|
"Those who say it cannot be done should not interfere with those of us who are doing it"© - S. Hickman
| Home Against the Grain Working Tommy C. Livid Leigh Boilin' Ed D. Tom The Informer Knowledge is Freedom Privacy Links Court Case Contact Us |
© 1994 - 2009
|
Knowledge is Freedom
|
INTRODUCTION
What Mr. Montgomery is
trying to convey in this, his final writing on this subject, is that of
laying the foundation for how this country operates today. Not that you
can go into a court and present these arguments today, you can't.. If you
don't know the power structures beginnings then you are doomed forever
to repeat the same mistakes as those that preceded you in their quest to
seek justice. To truly win in the situation there must be a concerted effort
by at least 70 percent of the people to overturn the present state of affairs.
That will not happen because of the ignorance of the masses that are so
easily led by those in power. The people have truly forsaken the true Sovereign,
namely the Lord Almighty. Without going into the so-called "religion" aspect,
let me just pose some questions. Did not the Lord Almighty create the land?
Yes. Did the Pope create the land? No! Did
the King create the land? No! Did any other man create the land? No! Did
any group of men called State create the land? No! Now that I have answered
the questions for you then here are some that you are to answer. Then,
who is the real owner of the land? Did not the creator of the land bestow
it upon all men and their heirs to be stewards of the land, granting to
no one man or group of men, absolute dominion over any land? When man dies
who does the land escheat to? For those not familiar with that term escheat,
it means who does the land go back to when all men die? Your answers can
only show that no Pope, King, Man himself, or group of men called State
can ever claim they own the land and charge another man a
1. The Pope
You, number
11, are so far removed from the land that the Lord Almighty gave to all
men, that essentially you have no claim but as a squatter on someone else's
land and have no control whatsoever in saying you have the right to not
pay taxes for the use of the Pope's land. But the Pope is the figure head
of a corporation called
the Vatican consisting of men forming a "religion," WHICH THE LORD ALMIGHTY
NEVER CREATED A "RELIGION," claiming complete dominion over all land in
the world. When the Pope dies another of these men is chosen as the new
Pope. There is one little quirk that needs to be mentioned. That is, a
group of men exist that has control of even the Vatican, therefore every
chain holder on down to number 11 on the list is controlled. That group
of men are called Bankers. The Pope and the King, in 1213, on to a period
just past 1218, lost a lot of money fighting each other and drew on a group
of men, one in particular,
that loaned to each side money. When neither could pay the loans back and
defaulted, the moneylender foreclosed. He foreclosed in agreement by not
taking all the property, except for England, as is done today on foreclosures;
but, an arrangement was made that satisfied the so called "holy trinity"
that is espoused by Mr. Montgomery below. That "Holy Trinity" ismentioned
in the Treaty of 1783. Of whom do you think the Holy Trinity consists?
So the list above from 1 to 11 needs another entity. I did not put him
in so I could make it clear who it is in order of claim to the land you
live on as a tenant. Now number one has been replaced by the Banker and
everyone has shifted down a notch. Hello number twelve, how do you like
your position on the list? Well, if you people reject allegiance to the
True Lord and cling to another and pledge allegiance to another then you
deserve to pay those that allow you, through privilege, to live on their
land. You gave up that RIGHT to live on land of the True Land Owner without
even a fee, except to abide by His Laws, and not that of mere mortal man
such as yourself. Until you understand this and what Mr. Montgomery has
tried telling you in his previous articles and I have in my books and articles
on the net, you will continue to be nothing but a slave to the system that
perpetrated a fraud on you and your family tree for centuries.
No, you cannot attack unless the numbers are sufficient. Yes, the below
is true despite what any one says to degrade Mr. Montgomery's research
of many years. These people that degrade have either an ignorance level
so high that no amount of education will correct it or they are in league
with a higher number
on the pecking order that wants to keep the status quo. These men are the
only ones that the Lord Almighty wished woe upon in the Bible for "hiding
the key of knowledge," in Luke and Matthew. You can look at it this way
as relates to present day. The Banker remains in complete control. I don'tmean
your local banker, but those that control all banks in America and the
world. They operate with straw men many deep so as to keep the people ignorant
as to what is going on. Look at the list above to see how many straw men
exist. Mr. Montgomery mentions the pope once below. He is trying to keep
it a littlesimpler because the straw man of the Vatican/Pope, The Crown,
is easier to understand for most people. This is the same operation that
many people get into by creating so many corporations that you never know
just who is the controlling man. You may see this on government stories
where the detective says he traced back through a tree of corporations
and got lost in the many branches and could not find who really owns the
contraband. I will vouch that Mr. Montgomery is a very thorough researcher
and has nothing to gain from the dissemination of the information below,
with the exception to get people to wake up to the truth instead of constantly,
for decades, chasing the elusive wizard of OZ with all his smoke and mirrors.
