Wednesday, May 30, 2018
1053-1055 Definitions Related to Civil Death
By Anna Von Reitz
Definitions Related to Civil Death --
From the 1870 Bouvier’s Law Dictionary: the ONLY Law Dictionary approved by the U.S. Congress...
Please note--- when a living being
"elects" to be "enfranchised" as a franchise of a parent corporation and
receives a "charter", such a one becomes "civilly dead". This is what
the rats have endeavored to do by falsifying the public records and
claiming that every baby in America is a [Territorial] United States
Citizen dba "citizen of the United States".
DEED: “The written evidence of things done between MAN and MAN.”
IN FULL LIFE: “Neither physically nor civilly DEAD.”
IN ESSE: “In being. In existence.”
CIVILITER MORTUUS: “ Civilly DEAD.
In a state of civil DEATH. The condition of ONE who has lost his civil
rights and is accounted DEAD in law.”
CIVIL DEATH: “That change of state of a person which is considered in the law as equivalent to DEATH.”
This is why the vermin pretend they
can't hear you. Just imagine the judges putting their hands over their
ears and saying, "I can't hear you! You're dead! Waaah!"
And then know for a fact, that the
Queen, Elizabeth II, has described your given Christian Name in the
form: John Mark Doe --- as a "disregarded entity". This is because "he"
was declared civilly dead and discharged in the settlement of the
bankruptcy of the Territorial corporation dba the "United States of
America" Inc.
DEATH: “The cessation of LIFE. The ceasing to exist.”
Henceforth: “Ye must be born again...”: John 3 KJV.
This is not a reference,
necessarily, to taking a new name, because a name is just a material
possession your parents gave to you for your use, in the same sense
someone might give you a shovel. No, this is far more than just taking
a new name or retaining an old one. This is a matter of taking back
your lawful "in full life" standing as a Living Being, a Living Soul
clothed in physical body, and apart from worldly definitions which seek
to redefine you so as to control and profit from you.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1000 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
Reply to "A KIng's Charter Which Refuses to Die"
By Anna Von Reitz
My comments in reply to this latest "close but no banana" analysis of historical documents are shown in slightly larger bold print. This is what happens when people either do not know "the Code" or choose not to. Either way, the result is the same. We miss the Truth.
It is interesting to note that the
interpretation Mr. Montgomery gives to this argument which is basically
in support of the King's claim to the [Territorial] United States which
was never at issue, is precisely the same argument that understands our
claims in the same regard ---- land held in trust like assets possessed
by pirates --- does not change ownership.
I would like to start by thanking Pete Stern and The Informer for their
continued research and dedication to the American people. Pete deserves
special thanks for finding an annotated copy of the Definitive 1783
Treaty of Peace, The Society wherein he found reference to the Supreme
Court case, for Propagating the Gospel &c v. New Haven, quote from the 8
Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. I will this case and the Chamberlin case
below.
The Newhaven case is a true God-send, it thoroughly confirms The
Informer’s research and my own findings that we are subjects bearing
financial obligation for the debt owed to the king of England and his
heirs and successors, as well as the main party of interest, the Pope.
Which confirms what I said in the following quotes from “The United
States Is Still A British Colony”:-
“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.” (The Feast of
All Saints was celebrated on November 1 each year.) The Carolina
Charter, 1663.
“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.
http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/
I have been declaring this in spite of being slammed by
pro-Constitutionalist patriots, who refuse to accept the facts. The
king is still head of America Inc., the author of its Charters, and the
creator of his cestui que trust. The king continues to be the
benefactor along with his heirs and successors of the largest
corporation in the history of the world. The Pope as well is
co-benefactor with the king, thanks to the king’s concessions of May
15, 1213 to the Pope.
“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter,
furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways
God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to
have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything
worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we
humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate
ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace
of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by
fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common
counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy
apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to
our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole
kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights
and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those of
our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now
receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman
church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of
the household of the lord pope, we perform and swear fealty for them to
him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and
the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence
of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do
liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife
forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who
shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without
demur.” Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.
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 world continues to pay the benefactors of the king’s Charters, for
the king’s investment in America, via taxes. I have got news for you
America, if Conquest, war or the dividing of an Empire cannot pry the
possessions from a Corporate trust, the king never lost or was in
danger of losing his possessions. Also, the king’s money that was in
existence and being used by the states and their inhabitants, prior to
the Revolutionary War, remained the king’s possessions, real property,
on loan to America and her inhabitants, for which the king expected and
demanded his return for his investment, under his corporate Charters
and the trust he set up for his heirs and successors.
Seems to me as a matter of law, a contract entered into voluntarily by
someone voids any conflict or injury to that individual’s rights. The
king always intended to retain his minerals and money, and he knew (as
stated by other quotes in this article) that the barristers would
retain his land under the corporate trust.
Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North
America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782:-
ARTICLE 1
“It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to
the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the
years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum
of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the
following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten
Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit:
1. 28 February 1778 750,000
2. 19 May do 750,000
3. 3 August do 750,000
4. 1 November do 750,000 Total 3,000,000
5. 10 June 1779 250,000
6. 16 September do 250,000
7. 4 October do 250,000
8. 21 December do 250,000 Total 1,000,000
9. 29 February 1780 750,000
10. 23 May do 750,000
11. 21 June do 750,000
12. 5 October do 750,000
13. 27 November do 1,000,000 Total 4,000,000
14. 15 February 1781 750,000
15. 15 May do 750,000
16. 15 August do 750,000
17. 1 August do 1,000,000
18. 15 November do 750,000 Total 4,000,000
19. 10 April 1782 1,500,000
20. 1 July do 1,500,000
21. 5 of the same month 3,000,000 Total 6,000,000
Amounting in the whole to eighteen millions, viz 18, 000, 000.
