© 1994 - 2007
Against the Grain

Site Design, Hosting and Logo
by DNA Web Media

Marty the information continues to pour in, in support of the information the Informer and I have been writing about and totally confirms, the below comments of Sir Edmund Burke, read the following quote, just one of many from his speech:

"If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you, at the same time, a surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to the British revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments, she may, I doubt not she will, contribute in moderation. I say in moderation, for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself. She ought to be reserved to a war, the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to have, must be considerable in her quarter of the globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially.

For that service - for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire - my trust is in her interest in the British Constitution. My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, through light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the Colonists 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."

Burke on Conciliation with the Colonies, March 22, 1775, pages 71,72, published by Allyn and Bacon.

"In May, 1775, Washington said: ‘If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure [as separation from Great Britain], you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked’- He also said: ‘It is not wish or interest of the government [meaning Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence’" Ingersoll, North American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in Sources of the Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis Stevens, 1927, page 36.

Marty John Jay, one of the men to construct and sign the Peace Treaty of 1783 and the sole man responsible for the Jay Treaty of 1795, he made very clear by his statements that he did not want Independence from England. And as Burke said above you can believe you are free and still be subject to England.

"Jay did not favor independence from Britain. His absence from the signing of the Declaration of Independence was noted by Thomas Jefferson."

Copyright c 1995 by Left Justified Publiks. All rights reserved.

Marty to prove what Sir Edmund Burke said is possible and was part of the plan of the king, you need to look at the 1213 Charter and the 1689 Declaration of Rights. Because of space limitations I was not able to include them in this email, but will send them to you if you want them. I included them in British Colony part III.

The following is a section from my addendum from British Colony part III:

I have just discovered the following two endnotes. They completely confirm in a very finial way my research in British Colony parts 1, 2 and 3, and the Informer’s research and book "The New History Of America". If you will study the following papers, the Magna Carta and our Bill of Rights, and come to an understanding of their similarities. Then re-read the Charters included in British Colony parts 1 and 2, keeping in mind the issues I raised, then read the following commentary.

"The two main issues as I see them in British Colony are;
one, the financial obligations of the 1213 Charter En #1, are still in effect, along with the Charters establishing America.
Two, the last sentence of the 1689 Bill of Rights En #2, proves the following:"

"That the Charters of the Colonies could never be overturned by a Declaration of Independence, or the 1787 treaty, otherwise known as the Constitution, I’m talking about the real subject matter, financial obligation. Title for the land was transferred to the states and then ceded by Charter to the federal government under Cestui que trust, but the contracted debt and obligation of the Colonial Charters, and the 1213 Charter could not be negated. Rights could be granted to the citizens, subjects or combatants, which ever the case may be, but the financial obligation cannot, nor could not be affected, because it involves parties not yet born. This why King William said, the 1689 Bill of Rights would not free the kingdom from the obligation of the 1213 Charter. This is why the United States Bank was given right of Charter in America. George Washington had no choice but to succumb to the Rothschild's point man, Hamilton. Talk about deja vu, I mean does this not sound familiar. Our Bill of Rights was given to us, to give us the illusion of freedom. When the tax obligation of the Charters above marched along un-impeded and un-seen, by Americans and Britons alike. Read the Magna Carta again, they wanted the Pope’s blessing for the 1215 Charter, this same Pope is the Pope in the 1213 Charter where England and Ireland were given to him. He could not just give back his land, because of other parties not yet born. The Pope let the barons presume they were free and gave his blessing to the 1215 Magna Carta, knowing to do so would in no way lawfully overturn the grant made to him in the 1213 Charter. Also, it is apparent, it was recognized as law that you could not even create a Charter, wherein you declared a previous grant or Charter null in void unless the relevant parties agreed. How can a Charter be made void if parties to the Charter will never cease to be born, an heir can always be found. To prove this, again what did the new king William do, even though the previous monarchy had come to an end, its obligations did not, this is why he had to included paragraph III, a clause to protect the other parties of an earlier Charter."

Statue of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540)

Marty, to further prove our point read the following previous email I sent out so as not to replicate work:

" You will have to read the below statute many times to understand what the king is saying. It was obviously made to be vague and ambiguous, it contains two sentences, the first is 658 words long, the second is 166 words long, not counting punctuation. I have included the following commentary to help your understanding of the below statute.