The Informer
This book
represents 10 years of my life, whether you agree with my findings or not;
know tthat my purpose for doing thi research and writing this book, is
out of love for my County, and the desire to serve my Lord Jesus Christ;
with the hope of seeing the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth once
again serve the God of Abraham. I've learned over the years, that My Lord's
grace IS sufficient, and His Love passes any comprehension or understanding
I thought I had, we are not forsaken. So those of you that have become
discouraged, don't, read the last chapter of our Lord's letter, we WIN.
In the days ahead there will no doubt be temptation to yield to discouragement
and despair, just keep your purpose true and your eyes on Jesus, as with
Peter, reach out, take our Lord's hand, walk above the storm around you.
Many of you are aware that the laws of this nation and it's states, were made to be in compliance and submission to the laws of England, only modified by state and federal law. You will see in this last Chapter state statutes from just a few of the original colonies, that this is the case. Are these what are called ancient statutes? Yes. However, since the king's Corporation is alive and well as are his heirs, so is his Trust and the law used to create and govern it. The law that governs his Trust can only be amended, no law could be enacted contrary to the king's will and cestui que trust, the main corporate sole where office is always found, the Crown. The king's practice of granting lands in this country to those loyal to him continues, along with their land grants being protected by state ancient statutes which are still on the books. We are governed by the king's nobles just as in times of old England, self proclaimed nobles, and corporate trusts. They rule this country and the world. The huge corporations have been granted power and liberty not known by the common man. The nobles, real and the created, occupy their possessions as fiduciaries and trustees of the king's grants; only if they remain loyal to the system, their privilege and life style are their reward. You will see that the Church of England was granted lands in this country and their lands are protected by corporate privilege, through trusts and fee simple title. As I have stated before, the king receives the gain for his business venture here in the United States, as he does with all his corporations. A portion of the fines and taxes we pay today go right back to the sovereign, the king of England, and his heirs and/or successors as I pointed out in previous chapters of, "The United States Is Still A British Colony". After reading the facts contained in this chapter, you will find my conclusion, which is based on my 10 years of researching this subject, through acquiring and culmination of historical facts which I have shared with you in this Book. "ALL that Territory or Tract of ground, situate, lying, and being within our Dominions in America,....(listed known boundaries).... AND moreover, all Veins, Mines, and Quarries, as well discovered as not discovered, of Gold, Silver, Gems, and precious Stones, and all other, whatsoever be it, of Stones, Metals, or any other thing whatsoever found or to be found within the Country, Isles,Limits aforesaid;" The Carolina Charter, 1663 "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 "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 Carolina Charter, 1663 The below
statute contains a wealth of information, it is just another example of
who owns the land in this country. The first thing I want you to see is,
Corporation is large case C, proper noun, referring to the main Corporation,
the United States Corporation, also made clear by the end of the first
sentence. Notice also, that even the Corporation (the United States government)
doesn't claim Allodial title, because that office found is with the king,
the government has only been vested with fee simple title through the Corporate
Charters of the Crown, as amended by the 1783 Treaty of Peace and resulting
1787 Constitution. The king can only pass Allodial title to his heirs,
no one else. This is why the highest title the government can pass is fee
simple.
16 USC Sec. 831x
Sec. 831x. Condemnation proceedings; institution by Corporation; venue -STATUTE- "The Corporation may cause proceedings to be instituted for the acquisition by condemnation of any lands, easements, or rights-of-way which, in the opinion of the Corporation, are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The proceedings shall be instituted in the United States districtcourt for the district in which the land, easement, right-of-way, or other interest, or any part thereof, is located, and such court shall have full jurisdiction to divest the complete title to the property sought to be acquired out of all persons or claimants and vest the same in the United States in fee simple, and to enter a decree quieting the title thereto in the United States of America." Also, see below: 40A-2 sec. 3 "Eminent domain", N.C. statute. Before we
move on to the action taken by George Washington, you need to understand
that the legal term fee simple is now a metaphor, just as the legal term
United States. It is given lip service today in relation to the common
man, and has another meaning when used in relation to the Crown or the
main sub Corporation,
the United States, with its seat being the District of Columbia. When dealing
with land ownership you have to use the definition at law that governs
the Crown, not the metaphors created later by his barristers, to con the
common man into believing he/she has allodial, or fee simple title to the
land. All that is
necessary to know the condition you own your land. If you think have allodial,
fee simple title, or fee tail title, is ask yourself one question. Is there
a tax imposed on the land you claim to own? If a tax is or can be levied,
you DO NOT own the land, because if you fail to pay the tax, the land is
reclaimed by the Corporation, by alienation, and reversion.