By which receipts the said Minister has promised, in the name of
Congress and in behalf of the thirteen United States, to cause to be
paid and reimbursed to the royal treasury of His Majesty, on the 1st of
January, 1788, at the house of his Grand Banker at Paris, the said sum
of eighteen millions, money of France, with interest at five per cent
per annum.”
Source: Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of
America. Edited by Hunter Miller Volume 2 Documents 1-40 : 1776-1818
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931.
Notice also folks, this is just one year before the 1783 Treaty of
Peace is signed, the king of France (Rothschilds) made sure his debt
was protected before he signed on to the con of the millennium. The
king of England’s Charter on one side, the Rothschild’s debt
obligations on the other, both vying for a piece of America. The king
of England for his trust, the Rothschilds for their corporate take-over
and control of the king’s trust, the Pope as the main benefactor of
both sides. The Pope remains even further in the background than the
Rothschilds, however he stands to gain no matter what happens.
Here are a few quotes from William Manley German, in a speech to the
House of Commons December 1913.
“….Referring to Canada’s bank acts: I believe the plan outlined
follows the English system, a system applied to the great banks of
England. Mr. White, House of Commons, December 17, 1912, in response to
a question from the Honorable William Manley German. i.e. they were
creating an English system which is to say a Rothschildian cartel….”
“Senator Robert L. Owen continues: “It was not very long until this
information was brought to the Rothschild’s Bank, and they saw that
here was a nation ready to be exploited; here was a nation setting up
an example that they could issue their own money instead of the money
coming through the banks.”
“The Rothschild’s Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the English
Parliament, which provided that no colony of England could issue its
own money.” “Thus, they had to use English money. The colonies were
compelled to discard their money and mortgage themselves to the
Rothchild’s Bank of England to get money.” “Then, for the first time in
the history of the United States, money began to be based on debt.
Benjamin Franklin stated that in one year from that date the streets of
the colonies were filled with the unemployed.”
“Franklin later claimed that this was the real cause of the War of
Independence. He said: “The colonies would gladly have borne the little
tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England and the
Rothschild’s Bank took away from the colonies their money which created
unemployment, dissatisfaction and debt.” William Manley German, in a
speech to the House of Commons December 1913, Brigham Young University,
web site Http://library.byu.edu/~
Nothing changes, the Rothschilds have always played both sides against
each other, they did the same thing during the Civil War, see my
research paper, “A Country Defeated In Victory, parts I & II.”
Before I go any further lets look at the facts that prove the king
never lost his Corporations created by his Charters, or lands held by
his Corporations, by and through the supposed loss of the Revolutionary
War, or the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Peace, or the 1794 Jay
Treaty.
“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.
The king holds the rest of the world to different standards, as does
the Pope. He holds us to the king’s law on trusts and does not apply
the same law to himself, so he can retain his lands and possessions, as
does the Pope, under British-made International law.
“It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of
parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words.
The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or
persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if
they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests.
He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named.
The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally
applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in
the different states, and practically in the Federal courts. It may be
considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as
belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patrioe, or universal
trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the
principles of the British Constitution.” U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S.
250 (1911), “Dollar Sav. Bank v. United States, supra”.
Do the king and the Pope have proper claims to their land holdings? No.
The king’s claim would not exist accept for his barristers (lawyers),
his backers, the bankers, the Pope, via his churches’ land holdings and
financial backing of the early banking families. The reason I also say
no, is fraud and deception are involved. How did the king come by his
claim? By the Conquest of Britain by William the Conqueror in 1066, and
thanks to the Pope’s partnership with England, as trustee for Rome,
working inside of Britain with her Jesuit priests. Conquest does not
change land held in trust. So the lands held by the Brits and trusts
(wills of testament), and traditions of the father’s land going to the
sons, could not be overturned by the Conquest of William the Conqueror.
But even further than that, God Almighty granted to Adam and his
descendants the entire earth, it was given away to Satan, but later
reclaimed by Jesus Christ as the second Adam.
Just as the king held on to his possessions after the Revolutionary War
for his heirs and successors, and just as conquest does not change
ownership of lands and possessions held in trust. The fraud is, the
king is taxing us for a trust he created, based on an earlier conquest.
“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 Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) paper, in the
Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections,
Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under
OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for
dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property
interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign persons,
of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a These codes have since been changed to read
as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for
MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF
300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax
Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the
government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a foreign
tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in financial servitude
since the Treaty of 1783.” The United States Is Still A British Colony,
part I.
It’s a big con. Only God Almighty owns the land, by grant and charter,
also trust, the land is reserved for us and our use. How can you take
that which does not belong to you? It is a shame we could not have
learned from the American Indian, that no man owns the land.
“….In Harden v Fisher, 1 Wheat Rep. 300, which was also under the
Treaty of 1794, this court held that it was not necessary for the party
to show a seisin in fact, or actual possession of the land, but only
that the title was in him, or his ancestors, at the time the treaty was
made….” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat.
464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
“….In Terrett v. Taylor, it was stated that the dissolution of the
regal government, no more destroyed the rights of the church to possess
and enjoy the property which belonged to it, than it did the right of
any other corporation or individual to his or its own property. In the
later case, the Chief Justice, in reference to the corporation of the
college, observes that it is too clear to require the support of
argument, that all contracts and rights respecting property remained
unchanged by the revolution; and the same sentiment was enforce, more
at length, by the other judge who noticed this point in the cause….”
