impressions, however, are often wrong. 

Were the Fleecing Fathers unskilled in the art and science of writing?
HARDLY! In almost all cases, their expertise in English Grammar far
exceeded that of most modern postgraduates. They were true
symbol-aeographers; persons skilled in the art and cunning of making
legal instruments. 

When subjected to the Fog Index, a scientific process for determining
the complexity of written matter, the Constitution scores at
Grade-Level 26. In other words, comprehension requires 26 years of
formal academic experience! That’s a high school diploma plus 14 years
of graduate and postgraduate education. The authors of the Constitution
were indeed experts in the use of language. Where they said "..Form a
more perfect Union," that’s exactly what they meant! 

The toughest riddles to crack and the most amazing magic tricks, are
those which focus the "victim’s" attention away from the solution.
In the case of the cunning Constitution, its authors pointed to one
Union, while creating an entirely different Union; with word-magic
[emphasis added]. They formulated a riddle that has begged a solution
for over 200 years. 

Illusionists (liars), however carefully they try to conceal evidence,
invariably leave clues by which their delusions can be dissipated. The
Fleecing Fathers were no exception to the Rule of Riddles. 

They referred to three different forms of "Union." In their Preamble
they mentioned "a (more perfect) Union," which referred to "this
Union," mentioned in Article 1-3, and Article 4-3,4. In addition, they
spoke of "the Union" which, where used at Article 1-8-15, refers to the
pre-existing Union of Independent States; and where used at Article
2-3: to the new states which would be admitted into the more perfect
Union. 

For over 200 years, since the ambitious Constitution was proposed (in
1787), the appointed experts and "leaders" -- teachers, preachers and
politicians -- have trained the less-literate human herd in the false
precept that the present "Union" is a continuation of the one which
declared Independence from England in 1776. A literal reading of the
Constitution proves that IT IS NOT a "continuing government." The
present Union, is a fabrication; whose materials are fraud and deceit.
[emphasis added] 

The Preamble of the Constitution acknowledges the Union of States which
existed prior to its execution, and implies that the pre-existing Union
was perfect. And a "Union," which means one and unique (like "I," "Ego"
and "Self") is by definition perfect. An absolute unique thing cannot
logically be made more perfect, any more than it can be made more
unique. 

Not one word of the Fleecing Fathers’ Constitution acts directly on
that pre-established Union. No word repeals or abolishes that Union,
nor expands nor limits its jurisdiction. The Constitution merely
plagiarizes its name as a cunning means of exploiting and confiscating
the resources of the Several Lawful States; and converting their
citizens and inhabitants into human resources for the profit of the
Authors and their Posterity. 

As revealed in their Preamble, they arranged their Union in Order,
after and above the sequence of the Union which they usurped.
"When is THIS Union not the Union?" Solution: When the Union is the
original, lawful Union. 

A MOUSE IN BEN’S POCKET [from Joshua Mouse's Notes On the
Constitutional Convention] 

A cabal of businessmen, mostly Free Masons, met in secret sessions.
They were charged, as their respective credentials stated, to propose
amendments to the Articles of Confederation. They soon adopted a
different, more sinister agenda. 

In their public capacity, authorized by the Legislatures of several
independent States "to amend or revise the Articles of Confederation";
they were obligated to Convene in Public. 

But Secret Societies, by definition and necessity, meet in secret. As
for business or commercial negotiations, especially those which involve
trade secrets: the historical Maxim is that it’s nobody else’s
business. The fact that the Free Press and the general public were
barred from the Convention, raised many hackles and suspicions.
Patrick Henry, from his vantage point outside the bar, in Virginia,
thought he smelt a rat. 

The year was 1787. The place: Philadelphia’s State House. Security was
tight. A pundit was heard to exclaim: "Nary a mouse could breech the
guard." But one did. His name was Joshua. His notes read (in pertinent
part) as follows: 

JUNE 23, 1787, 2 O’clock P.M. -- The argument between Mason and
Hamilton wearied the Master, who called a recess. 

B. Franklin, G. Washington and A. Hamilton retired to the table near my
post, discretely distant from the others. Grasping fast my notepad, I
scurried into the generous pocket of Franklin’s coat to better hear,
while taking repast of crumbs his careless valet had missed on last
cleaning. 

GW: To continue the conversation began over dinner last night: of this
I am certain: to indenture the common herd to serve us like our black
slaves, will require their tacit consent. We must therefore devise an
instrument that they will unanimously misperceive to be in their best
interests, over our own. It must appear to be not only for them, but
more importantly, deriving from, of and by the common people, while the
ultimate power is reserved to us. 