"Tenthly, He made that great Alteration in Estates from what they were formerly, by Statute Westminster 2. cap. 1. Whereby Estates of Fee-Simple, conditional at Common Law, were turn'd into Estates-Tail, not removable from the Issue by the ordinary Methods of Alienation; and upon this Statute, and for the Qualifications hereof, are the Superstructures built of 4 H. 7. cap. 32, 32 H. 8. and 33 H. 8." The History of the Common Law of England by Matthew Hale 1713 Those living on your land under fee tail or a lessor title, via deed to the land would pay the king's tax. As a metaphor, as applied today, you can be charged a tax when you are told you have fee simple title if you are a common man. The Corporation's holdings are not taxed depending on the Corporate Charter granted by the government, or if you have a trust that contains fee simple title, with tax protection, you could be protected legally, but you still don't own the land, when the life of the trust expires, or is mis handled by the trustees, it reverts back to the corporate sole, through alienation and office found, or by confiscation due to delinquent tax obligations. So any fee simple title you may have comes by legal right, not sovereign grant. This is the difference between the tenants on the land and the Corporation. Again if you are talking about the Corporation or any of its holdings, its fee simple title is not taxed, and is by sovereign grant from the king, enhanced by Conquest, as his successor and trustee over his holdings. George Washington's thought on Independence from the king was echoed by many of our fore fathers. "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 the 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.
STATE VS. DISTRICT, DID THE 1787
CONSTITUTION SURVIVE
"How was this
accomplished, in reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, Vol.
I, 1789-1897 I discovered the following:
In George
Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he declares
the district of Columbia to be created and it's borders established,
he says further:
"First of
all, the Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary
Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave
him additional powers, thereby HE created District States,so the federal
government could use the militias to crush the tax protesters
in Pennsylvania, by Washington's order. Since the Judicial
Districts already existed, why did they recreate them? If
the District States were already created, would it not be
redundant to create them again? Washington said he was dividing
the United States into District States. He said DIVIDING
THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE STATES, not creating districts
in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES into DISTRICTS, changing
them, or you would not DIVIDE THEM, because the states were
already divided. How can you DIVIDE, SEPARATE the states,
"These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtueof that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the unitedStates. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in theexecution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States." Harvard Law Review, OurNew Possessions. page 481. See also; Propeller Genessee
Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12
Below you will see how Lincoln codified the war powers, the nexus was the District States Washington created. I won't go into the subject of the Conquest after the Civil War, since it is far easier to understand, I invite you to read and study the documents in Part III to learn about this subject. However, I offer the below codification of Military Occupation, Conquest and International codification of Martial law, you can download the whole general order 100. Martial Law - Military jurisdiction
- Military necessity -
"Article 1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamationdeclaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and directeffect and consequence of occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law. Art. 2. Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continuesbeyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same. Art. 3. Martial Law in a hostile
country consists in the suspension,
by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and
civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied
place or territory, and in the substitution of military
rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictationof general laws,
as far as military necessity requires this suspension,
substitution, or dictation.
Our fore fathers
were first and foremost administrators for the king and his holdings, so
as to keep their grants and fee simple titles, to their own land holdings
in America and Britain. Prior to the Revolutionary War, 1783 Treaty and
the 1787 Constitution, there was a plan to organize a central government,
still subject to the king, still collecting taxes for the king.
The only difference between the
government we have and the government you read about below is your perception,
with word and technical changes. The 1787 Constitution was a well thought
out document, but the document below was its predecessor, the similarities
are obvious. What you will read below, along with the other documents provided
in this book, describe exactly what we have today. Notice the two paragraphs
provided below, in the first a central government is to be set up, with
each colony to retain its own constitution. In the second paragraph you
see that, a President-General is to be elected to run the central government
for the king. What do we have now? President-Commander-in-Chief. Also,
he is appointed and supported by the Crown.
"It is proposed
that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain,
by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including
all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may
retain its present constitution, except in the particulars wherein a change
may be directed by the said act, as hereafter follows.