The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5
Cond. Rep. 489.
As a matter of law these treaties were written in such away they could
not be overturned using civil law, so the Revolutionary War changed
nothing concerning the king’s investment and creation of America Inc.
“….His lordship observes that that was a case in which the old
government existed under the King’s charter, and a revolution took
place, though the new government was acknowledged by this country. Yet
it was held, that the property, which belonged to a corporation
existing under the King’s charter, was not transferred to a body which
did not exist under his authority, and, therefore, the fund in this
country was considered to be bona vacantia belonging to the crown….”
The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5
Cond. Rep. 489.
“….The treaty of 1783 forbids all forfeitures on either side. That of
1794 provides that the citizens and subjects of both nations, holding
lands (thereby strongly implying that there were no forfeitures by the
revolution), shall continue to hold, according to the tenure of their
estates; that they may sell and devise them; and shall not, so far as
respects these lands and the legal remedies to obtain them, be
considered as aliens. In the case Kelly v. Harrison, 2 Johns. cas 29.,
Mr. Chief Justice Kent says:” I admit the doctrine to be sound
(Calvin’s case, 7 Co. 27 b.; Kirby’s Rep. 413), that the division of an
empire works no forfeiture of a right previously acquired. The
revolution left the demandant where she was before….” The Society,
&c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
I remind America what Edmond Burke said:
“….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, web site, wysiwyg://54/http://odur.let.
1775/libertydebate/burk.htm.
America what about that? “You have been conned” do you not understand?
What will it take for you to wake up? king35.htm
James Montgomery
A King's Charter Which Refuses To Die
Posted on January 18, 2016 by homelessholocaust
A KING’S CHARTER THAT REFUSES TO DIE
JULY 20, 1998
by James Montgomery
http://www.biblebelievers.org.
JULY 20, 1998
by James Montgomery
http://www.biblebelievers.org.
I would like to start by thanking Pete Stern and The Informer for their
continued research and dedication to the American people. Pete deserves
special thanks for finding an annotated copy of the Definitive 1783
Treaty of Peace, The Society wherein he found reference to the Supreme
Court case, for Propagating the Gospel &c v. New Haven, quote from the 8
Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. I will this case and the Chamberlin case
below.
The Newhaven case is a true God-send, it thoroughly confirms The
Informer’s research and my own findings that we are subjects bearing
financial obligation for the debt owed to the king of England and his
heirs and successors, as well as the main party of interest, the Pope.
Which confirms what I said in the following quotes from “The United
States Is Still A British Colony”:-
All
such debts were owed by The United States --- the commercial entity
bankrupted in 1863---and even those debts were paid off by Andrew
Jackson’s Administration, circa 1804.
“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.” (The Feast of
All Saints was celebrated on November 1 each year.) The Carolina
Charter, 1663.
“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.
http://www.nhinet.org/ccs/
This
agrees with our research into the matter, that all the individual
holdings were preserved and “grants”, etc., amounting to taxes owed to
England were assumed by the new States.
I have been declaring this in spite of being slammed by
pro-Constitutionalist patriots, who refuse to accept the facts. The
king is still head of America Inc., the author of its Charters, and the
creator of his cestui que trust. The king continues to be the
benefactor along with his heirs and successors of the largest
corporation in the history of the world. The Pope as well is
co-benefactor with the king, thanks to the king’s concessions of May
15, 1213 to the Pope.
The
King is not now and has never been the “head” of America. He has,
however, retained a very substantial grip on our economic affairs,
especially via the Territorial United States which has always been under
British control and which has been used to usurp upon our lawful States
and upon the legally constituted Federal United States and its States
of States. Notice that Puerto Rico is still listed as a British
Commonwealth and you will get a grip on this despite the “name games”
that have been played on us.
“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter,
furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways
God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to
have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything
worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we
humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate
ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace
of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by
fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common
counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy
apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to
our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole
kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights
and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those of
our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now
receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman
church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of
the household of the lord pope, we perform and swear fealty for them to
him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and
the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence
of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do
liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife
forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who
shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without
demur.” Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.
Here
is where you are wrong --- “King John” was not king of very much at all,
his “kingdom” was limited to what he directly inherited and “his lands”
and other properties were not what you suppose. His actual wealth
amounted to a title which he forfeited secretively to the Pope and the
royal jewels which he lost. You are forgetting the entirety of the
Norman Conquest and the subsequent settlement of the Norman
Conquest. The so-called “Barons” who forced the Magna Carta down John’s
throat were his Vassals in France, but Kings in the own right in
England. That is how they imposed their Will --- the Magna Carta --- on
the supposed “king”. He had no right, provenance, or authority to speak
for the Barons in England --- and in fact, did not. So that by far the
most of Britain remained in the possession and ownership of the Norman
Barons and was not affected by any agreement between the Pope and King
John.
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?
Allodial
“Title” is still a title, and in fact what we own and possess are the
Sovereign Letters Patent. The soil and the land belong to the state
republics, not to any “State”, which acts in the capacity of a Trustee
with regard to the international land jurisdiction only.
“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.
See
above. The “States” act as Third Parties --- interfaces between the
republics and the external international jurisdictions. States hold the
international land jurisdiction and States of States hold the
international sea jurisdiction. This is the difference between
“domestic” and “non-domestic”.
The world continues to pay the benefactors of the king’s Charters, for
the king’s investment in America, via taxes. I have got news for you
America, if Conquest, war or the dividing of an Empire cannot pry the
possessions from a Corporate trust, the king never lost or was in
danger of losing his possessions. Also, the king’s money that was in
existence and being used by the states and their inhabitants, prior to
the Revolutionary War, remained the king’s possessions, real property,
on loan to America and her inhabitants, for which the king expected and
demanded his return for his investment, under his corporate Charters
and the trust he set up for his heirs and successors.