AH: (Addressing Franklin): The proposition of our friend and lodge
Brother, George, deserves our most profound scrutiny and assistance. If
General Washington’s martial talents are excelled by others, it is his
experience and expertise in Agriculture; and especially in the
management, breeding, and domestication of black human animals. 

BF: Gentlemen, we have long had before us a model of a contract such as
George advocates. Back in ‘34, when I was a young printer, I published
Anderson’s Constitutions; which established the formal, written
government for the fraternity of Free Masons. Surely you have both
studied it as you have progressed through the Degrees. 

Recall its Article 10, which permits even probates of each Lodge to
merge their opinions with the majority, to be addressed to their
Master. Not, mind you, that the Master need act on the instructions of
the lowly. And consider Article 39, which provides for secret election
of the Grand Master and other officers; with its appearance that Power
lies with the majority; but is silent about the provocateurs who mingle
with it, fomenting the consensus of opinion. 

In combination, the Articles of Anderson’s Constitutions establishes a
government which superficially appears to be of, by and for the general
Lodge membership, but which in their legal language make all meaningful
power to reside in the hands of the Ruling Elite. 

Anderson’s is an exemplary model for accomplishing what George
proposes; that is: drawing the labor of all inhabitants, of every race
-- with the exception of ourselves and our posterity-- into a condition
of tacitly-consensual servitude; to be human resources for our eternal
Agri-Business. 

(Old Ben pushed a soiled handkerchief into my sanctuary. The discussion
continued for several more minutes; but muffled to my ear). 

I scampered from Franklin’s coat as the threesome arose, and resumed my
post near the woodpile. 

A. Hamilton received permission to address the Convention.
"Gentlemen," he began, "I propose a new form of government; a proposal
which will end our impasse and which, I predict, will garner the
unanimous approval of the governed..." 

THE NEW STATES OF AMERICA Constitutionalists are Constitutionalists
because they are confused.
All it takes for one to become a fervent Anti-Constitutionalist is A
BRIEF MOMENT OF CLARITY. This may be that moment! 

The typical Constitutionalist adheres religiously to the false tenet
that the Constitution provided for a continuing government for those
thirteen sovereign States which comprised the Union under the Articles
of Confederation. In other words, the Doctrine alleges that upon
ratification of the Constitution, those 13 States came into the more
perfect Union, lock, stock and barrel. 

In fact, only the NAMES of those 13 States were admitted into the more
perfect Union! After the new, different Union was established with the
admission of the first 13 names, the perpetual Union between the
Confederated States under the Articles of Confederation, continued to
exist. Neither the boundaries, sovereignty nor jurisdiction of any of
the Original States was altered or abolished.
And they exist today. Perpetuity is much longer than 200 years! 

The first 13 names to enter the more perfect Union were each admitted
under authority of Article IV, Section 3, of that Sacred Writ; that
Corporate Commercial Charter to which so many fools pledge their lives
and honor: the Constitution for the United States of America. It
states: 

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new
State shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of another
(perpetual Union) State; nor any (new) State be formed by the Junction
of two or more (new) States, or parts of (new) States, without the
Consent of the Legislatures of the (new) States concerned as well as of
the Congress." 

We, the People, those 39 inventors of the more perfect Union, lacked
authority to act on the Sovereign States of the Confederation.
Therefore, each reference they made to "any State or States," referred
only to their New States - to names or Statuses. The Original States,
under the Articles of Confederation, remained intact and sovereign;
associated in an unique perpetual Union. 

By the explicit terms of the Charter (at Article IV, Section 3, above),
no new Name or Status (State) admitted into the more perfect Union,
could bring with it any jurisdiction (power and authority) of any
perpetual Union State. 

Article IV, Section 3, provides that new States "may be admitted by the
Congress into this Union." The Unanimous Order of the Convention,
issued simultaneous with the signing of the proposed Constitution,
provided that the Congress and President be selected and installed
BEFORE the terms of the Constitution, including the admission of any
States, would be executed. 

Before approving admission of new names or statuses (States) into
nominal, inferior membership; the "Chairman" (President) and “Board of
Directors” who were charged with enacting the bylaws (the Congress),
must be installed. 

All new members, names, statuses (States), beginning with the first 13,
were admitted only by approval of the pre-installed Congress. 

The "United States of America" under the commercial Constitution is a
clever forgery, which appropriates not only the names of lawful States
in perpetual Union under the Articles of Confederation, but even the
name of that pre-existing Union, itself! 

The Constitution is a gigantic fraud, perpetrated upon generations of
trusting and gullible inhabitants of North America. It doesn’t benefit
me; and it doesn’t benefit YOU, unless you are a direct descendant of
one of the 39 Fleecing Fathers. It is fit only for docile and
domesticated herd animals who do not object to being bred, harnessed
and milked for the profit of a privileged few. 