The king's
corporations are alive and well, lands they hold in fee simple can be parceled
out to whom they will, with the lands returning to the king when the grant/trust/license
expires. The king made grants to his colonies and lords, they became corporations
under the United States Corporate Charter, the lords make grants to other
select men via corporate charters, or by grants of Trusts or license to
smaller corporations and individuals. Any time a corporation dies and no
office is found, it's lands revert back to the granter of the corporation,
and so on back up the line, this is the reason for the inheritance tax,
and why it will never be repealed. I refer you to an earlier
chapter I wrote called, "How Long Can A Corporation Live". Also, check
out a paper the Informer and I jointly wrote on the subject of rent roll
and reversion and corporation sole, "Friends, Enemies And Die Hard Doubters",
and you would be well advised to read the Informer's book, "The New History
Of America", and his other publications. Before you read the ancient statutes,
you must understand the legal term fee simple.
"63. 1. Origin of feuds- The constitution of feuds had its original from the military policy of the northern or Celtic nations, the Goths, the Huns, the Franks, the Vandals, and the Lombards, who all migrating from the same officina gentium (the storehouse of nations), as Crag very justly entitles it, pouredthemselves in vast quantities into all the regions of Europe, at the declension of the Roman empire. It was brought by them from their own countries, and continued in their respective colonies as the most likely means to secure their new acquisitions: and to that end, large districts or parcels of land were allotted by the conquering general to superior officers of the army, and by them dealt out again in smaller parcels or allotments to the inferior officers and most deserving soldiers. These allotments were called feoda, feuds, fiefs, or fees; which last appellation in the northern languages signifies a conditional stipend or reward. Rewards or stipends they evidently were; and the conditionannexed to them was, that the possessor should do service faithfully, both at home and in the wars, to him by whom they were given; for which purpose he took the juramentum fidelitatis, or oath of fealty: and in case of the breach of this condition and oath, by not performing the stipulated service, or by deserting the lord in battle, the lands were again to revert to him who granted them." 2 Blackstone's Commentaries, page 45 "Feud: An inheritable right to
the use and occupation of lands, held on condition of rendering services
to the lord or proprietor, who himself retains the property in the lands,"
"Thus, the people had land they occupied, devised, inherited, alienated, or disposed of as they saw fit, so long as they remained in favor with the King." F. L. Ganshof, Feudalism, p. 113 (1964). "The largest estate in the land
known to the law and implying absolute dominion over the land; an estate
of inheritance clear of any condition, limitation, or restriction, to particular
heirs. 28 Am J2d Est 10. An estate of lawful inheritance or pure inheritance,
"fee" standing for inheritance and "simple" for pure or lawful. A legal
or equitable estate in land constituting the largest estate and implying
absolute dominion, although possibly subject to executory limitations or
conditions subsequent. Hay's Estate v Commissioner (CA5) 181 F2d 169, 39
ALR 2d 453; Ford v Unity Church Society, 120 Mo 498, 25 SW 394."
Are taxes
to be paid by common man holding fee simple title? Yes, according to the
way fee simple is defined today. Today fee simple has been reduced in status
to fee tail for common man, he is to pay all land taxes, also he must abide
by all restrictions placed on the land by federal, State and local governments,
nor can he use the land in any activity contrary to the PublicPolicy. The
difference is the U.S. Corporation just as the knight was granted land
for fee, in service of the king by grant. Common man receives their fee
from the Corporation in tail, a lessor title, today fee simple and fee
tail are synonymous, depending on your status. I would have placed the
quote here from the Ohio Bar Association on fee simple, but they restrict
its use, however below is their web site so you can look for yourself.
"This holding
of lands under another was called a tenure, and was not limited to the
relation of the first or paramount lord and vassal, but extended to those
to whom such vassal, within the rules of feudal [2] law, may have parted
out his own feud to his own vassals, whereby he became the mesne lordbetween
his vassals and his own or lord paramount. Those who held directly to the
king were called his "tenants in ... chief.