This
affects the business end of things in international jurisdiction only.
Also see the fact that all such debts and obligations were paid as of
1804.
Was this the only infusion of money into this Country? No. Beginning in 1778, just two
years after the Revolutionary War began, the states were borrowing
money from the king of France. The House of Rothschilds located in
France was the money source. France (Rothschilds) continued to loan
money to the U.S. government with the debt reaching 18 million dollars.
This is the foothold Hamilton had over Washington during the debate on
whether or not to allow the banking families to incorporate in the
U.S., and float this country’s debt. You don’t have to be a rocket
scientist to figure it out, look back at what has happened since, and
you will see this is in fact what took place.
years after the Revolutionary War began, the states were borrowing
money from the king of France. The House of Rothschilds located in
France was the money source. France (Rothschilds) continued to loan
money to the U.S. government with the debt reaching 18 million dollars.
This is the foothold Hamilton had over Washington during the debate on
whether or not to allow the banking families to incorporate in the
U.S., and float this country’s debt. You don’t have to be a rocket
scientist to figure it out, look back at what has happened since, and
you will see this is in fact what took place.
Yes,
with regard to --- again --- the Federal United States which was created
specifically to exercise the “delegated powers” in international
jurisdictions--- not the actual Union created by The Unanimous
Declaration of Independence, nor the Union of Federal States known as
The United States of America created on September 9, 1776.
Seems to me as a matter of law, a contract entered into voluntarily by
someone voids any conflict or injury to that individual’s rights. The
king always intended to retain his minerals and money, and he knew (as
stated by other quotes in this article) that the barristers would
retain his land under the corporate trust.
This
is referencing a private contract entered into by private parties
seeking peace with the King for entities that became the Territorial
United States. Not our States and not our States of States. You have to
be very careful when you read this crap, or you would believe that the
King of England won the entire Revolutionary War and we got nothing out
of it at all.
Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North
America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782:-
ARTICLE 1
“It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to
the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the
years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum
of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the
following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten
Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit:
1. 28 February 1778 750,000
2. 19 May do 750,000
3. 3 August do 750,000
4. 1 November do 750,000 Total 3,000,000
5. 10 June 1779 250,000
6. 16 September do 250,000
7. 4 October do 250,000
8. 21 December do 250,000 Total 1,000,000
9. 29 February 1780 750,000
10. 23 May do 750,000
11. 21 June do 750,000
12. 5 October do 750,000
13. 27 November do 1,000,000 Total 4,000,000
14. 15 February 1781 750,000
15. 15 May do 750,000
16. 15 August do 750,000
17. 1 August do 1,000,000
18. 15 November do 750,000 Total 4,000,000
19. 10 April 1782 1,500,000
20. 1 July do 1,500,000
21. 5 of the same month 3,000,000 Total 6,000,000
Amounting in the whole to eighteen millions, viz 18, 000, 000.
By which receipts the said Minister has promised, in the name of
Congress and in behalf of the thirteen United States, to cause to be
paid and reimbursed to the royal treasury of His Majesty, on the 1st of
January, 1788, at the house of his Grand Banker at Paris, the said sum
of eighteen millions, money of France, with interest at five per cent
per annum.”
Just
as they are doing now, what is being referenced should properly be
called the “Territorial United States Congress” --- they are just
accidentally-on-purpose “omitting” the inconvenient fact that the
Territorial “Congress” is not the same as the actual Congress we all
think of.
Source: Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of
America. Edited by Hunter Miller Volume 2 Documents 1-40 : 1776-1818
Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931.
In
fact, the truth of the matter IS disclosed --- you will note that this
reference is in regard to “Treaties and Other International Acts of the
United States of America”---- which is and has always been the name of
the Territorial United States, not the actual United States that we all
assume is being referenced. There is “The United States of America” and
“the United States of America”. Notice the “the”.
Notice also folks, this is just one year before the 1783 Treaty of
Peace is signed, the king of France (Rothschilds) made sure his debt
was protected before he signed on to the con of the millennium. The
king of England’s Charter on one side, the Rothschild’s debt
obligations on the other, both vying for a piece of America. The king
of England for his trust, the Rothschilds for their corporate take-over
and control of the king’s trust, the Pope as the main benefactor of
both sides. The Pope remains even further in the background than the
Rothschilds, however he stands to gain no matter what happens.
Quite
right, he played his cards very well, very deceitfully, knowing that
future generations of Americans wouldn’t recognize the difference
between The United States of America and the United States of America.
Except that a few of us caught on and nailed the bastards.
Here are a few quotes from William Manley German, in a speech to the
House of Commons December 1913.
“….Referring to Canada’s bank acts: I believe the plan outlined
follows the English system, a system applied to the great banks of
England. Mr. White, House of Commons, December 17, 1912, in response to
a question from the Honorable William Manley German. i.e. they were
creating an English system which is to say a Rothschildian cartel….”
“Senator Robert L. Owen continues: “It was not very long until this
information was brought to the Rothschild’s Bank, and they saw that
here was a nation ready to be exploited; here was a nation setting up
an example that they could issue their own money instead of the money
coming through the banks.”
“The Rothschild’s Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the English
Parliament, which provided that no colony of England could issue its
own money.” “Thus, they had to use English money. The colonies were
compelled to discard their money and mortgage themselves to the
Rothchild’s Bank of England to get money.” “Then, for the first time in
the history of the United States, money began to be based on debt.