I have recorded here only one of the deceitful webs woven in that
commercial charter. There are many, many more. To ferret them out for
yourself you need only read the Constitution literally; as all legal
instruments must be interpreted. 

THE PSYCHOLOGY OF GULLIBILITY [Why Otherwise Intelligent People
Slavishly Support a Constitution They Don’t Understand.] 

At first glance, the impartial scientific observer discovers in the
Constitution what appear to be gross inconsistencies in Language and
grammar. But on closer inspection he finds they are not inconsistencies
or typos after all, but are in fact evidence of an underlying sinister
nature and intent. 

To offer up only one of dozens of examples, many of which have even
more grave implications than our instant sample: 

Article VI, Section 2, mentions "the Laws of the United States,"
providing that they shall constitute one-third of "the supreme Law of
the Land." That’s pretty heavy stuff, with no room for ambiguity! But
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, mentions different Laws which, not
being the Laws of the United States, are deemed inferior. Those
inferior Laws are the Laws which the Militia may be called forth to
execute. They are "the Laws of the Union." 

The Apologist for the Constitution and its authors, the Fleecing
Fathers, will allege that those giant, highly-educated minds used the
United States and the Union interchangeably, and that they mean one and
the same thing. THEY DON’T! In fact, "the United States" and "the
Union," as legal entities, are as different as black and white or night
and day! They are not literally the same. And in the context of
history, they are as dissimilar as a real person and an artificial
person. 

If the Apologist is wrong and the literal language of the Constitution
is the Legal Reality, what are the implications, beyond confusing the
Hell out of millions of somnambulistic Americans? Consider this: 

While Article I identifies the purpose of the Militia (plural) as being
to execute the (inferior) Laws of the Union, and the unanimously
misconstrued Second Amendment defines the purpose of the Militia as
being necessary to the security of a free State; what does that say
about "the United States" and its supreme Laws? BINGO! Of Course! -
"the United States" is an UN-FREE STATE, and pre-existing States of the
Union (that unique, perpetual legal entity under the preexisting
Articles of Confederation) and the Laws thereof, are the free States
which the Militia is charged with defending. 

As these words are written the confused members of the many upstart
"Citizen Militia" (respectively singular) have not yet been slaughtered
or taken as prisoners by the Armed Forces of the United States. (Time
will correct that nonfeasance). To a man, the members of self-appointed
Militia pledge their very lives to the defense and support of the
Constitution... not to the defense of the lawful perpetual Union, and
to the execution of its Laws. No sane and fully-informed Man would
consider supporting a constitution that is unfit for, and designed to
"kill," the natural, inborn freedom of Men and Women.
What psychological imperatives drive people to commit their minds and
bodies to such delusions? The following analogy should suffice to get
the point across: A certain child acts like a perfect angel at home;
well-mannered, ingratiating, studious and seemingly empathetic. But
when out of his mother’s line of vision, he is a budding sociopath. He
steals from cons and manipulates everyone in his destructive path. He
is the veritable Bad Seed. To the casual observer, he is a classic
schizophrenic; a split or dual personality.
But in fact his real personality is sociopathic. The personality he
presents to his mother is superficial, merely an appearance. 

Mother isn’t completely stupid. She sees inconsistencies between her
child’s at-home and away personas. There are the unexplained fruits of
them that appear in the child’s room. There are the "hateful rumors" of
mutilation of small animals, spread by neighbors. 

But Mother ignores the "inconsistencies," and gives the benefit of the
doubt to her sweet, precocious child. After all SHE is Good. She knows
that. And therefore, her child, however poorly she understands his
nature, must also be Good. He is, after all, a child that derives of
her, by her and in the universal view, for the Mother. Protecting,
supporting and defending her offspring (like supporting a misunderstood
constitution) is an emotional necessity having nothing to do with
reason and logic. 

It’s one thing, and as excusable as it is understandable, to permit
one’s emotion to rule in matters concerning his progeny. But where
legal instruments are concerned, which can result in our death,
deprivation, imprisonment or other restraints on our birthrights to
Liberty; we dare not suspend our reason, logic, common sense and
capacity for CRITICAL ANALYSIS! 

Editor’s Comments: In regarding the pretended "perpetual Union" created
by the so-called "Articles of Confederation" as lawful, Mr.
Hazel makes a serious error. As Lysander Spooner effectively indicated
in 'No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority,' all supposed
"constitutions" are instruments of fraud and deception. This applies as
much to the pretended "Articles of Confederation" as it applies to the
falsely-called "U.S. Constitution." 

The spinners of all supposed "constitutions" are spiders spinning webs
of illusion, delusion, and hallucination!
Share

Antonin Scalia INVESTIGATION: STAGED MURDER OR REAL MURDER, Searching Out Discrepancies

Share