Maybe with the below quote you will also understand the meaning and significance behind the pyramid on our dollar, with the all seeing eye at the top of the pyramid. "The fiefs
were built in the same manner as a pyramid, with the King, the true owner
of the land, being at the top, and from the bottom up there existed a system
of small to medium sized to large to large sized estates on which the persons
directly beneath one estate owed homage to the lord of that estate as well
as to the King." Id. at 114, Allodial And Land Patents Titles
"Under this type of fief a certain portion of the grain harvested each year would immediately be turned over to the lord above that particular fief even before the shares from the lower lords and then serfs of the fief would be distributed. A more interesting type of fief for purposes of this memorandum [3] was the money fief. In most cases, the source of money was not specified, andthe payment was simply made from the fief holder's treasury, but the fief might also consist of a fixed revenue to be paid from a definite source in annual payments in order for the tenant owner of the fief to be able to remain on the property." Gilsebert of Mons, Chronique, cc. 69 and 1 15, pp. 109, 175 (ed. Vanderkindere), Allodial And Land Patents Titles "142. (1) Fee-simple estates--Tenant in fee simple (or, as he is frequently styled, tenant in fee) is he that hath lands, tenements, or hereditaments, to hold to him and his heirs forever; generally, absolutely, and simply; without mentioning what heirs, but referring that to his own pleasure, or to the dispostition of the law. The true meaning of the word "fee" (feodum) is the same with that of feud or fief, and in its original sense it is taken in contradistinction to allodium; which latter the writers on this subject define to be every man's own land, which he possesseth merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior." 2 Blackstone's Commentary, page 105 "Thus, the term fee simple absolute in Common-Law England denotes the most and best title a person could have as long as the King allowed him to retain possession of (own) the land. It has been commented that the basis of English land law is the ownership of all reality by the sovereign. From the crown, all titles flow. The original and true meaning of the word "fee" and therefore fee simple absolute is the same as fief or feud, this being in contradiction to the term "allodium" which means or is defined as a man's own land, which he possesses merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior." Wendell [4] v Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491 (1848), Allodial And Land Patents Titles "Therefore on Common-Law England practically everybody who was allowed to retain land, had the type of fee simple absolute often used or defined by courts, a fee simple that grants or gives the occupier as much of a title as the "sovereign" allows such occupier to have at that time. The term became a synonym with thesupposed ownership of land under the feudal system of England at common law. Thus, even though the word absolute was attached to the fee simple, it merely denoted the entire estate that could be assigned or passed to heirs, and the fee being the operative word; fee simple absolute dealt with the entire fief and itsdivisibility, alienability and inheritability." Friedman v Steiner, 107 111. 131 (1883), Allodial And Land Patents Titles "If a fee simple absolute in
Common-Law England denoted or was synonymous with only as much title as
the King allowed his barons to possess, then what did the King have by
way of a title?
"Thus, it is relatively easy to deduce that allodial lands and titles are the highest form of lands and titles known to Common-Law. An estate of inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner, and alienable by him, transmissible to his heirs absolutely and simply, is an absolute estate in perpetuity andthe largest possible estate a man can have, being in fact allodial in its nature." Stanton v Sullivan, 63 R.I. 216, 7 A. 696 (1839), Allodial And Land Patents Titles The law of Mortmain, law of the sovereign, protecting his lands held by his lords and religious men in fee, prohibiting them from diluting his title. Declaring he could confiscate the land he or his lords were alienated from. Even the lords were subject to have their land reclaimed by the king, if theyviolated the king's license requirements. You can find the law of Mortmain at the end of the chapter, in the quotes section. I want to make this clear, if the king and his law (common law) are still live, so are his Charters, Corporations and Trusts. Without defeating the king (death or removal) his law still exists, if his law still exists, his Corporation (Crown) is as I have said: alive and well. What did we do at the end of the Revolutionary War and in framing the 1787 Constitution? Claim the king's law, his common law, his feudal law for our own, and made it our law. So, if you are subject to any tax on the land you live on, you do not, I repeat, DO NOT own your land, you do not have allodial title to you land. It is not possible, allodial and taxed property are an oxymoron, the two are as opposite as light and darkness, the two cannot exist together. Even worse than this, under common law, which we made our law o the land, you do not even have fee simple possession of your land, because early fee simple possession is free from taxation, you hold the land in fee simple at best if you have a tax shelter, trust. Fee tail, and lessor ownerships are evidenced by a title, deed or mortgage, which is how most land is held, and is subject to taxation and or repossession, if the taxes are not paid. I'm sorry but this is a fact, I don't care what you have been told, or lead to believe concerning allodial title. A huge number of patriots believe because of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War that we are sovereigns here possessing the land through allodial title, as a matter of sovereignty, by defeating the king. Wrong, it is impossible, the king has conned Americans, or I should say allowed them to believe they are sovereigns, owning their land through allodial title. This would be a good place for you to read some quotes by Sir Edmund Burke, and by Adam Smith, because of the importance taxation plays in proving land ownership in America, by allodial title is an oxymoron. I'm including more quotes at the end of this chapter by Adam Smith and other relevant information. "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.