The king is saying that some of the representatives of the Catholic Church and some of his subjects have received grants of land from the king. The king is also saying they are in violation of certain provisions contained in the grants and land patents. Portions of these grants and land patents were granted to 3^rd party entities by his 1^st party grantees, through the kings grants and charters, having been granted to them. Because of contractual provisions contained in the grants and land patents being violated, the land was declared to revert back to the original grantees who received grants from the king.

As stated in section 1, this statute deals with land twice removed from the king; to preserve the clarity of hisgrants and land patents, in conjunction with the law of mortmain. You will see that the 1^st party grantors, included ecclesiastical and religious persons, as well as secular. This statute does not change grants between the king, and the 1^st party grantees and land patentees.

#7, section I should make you think. If any tax or rent due, (as declared in #5, section I), under the kings grants or Charters, are not paid, the land reverts back to the king, as if the Grants and Charters were never written. This is the same language of intent, used in the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third section, and the 25 section, in the 1776 North Carolina Bill of Rights, of the North Carolina 1776 Constitution, which established the North Carolina Corporation.

In section II, the king extends this statue to all grants made by him, now or in the future. The key and purpose to this statute is contained in #2, section I, no stranger is to enjoy a benefit of any Grant or Charter, if they are not a grantee and benefactor, without paying a rent or tax, see #5, section I. The main target of this statute was the Catholic Church, because they were not paying the tax due under the grants made to them. However, as shown in previous email the Vatican owned the land they were being taxed for, under the 1213 Charter. I am sure this is why the Vatican refused to pay a tax, because the owner of the land does not tax himself.

Since the states were the benefactors from the 1783 Peace Treaty, not the inhabitants, and they later transferred their original Grant from the king to the United States Constitution/Corporation, making the inhabitants of the states strangers, maybe now you know how and why we are taxed, and when the tax is not paid, the land reverts back to the benefactor of the of the kings original land grants, the United States Corporation, the trustee administering the trust/Constitution/Charter.

Nothing has changed since the days of William the Conqueror I, where taxes were levied based on the record of the land holdings written down in the Doomsday Book, used by the Exchequer to tax the benefactors of the kings grants. Today the same procedure is followed, continued under the Charters creating this country. The king established the rent-roll tax in the states based on the counties record of all titles, which are now used by the Exchequer/Federal Reserve to tax the stranger, levy or foreclose on the ryot-tenure, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4^th ed..

I asked the Informer to run this statute on RightWriter to see how it would grade the reading level of this statute. It has a reading grade level of a 17^th grade level, that is as high as the program goes.

READABILITY INDEX: 16.97

Under The Statues of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540)

II. Moreover be it enacted by authority aforesaid, That all farmers, lessees and grantees of lordships, manors, lands, tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other hereditaments for term of years, life or lives, their executors, administrators and assigns, shall and may have like action, advantage and remedy against all and every person and persons and bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, which have or shall have any gift or grant of the King our sovereign lord, or of any other person or persons, of the reversion of the same manors, lands, tenements, and other hereditaments so letten, or any parcel thereof, for any condition, covenant or agreement contained or expressed in the indentures of their lesse or leases, as the same lessees, or any of them might and should have had against the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and successors; (2) all benefits and advantages of recoveries in value by reason of any warranty in deed or in law by voucher or otherwise only excepted.Fn#1

Footnote #1 "The Statute deals only with actions by the assignee of the reversion against the lessee or his assignee, and actions by the lessee or his assignee against the assignee of the reversion; and not with actions by the lessor against the assignee of the lessee, or e contra, which actions seem therefore to be governed by the common law." 1 Smith, L. C. (10^th ed.) 74

Marty you are right, the 14^th Amendment is very relevant, but I think misunderstood on just what its implications are. If you will read British Colony part III, I include forgotten history that shows just how relevant the 14^th Amendment argument is. However, after you learn this information, if you do not already know it, you will come to the conclusion the Informer and I have come to. No reoccurring remedy will be obtained in the courts, just brief aberrations of justice based on the demeanor or impatience of the judge, or his/her lack of self-confidence based on the judges lack of knowledge concerning public policy. Once the judges know their decisions will not be overturned, or their careers damaged, defeat of patriot arguments will be swift, and the penalty for frivolous lawsuits will be just as swift and increase with intolerance of the Judiciary. I don’t mean to sound like a stick in the mud, but it is true. Only through the education of the public, coinciding with the coming financial pain, will change the publics perception of their freedom. Unfortunately I fear it will be to late to make any changes, until Rome self-destructs.

James Montgomery