Benjamin Franklin stated that in one year from that date the streets of
the colonies were filled with the unemployed.”
Again,
this is the deliberate confusion that the Brits introduced between our
“United States of America” and their [Territorial] United States of
America.
“Franklin later claimed that this was the real cause of the War of
Independence. He said: “The colonies would gladly have borne the little
tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England and the
Rothschild’s Bank took away from the colonies their money which created
unemployment, dissatisfaction and debt.” William Manley German, in a
speech to the House of Commons December 1913, Brigham Young University,
web site Http://library.byu.edu/~
It has
always been the art of despots to find the edge of tolerance for their
debts and oppression and ride that fine line until it breaks.
Nothing changes, the Rothschilds have always played both sides against
each other, they did the same thing during the Civil War, see my
research paper, “A Country Defeated In Victory, parts I & II.”
Before I go any further lets look at the facts that prove the king
never lost his Corporations created by his Charters, or lands held by
his Corporations, by and through the supposed loss of the Revolutionary
War, or the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Peace, or the 1794 Jay
Treaty.
“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.
The king holds the rest of the world to different standards, as does
the Pope. He holds us to the king’s law on trusts and does not apply
the same law to himself, so he can retain his lands and possessions, as
does the Pope, under British-made International law.
“It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of
parliament unless he be named therein by special and particular words.
The most general words that can be devised (for example, any person or
persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if
they may tend to restrain or diminish any of his rights and interests.
He may even take the benefit of any particular act, though not named.
The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally
applicable to this government, and it has been applied frequently in
the different states, and practically in the Federal courts. It may be
considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as
belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patrioe, or universal
trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the
principles of the British Constitution.” U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S.
250 (1911), “Dollar Sav. Bank v. United States, supra”.
All of
the above was and remains true of the Territorial United States and has
nothing whatsoever to do with the actual United States nor The United
States of America. We did win the Revolutionary War, and continued
delusion on this point will only merit another.
Do the king and the Pope have proper claims to their land holdings? No.
The king’s claim would not exist accept for his barristers (lawyers),
his backers, the bankers, the Pope, via his churches’ land holdings and
financial backing of the early banking families. The reason I also say
no, is fraud and deception are involved. How did the king come by his
claim? By the Conquest of Britain by William the Conqueror in 1066, and
thanks to the Pope’s partnership with England, as trustee for Rome,
working inside of Britain with her Jesuit priests. Conquest does not
change land held in trust. So the lands held by the Brits and trusts
(wills of testament), and traditions of the father’s land going to the
sons, could not be overturned by the Conquest of William the Conqueror.
You
forget that William the Conqueror was also a King who had lands held in
trust in England --- all of central England and Wales was already his by
Law before he ever stepped foot ashore. And you are also forgetting
the role of the so-called Barons who were in fact sovereigns in their
own rights in England enabled to create and enforce the Magna Carta. So
go back and rethink all of that.
But even further than that, God Almighty granted to Adam and his
descendants the entire earth, it was given away to Satan, but later
reclaimed by Jesus Christ as the second Adam.
Just as the king held on to his possessions after the Revolutionary War
for his heirs and successors, and just as conquest does not change
ownership of lands and possessions held in trust. The fraud is, the
king is taxing us for a trust he created, based on an earlier conquest.
To be
exact, he is taxing the Territorial United States and its “citizenry”
and has never had any authority to tax any of us. This is why they have
gone through the elaborate hoax to falsify the public records and
“create” Territorial “citizens” for themselves by claiming that all the
Americans are volunteers in the British Merchant Marines and “corporate
franchises” and “public transmitting utilities” and similar fanciful
bullshit.
“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 Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) paper, in the
Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections,
Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under
OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for
dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property
interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign persons,
of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a These codes have since been changed to read
as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for
MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF
300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax
Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the
government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a foreign
tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in financial servitude
since the Treaty of 1783.” The United States Is Still A British Colony,
part I.
Again,
more proof that the Territorial United States is indeed still “subject”
to the King of England--- but no proof at all that any American born on
the soil of this country owes him spit.
It’s a big con. Only God Almighty owns the land, by grant and charter,
also trust, the land is reserved for us and our use. How can you take
that which does not belong to you? It is a shame we could not have
learned from the American Indian, that no man owns the land.
“….In Harden v Fisher, 1 Wheat Rep. 300, which was also under the
Treaty of 1794, this court held that it was not necessary for the party
to show a seisin in fact, or actual possession of the land, but only
that the title was in him, or his ancestors, at the time the treaty was
made….” The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat.
464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
“….In Terrett v. Taylor, it was stated that the dissolution of the
regal government, no more destroyed the rights of the church to possess
and enjoy the property which belonged to it, than it did the right of
any other corporation or individual to his or its own property. In the
later case, the Chief Justice, in reference to the corporation of the
college, observes that it is too clear to require the support of
argument, that all contracts and rights respecting property remained
unchanged by the revolution; and the same sentiment was enforce, more
at length, by the other judge who noticed this point in the cause….”
The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5
Cond. Rep. 489.
This
is all still referencing the Federal and/or Territorial United States,
not the actual United States, but instead entities that are “States of
States” confederations. You must learn to recognize that everything
pertaining to this concerns entities created to exercise delegated
powers in international jurisdictions and that both the Federal United
States and the Territorial United States and the Municipal United States
are as separate countries with respect to each other---- and to us.
As a matter of law these treaties were written in such away they could
not be overturned using civil law, so the Revolutionary War changed
nothing concerning the king’s investment and creation of America Inc.