"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."
"But my idea of it is this; that
an empire is the aggregate of many states under one common head, whether
this head be a monarch or a presiding republic."
"The people heard, indeed, from
the beginning of these disputes, one thing continually dinned in their
ears, that reason and justice demanded that the Americans, who paid no
taxes, should be compelled to contribute...."Their wealth was considered
as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all
back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing
the poorer by any expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our
own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the improvement
of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people."
Here are some
court cases, that will help you understand fee simple, and how land is
held in this country. In this first case you will see our perception of
what took place, then the judge lets the air out, and tells you how it
was and is, as a matter of law.
Page 368
North Carolina Reports (Archive)
Page 703 DODERIDGE, J.
North Carolina Reports (Archive)
Page 680
....."the statute is to be construed reasonably, and shall be expounded as the King's patents are. Therefore, if the King grant by his letters patent, under the great seal, all mines, the patentee shall not have royal mines. Then when all possessions are given, there is a right of entry and a right of action, butthe right of action is not given by the general words of an act of Parliament. Now the word condition is a species and not a genus; and the 26 H., 8, enacting that such persons shall forfeit all the lands, tenements, and hereditaments, in which the offender shall have any estate of inheritance, there is not a difference between an inheritance in fee or in tail, while there are but these two estates of inheritance, and the statute says that he shall forfeit all the lands in which he has an estate of inheritance; and a condition is as simple as an inheritance".... North Carolina Reports (Archive)
Page 443
North Carolina Reports (Archive)
Page 347 ...."If the land had escheated, it then becomes necessary to inquire, In what manner has the State taken? I contend that the land is taken by the State, exempt of any trust for in England, when the Lord or King takes by escheat, they take discharged of the trust. 1 Coke's Rep., 122, Chudleigh's case. Before theStatute of 27 Henry, 8, whenever feoffee to uses did anything which produced escheat, the land reverted to the Lord discharge of the trust. North Carolina Reports (Archive)
Page 349 When the war broke out those who did not like the new government were at liberty to sell their lands and retire with the proceeds where they pleased; and this is agreeable to the law of nations. Vattel, B. 1, sec. 33, 195. This doctrine seems to have been held in view by the framers of the Constitution. Iredell's Rev., 276. Declaration of Rights, sec. 25. This section only charges the sovereign, and by it no escheat can take place, and aliens may still take and hold lands. This section provides that the titles made by the King and the Lords Proprietors shall not be affected; and the General Assembly of this State have shown that they were under the influence of this opinion, as appears from the 3d chap., Acts 1777. Iredell's Rev., 284, 285 So read closely
the portions of ancient state statutes, provided
below.
Delaware "All fines and common recoveries levied and suffered within this State, in pursuance of or according to the common or statute laws of England, in the Superior Court of the county wherein the lands, tenements or hereditaments entailed lie shall be as good in law, to bar estates so entailed, as fines and common recoveries of lands, tenements or hereditaments levied, or England are. Any heir at law or other person claiming any right in the lands, tenements or hereditaments may, either by appeal or writ of error, reverse such fines or recoveries for any errors in levying or suffering the fines or recoveries." (Code 1852, 1639, 1640; Code
1915, 3234; Code 1935, 3697;
302. Bar of estate tail by deed. "A person having a legal or equitable
estate or right in fee tail in possession, remainder or reversion, in any
lands, tenements or hereditaments may alien the lands, tenements or hereditaments,
in fee simple, or for other less estate, by deed, in the same manner and
as effectually as if such estate or right were in fee simple. The deed
of alienation in fee simple of any person, of any lands, tenements or hereditaments
shall have the same effect and operation for barring all estate tail and
other interests in the lands, tenements or hereditaments, as such persons
being a party cognizor to a fine in due manner levied,
(Code 1852, 1641; Code 1915,
3235; Code 1935, 3698; 25 Del.
303. Warranty by life tenant and collateral warranty. "A warranty made by a tenant for life shall not, by descending or coming to a person in remainder or reversion, bar or affect his title. A collateral warranty shall not in any case bar or affect a title not derived from the person making such warranty." (Code 1852, 1642; Code 1915,
3236; Code 1935, 3699; 25 Del.
304. Permanent leasehold estates as estates in fee simple. "Permanent leasehold estates, renewable forever, shall be considered to be estates in fee simple, and shall be subject to the same modes of alienation, power of devise, and rules of descent and distribution, and to all the incidents of an estate in fee, provided that the grantor of the leasehold or the personentitled to the estate, out of which the term issues, has first released to the grantee of the term or the person in possession of the leasehold all his right to the rent charged upon or growing out of the leasehold." (15 Del. Laws, c. 168; Code 1915,
3237; Code 1935, 3700; 25 Del.
C. 1953, 304.)
305. Deeds by foreign corporations;
recording as evidence; ownership rights.
"All deeds to lands in Delawware executed and delivered b corporations created by and existing under the laws of the states and territories of the United States of America, other than Delaware, or created by and existing under the laws of any foreign state or nation, are made valid and effective to convey the fee simple or other estate purported to be conveyed in such deeds, with the same force and effect as if the corporation grantor had been a corporation lawfully created by and existing under the laws of this State. Such deeds, when recorded, or any office copy thereof, shall be admitted as evidence in all courts of this State, and shall be valid and conclusive evidence, with the same force and effect as if such deeds had been properly executed, acknowledged and delivered by corporations created by and existing under the laws of this State. A foreign corporation owning lands in Delaware may exercise all rights and privileges of ownership to the same extent as if such corporation were a corporation lawfully created by and existing under the laws of this State." (26 Del. Laws, c. 253; Code 1915, 3238; 38 Del. Laws, c. 174; Code 1935, 3701; 25 Del. C. 1953, 305.) I just wanted to point out the below statute declared that the State of Georgia (created Corporation) is a successor to the Crown of England. The Crown is the Corporate entity of the king, and as I have stated before, first there were the Corporate Charters, amended to corporate colonies, amended to corporateStates, via their State Constitutions, that did not change the original corporate charter, as declared in the 25th sec. of the North Carolina, Declaration of Rights, 1776 N.C. Constitution, which I quote again here: "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 Then confirmed
by the 1783 Paris Treaty, wherein the minerals did not change hands, they
stayed with the king, his heirs and successors. In other words, the king,
his heirs and his successors forever, were to continue to receive as a
matter of Trust, the gain, profit from his corporate venture. To cement
this since his subjects had gone brain dead, and now believed themselves
free from their obligations. Believing when the States became States of,
after the 1787 Constitution was ratified, they became free and sovereign.
In March 1791 thanks to George Washington, the States of, became District
States of the Crown,
side stepping the 1787 Constitution and the States short lived independence
declared in 1776, in favor of the king's public policy, his taxes and licenses
to be administered by his United States Corporation and its elected fiduciaries
and den of thieves. When governing for the king, the President and Congress
were no longer bound by the 1787 Constitution. The king wouldnow receive
as declared in his early Charters for himself, his heirs and successors,
the 30 percent tax for his family business venture. Because now his bank
could operate within the several District States, incorporated in the District
of Columbia, this was not possible until Washington made the District States;
never to be repealed. Also, go back and read the quotes I gave by Burke
and Smith, there is no doubt.
Georgia 52-1-2 G
52-1-2. "The General Assembly finds and declares that the State of Georgia became the owner of the beds of all tidewaters within the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia as successor to the Crown of England and by the common law. The State of Georgia continues to hold title to the beds of all tidewaters within the state, except where title in a private party can be traced to a valid Crown or state grant which explicitly conveyed the beds of such tidewaters. The General Assembly further finds that the State of Georgia, as sovereign, is trustee of the rights of the people of the state to use and enjoy all tidewaters which are capable of use for fishing, passage, navigation, commerce, and transportation, pursuant to the common law public trust doctrine. Therefore, the General Assembly declares that the protection of tidewaters for use by the state and its citizens has more than local significance, is of equal importance to all citizens of the state, is of state-wide concern, and, consequently, is properly a matter for regulation under the police powers of the state. The General Assembly further finds and declares that structures located upon tidewaters which are used as places of habitation, dwelling, sojournment, or residence interfere with the state's proprietary interest or the public trust, or both, and must be removed to ensure the rights of the state and the people of the State of Georgia to the use and enjoyment of such tidewaters. It is declared to be a policy of this state and the intent of this article to protect the tidewaters of the state by authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to remove or require removal of certain structures from such tidewaters in accordance with the procedures and within the timetable set forth in this article." "(1) An Act for reviving and
enforcing certain laws therein mentioned and adopting the common laws of
England as they existed on May 14, 1776, approved February 25, 1784. (For
the adopting Act of 1784, see Prince's 1822 Digest, p. 570; Cobb's 1851
Digest, p. 721; and Code of 1863, Section 1, paragraph 6.)"