“….His lordship observes that that was a case in which the old
government existed under the King’s charter, and a revolution took
place, though the new government was acknowledged by this country. Yet
it was held, that the property, which belonged to a corporation
existing under the King’s charter, was not transferred to a body which
did not exist under his authority, and, therefore, the fund in this
country was considered to be bona vacantia belonging to the crown….”
The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5
Cond. Rep. 489.
In
fact, again, these provisions were made by the [Territorial] United
States. All those entities created by the three Constitutions were
established for the purpose of executing the quid pro quo agreed to in
The Definitive Treaty of Peace, 1783. It is in fact a great irony that
generations of Americans have been taught to revere and defend the
“constitutions” when in fact these documents have, in the hands of evil
men, been confused and used to work further usurpations against the
lawful government of this country.
To
give you all a real “wake up call” --- the US Supreme Court --- is not
supreme for anyone in any respect, except those entities comprising the
“Federal Government”. It interprets the “Law of the Land” – that is,
the constitutions resulting from The Definitive Treaty of Paris, 1783,
and the limits that federal agents can go --- except that by their own
incompetence, force, and fraud, the contracts have been vacated from the
British side and the delegated powers have returned whence they have
ever come.
“….The treaty of 1783 forbids all forfeitures on either side. That of
1794 provides that the citizens and subjects of both nations, holding
lands (thereby strongly implying that there were no forfeitures by the
revolution), shall continue to hold, according to the tenure of their
estates; that they may sell and devise them; and shall not, so far as
respects these lands and the legal remedies to obtain them, be
considered as aliens. In the case Kelly v. Harrison, 2 Johns. cas 29.,
Mr. Chief Justice Kent says:” I admit the doctrine to be sound
(Calvin’s case, 7 Co. 27 b.; Kirby’s Rep. 413), that the division of an
empire works no forfeiture of a right previously acquired. The
revolution left the demandant where she was before….” The Society,
&c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
I remind America what Edmond Burke said:
“….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, web site, wysiwyg://54/http://odur.let.
1775/libertydebate/burk.htm.
However,
in reply to this section above the guarantees owed the land (which is
international jurisdiction) rights of the various parties, both
“citizen” and “non-citizen” have since then been breached by the use of
“alien” terminology throughout, for example, the IRS Code, where
Americans are routinely identified as “non-resident aliens” with respect
to the Federal Domain and are also referred to as “residents” and
granted only “tenancy” when they are “mistakenly” presumed to be
“citizens of the [Territorial] United States”. And again, the breach of
civility and contract and all treaties underlying the agreements is
entirely on the British side of the issues.
America what about that? “You have been conned” do you not understand?
What will it take for you to wake up? king35.htm
James Montgomery
We have indeed been
conned, but not quite for the reasons and via the means that James
Montgomery suggests. We have, in fact, ample remedy available to us and
at our disposal, which would not be suggested by Mr. Montgomery’s
analysis.
----------------------------
See this article and over 1000 others on Anna's website here: www.annavonreitz.com
To support this work look for the PayPal button on this website.
For Our Flag Officers
By Anna Von Reitz
As noted on April 24, 1863, Abraham
Lincoln issued the Lieber Code. It made the Grand Army of the Republic
responsible for our money and the welfare of our civilian population
among other things. The very next day, he bankrupted the original
federal United States commercial company.
Since then the GAR has morphed into
the United States Army, the U.S. Army and the US ARMY. The Lieber Code
has morphed into The Hague Conventions.
It's all still in effect.
Just like the Reconstruction Acts have for the most part never been repealed.
[Read any AR 27-10 issued in your
lifetimes. Read DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PAMPHLET 27-161-1, the:Law of
Peace, which we are owed in this country, but which we are routinely
denied. Read 41-10, Civil Affairs OPs. If you need "documentation" in
support of all that I am saying, God knows you don't have to go any
further than to read Army manuals.]
Fast forward past the evils of the Federal Reserve and the trademarked Federal Reserve System to the Big Short of 2008.
Forget all the funny business on Wall Street and the Big Banks and Derivatives markets.
Obummer is in the White House. What
does he do? Well, we all know about the TARP fiasco, but something a
lot more insidious went on as prep work for bankrupting the Federal
Reserve System in 2009.
It's called State Sponsored
Counterfeiting. Between 2008 and 2015 hundreds of trillions of
"dollars" worth of Federal Reserve Notes were printed in Singapore,
Thailand, Mexico and Afghanistan using official "government" printing
presses, engraving plates, paper and ink.
As a result it is literally
impossible to tell the difference between the fakes and the "real"
notes. The same thing was done with Treasury Bonds.
And then, in 2009, the Federal Reserve System TM was bankrupted.
All those notes and all those Treasuries were rendered worthless overnight.
People and governments all over the
world were panic stricken, stuck with worthless paper. And the source
of it all was conveniently bankrupt.
Obummer purposefully set this all up
to bankrupt both the Municipal United States and the Territorial United
States. He fully intended to "vacate" what was left of the
constitutional system and leave the States and the People of this
country on the hook to pay for it all.
And all this and more has occured on the watch of our military leaders.
Our actual Silver Dollars we were
forced to trade on a "dollar for dollar" basis for paper notes --IOU's
from "the Federal Reserve" which was and is as "federal" as Federal
Express. See the 1934 Emergency Banking Act.
And this came after the vermin
confiscated all our privately held gold-- $387 billion worth in today's
market, which they used as surety for their own private corporate
bankruptcy in 1933.
And while we were being fleeced and
impoverished and reduced to soup kitchens on this side of the Atlantic
and vast amounts of land were being acquired by banks and corporations
for pennies on the dollar, the bastards responsible were investing
heavily in Germany and Adolph Hitler.
All this crap has gone on right
under the noses of our vaunted "Flag Generals" who were supposed to be
minding the store and taking care of our money and protecting the
welfare of the civilian population of this country.
And what was happening instead?
Well, they ran out of our money
during the Second World War, as Ms. Hudes somewhat incorrectly and
disingenuously explained in her letter from the World Bank, so the
vermin proposed to kidnap us and press gang us in the foreign
international jurisdiction of the sea, and after trafficking us, to sell
us into bondage and seize upon all our property public and private back
home as more collateral for their debts.
All without our knowledge or consent of course.
This is how you Flag Generals have
discharged your duty owed under the Lieber Code and Hague Conventions to
safeguard our money and the welfare of our civilian population.
In a sane world you should all be
court-martialed and shot. Your ONLY saving grace is that this
information was kept highly compartmentalized so that one hand did not
know what the other was doing, and a degree of plausible deniability was
maintained throughout this long debacle of endless betrayal of the
American States and People.
Otherwise your combined performance at all these junctures would have been worth five cents for a lead slug,
And we are all still standing here
waiting to see if your performance of your perceived duty is any better
today than it has been for the last 150 years.
Let's go over this again and see if you get the right answers this time?
Who do we work for?
A) The American People
B) Wall Street
C) the Federal Reserve
D) Congress
Whose money are we supposed to protect?
A) The American People's
B) the Federal Reserve's
C) Government Pension Funds
D) Members of Congress's
Who actually pays our paychecks and retirement benefits?
A) The American People
B) Congress
C) the Federal Reserve
D) Serco
Who do we owe our allegiance to?
A) The American People
B) Congress
C) The United States
D) USA, Inc.
Whose peace and welfare are we supposed to safeguard?
A) The American People
B) The European Elite
C) International Bankers
D) Defense Contractors
Now here's a tough essay question,
gentlemen--- is trafficking clueless Americans into foreign jurisdiction
and selling them into slavery and seizing upon their assets as chattel
backing your debts compatible with the mandate to protect them and
safeguard their money? Why or why not?
If you think that I am just a wee
little bit fed up with your lack of performance in behalf of your actual
employers you would be right.
If you think that it is easy for a
little old lady-- who is actually shy and kindly--- to get steamed up
enough to take on the Pope, the Queen, the Joint Chiefs, and all you
fellows, too-- think again. I am not doing this for fun or profit. I am
doing this because otherwise Phil the Pill gets to keep @$750 T of our
money and all his Bill Collectors will be sitting on American doorsteps
and evicting millions more innocent people from their homes.
I am doing all this and it plainly,
obviously is NOT my job. It's a job I have been paying all these high
and mighty Flag Generals to do and we can all see the results.
So my suggestion that you all remove
the corks may not be respectful and it may not be becoming a lady, but
on the other hand the history and the present circumstance calls for
neither respect nor decorum.
I and millions of other Americans
have loyally supported you and your predecessors through thick and
through thin, and now you can begin to understand why we are banging our
dishes on the floor like angry dogs and swearing at you to your faces.
This situation including the evil
and corrupt "court" system really IS your fault, it really IS your duty
that is derelict, it really IS your mandate to protect our money and
guard our welfare --- and you have betrayed that duty and mandate in
practically every way possible short of pulling your service revolvers
and shooting your own employers in the head.
From what I have seen of your
training programs in recent years it looks like that is precisely what
the vermin have been preparing you to do next.
And after that, the perps will have some Nurembug Trials and get rid of all of you, too.
WAKE UP, DOROTHY.
I have already provided tons of
"documentation" throughout my writings, including direct quotes from
Army Manuals. I have given you publication numbers for the most
important sources other than the Jag operations manuals -- read those,
too, if you want MORE proof.
You have Karen Hudes' confirmation
from the World Bank, even if she doesn't make a distinction between the
actual United States and the Federal United States. And now I am going
to add another piece of documentation for you, straight from the US
Department of State.
I and many others have been
lampooned for exposing the Birth Certificate bondage to which we have
been subjected without our knowledge or consent by our own employees. No
doubt you want "proof" of that, too. So I already sent you the
step-by-step on that. Now I am attaching what the State Department has
to say about it.
Please notice that the "full faith
and credit" has been attached to my Birth Certificate. My good name has
been seized upon as a commercial object by your corrupt governmental
"services" corporation (oh, I have been "served" all right)
and I have been mischaracterized as a
willing volunteer liable to stand good for the debts of the guilty
franchise organization doing business as the State of Wisconsin, too.
Here I am, flat-footed on the land
of my native country, saying for you and the world that I do not consent
to this, that this is an offense against God and Man, that it is the
most odious kind of betrayal, that it is a Gross Breach of Trust, a
lie, and an act of knowing commercial fraud institutionalized by foreign
governmental services corporations operating both illegally and
unlawfully on our shores.
I denounce it as a war crime and an
act of attempted genocide and human trafficking and enslavement which
has been outlawed since 1702.
That this is being done in the name
of "United States of America" ---- not, you will note, the honorable
organization I serve, The United States of America---- is just more salt
in the wounds, more proof of deliberate malice on the part of employees
who in fact owe me their good faith service and allegiance, employees
who are sworn to defend me from "all enemies both foreign and domestic"
for a reason.
I suggest that you go to GMEIUtility.com and plug in what is purported to be
"your" Social Security Number to see
for yourselves what the ultimate result of this chicanery is and
exactly how the "US National War College" is directly involved in vast,
hideous, international crime against the actual American States and
People.
Attached documents:
Should this be the Montana Flag instead of what we have now?
This flag is displayed on the Montana Shooting Sports Association Facebook page above the following article and asking for input on some wording being contemplated in the article.
Please comment here, in the comments section and at the original article.
The MTSSA facebook page is here: https://www.facebook.com/montanashootingsportsassociation/
Here is the article: Note this was written in December of 2016 just after the Trump upset victory.
Dear MSSA Friends,
Thank you so much for your many responses to my question about what "shall not be called in question" means. I was snowed in responses and I now have five pages of one-line definitions. They are all VERY helpful and will be more so later (stay tuned).
Meanwhile, let's have a bit of discussion about this.
Pretty much all of you agree that "shall not be called in question" is not that difficult to understand, it's in plain English, and is a very strong restraint on governmental entities and actors (and some think on persons and entities in the private sector, too).
This suggests the question, how strong is this restraint? Is it absolute?
I believe very few would argue that a prisoner, convicted of murder, on death row in the state prison in Deer Lodge, must be allowed to have an M-60 machine gun and ammunition for it in his cell. That example alone suggests three possible types of exception to a not-quite absolute right:
1. In certain locations such as prisons (and possibly others);
2. For certain classes of people, such as convicted felons (and possibly others such as aliens or people adjudicated by a court to be mentally incompetent); and
3. For certain types of arms (the classic exaggeration is atomic bombs).
We won't discuss concealed weapons here because of the archaic, peculiar, but existing wording in the Montana Constitution. Nor will we talk about federal laws or the U.S. Constitution. We're discussing only the Montana Constitution and how its wording affects public policy within Montana.
But what about the Montana law making it a crime to discharge a firearm inside the limits of a city or town except in self defense? That may sound somewhat reasonable, but does that law "call in question" the right to keep or bear arms? If so, should it be stricken as unconstitutional because of the "shall not be called in question" in the Montana Constitution?
What about the law that says that if a person is convicted of using a firearm in a crime of violence then that person does not ever get his or her right to keep or bear arms restored upon release from state supervision? Does that unconstitutionally "call in question" a person's right to keep or bear arms?
What about the state law against firing a firearm onto, from, or across a public roadway? Does that impermissibly "call in question" your RKBA?
Then there is the law prohibiting guns in schools, and the one allowing local governments to prohibit possession of firearms in public buildings, parks, and public assemblies (whatever those are). Called into question? Unconstitutional?
So, the problem becomes where and how a line should be drawn? And, what words should be used to define that line, words that have well-established and universally understood meaning, that are clear and unambiguous?
This is the problem I'm working on.
I'm interested in what thoughts any of you may have about where this line should be drawn, and about how it should be articulated.
Because this is so interesting and critical, and because so many of you are interested (as you should be), please try to keep your comments brief so I have time to absorb them all.
Best wishes,
--
Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org/
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com/
With 28 small arms manufacturers, or 2.83 per 100,000 people, Montana has 512% more small arms manufacturers per capita than the United States as a whole.
Thank you so much for your many responses to my question about what "shall not be called in question" means. I was snowed in responses and I now have five pages of one-line definitions. They are all VERY helpful and will be more so later (stay tuned).
Meanwhile, let's have a bit of discussion about this.
Pretty much all of you agree that "shall not be called in question" is not that difficult to understand, it's in plain English, and is a very strong restraint on governmental entities and actors (and some think on persons and entities in the private sector, too).
This suggests the question, how strong is this restraint? Is it absolute?
I believe very few would argue that a prisoner, convicted of murder, on death row in the state prison in Deer Lodge, must be allowed to have an M-60 machine gun and ammunition for it in his cell. That example alone suggests three possible types of exception to a not-quite absolute right:
1. In certain locations such as prisons (and possibly others);
2. For certain classes of people, such as convicted felons (and possibly others such as aliens or people adjudicated by a court to be mentally incompetent); and
3. For certain types of arms (the classic exaggeration is atomic bombs).
We won't discuss concealed weapons here because of the archaic, peculiar, but existing wording in the Montana Constitution. Nor will we talk about federal laws or the U.S. Constitution. We're discussing only the Montana Constitution and how its wording affects public policy within Montana.
But what about the Montana law making it a crime to discharge a firearm inside the limits of a city or town except in self defense? That may sound somewhat reasonable, but does that law "call in question" the right to keep or bear arms? If so, should it be stricken as unconstitutional because of the "shall not be called in question" in the Montana Constitution?
What about the law that says that if a person is convicted of using a firearm in a crime of violence then that person does not ever get his or her right to keep or bear arms restored upon release from state supervision? Does that unconstitutionally "call in question" a person's right to keep or bear arms?
What about the state law against firing a firearm onto, from, or across a public roadway? Does that impermissibly "call in question" your RKBA?
Then there is the law prohibiting guns in schools, and the one allowing local governments to prohibit possession of firearms in public buildings, parks, and public assemblies (whatever those are). Called into question? Unconstitutional?
So, the problem becomes where and how a line should be drawn? And, what words should be used to define that line, words that have well-established and universally understood meaning, that are clear and unambiguous?
This is the problem I'm working on.
I'm interested in what thoughts any of you may have about where this line should be drawn, and about how it should be articulated.
Because this is so interesting and critical, and because so many of you are interested (as you should be), please try to keep your comments brief so I have time to absorb them all.
Best wishes,
--
Gary Marbut, President
Montana Shooting Sports Association
http://www.mtssa.org/
Author, Gun Laws of Montana
http://www.mtpublish.com/
With 28 small arms manufacturers, or 2.83 per 100,000 people, Montana has 512% more small arms manufacturers per capita than the United States as a whole.
No comments:
Post a Comment