Florida "2.01 Common law and certain
statutes declared in force.
Virginia 1-10
I hope by
now when you read the below statute, you recognize when they say public's
interest they are not talking about the people that voted them into office.
Maine 571. Legislative findings and purpose "The Legislature finds and declares
that the intertidal lands of the State are impressed with a public trust
and that the State is responsible for protection of the public's interest
in this
The Legislature further finds and declares that this public trust is part of the common law of Maine and generally derived from the practices, conditions and needs in Maine, from English Common Law and from the Massachusetts Colonial Ordinance of 1641-47. The public trust is an evolving doctrine reflective ofthe customs, traditions, heritage and habits of the Maine people. In Maine, the doctrine has diverged from the laws of England and Massachusetts. The public trust encompasses those uses of intertidal land essential to the health and welfare of the Maine people, which uses include, but are not limited to,fishing, fowling, navigation, use as a footway between points along the shore and use for recreational purposes. These recreational uses are among the most important to the Maine people today who use intertidal land for relaxation from the pressures of modern society and for enjoyment of nature's beauty. [1985, c. 782 (new).] The Legislature further finds
and declares that the protection of the public uses referred to in this
chapter is of great public interest and grave concern to the State. [1985,
c. 782 (new).]"
Vermont VERMONT STATUTES ONLINE
" 2401. PUBLIC LANDS; DUTIES
OF SELECTMEN
2402. RIGHT OF POSSESSION
2404. RENTS OF OTHER LANDS,
HOW DIVIDED AND APPLIED
2405. CONTRACT UNDER PREVIOUS
LAW NOT AFFECTED
2406. CONVEYANCE OF LEASEHOLDS,
TRUST FUNDS
New Jersey PROPERTY TITLE 46 46:1-1. Words and phrases defined "As used in this title, except where the context clearly indicates a contrary intent, the terms "county recording officer" and "office of the county recording officer" mean the register of deeds and mortgages and his office in countieshaving such an officer and office, and the county clerk and his office in the other counties." 46:2-1. Titles, rights and interests preserved "Nothing in this title contained
shall in any way affect, abridge or abrogate any title to or rights or
interests in any real estate or personal property lawfully given, acquired
and existing at the time when the Revised Statutes take effect."
The main thing I want you to understand, and I believe most do, as I said earlier, our laws were based on the Common law of England, all states in union of the United States are, accept one. That's right one state out of the fifty is not under English Common law. A lot of you may think this must be Texas,but it's not. The one state not subject to, or formed under English common law is New York, New York City is responsible for not only our demise, but the entire World's. New York City is the alter ego of London, and the other banking centers for the Banksters of the World to operate. New York City is the home ofthe Bankers, the World Trade Center, the Stock Market, the World Bank's control via the IMF and the United Nations, etc. The controlling center for all banking, communication and super computers containing data on everyone and every transaction for the Bankers to control the Worlds population and their leaders, through their finances, with the U.N. as their police force and NATO as prosecutor of the Law Of The Flag and Conqueror of new Empires. When you read the very revealing statements in the New York statutes below you will see, they declare themselves not to be under English Common law, by section 70, sec. 71 deals with Acts and sec. 72 deals with Resolutions. If you would
like to understand how this fits into God's Word, that is New York City,
read Rev. 17-18, Jer. 51 and Isa 13. I wrote on this subject years ago
and I won't go into it here other than to say, New York City is the Biblical
Babylon as you can read for yourself, as God Almighty defines Babylon inRev.
18, no other City in the World meets His definition.
New York New York State Consolidated Laws: General Construction "Section
S 70. Statutes of England and Great Britain inoperative in this state. A statute of England or Great Britain shall not be deemed to have had any force or effect in this state since May first, seventeen hundred and eighty-eight. S 71. Acts of the legislature of the colony of New York inoperative. Acts of the legislature of the colony of New York shall not be deemed to have had any force or effect in this state since December twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred and twenty-eight. S 72. Resolutions of the congress
of the colony and the convention of New York inoperative. The resolutions
of the congress of the colony of New York and of the convention of the
state of New York, shall not be deemed to be the laws of this state hereafter."
Texas "The rule of decision in this
state consists of those portions of the common law of England that are
not inconsistent with the constitution or the laws of this state, the constitution
of this state, and the laws of this state.
North Carolina "Chapter 40A. Eminent Domain. ARTICLE 1. General. 40A-1. Exclusive provisions. It is the
intent of the General Assembly that the procedures provided by this Chapter
shall be the exclusive condemnation procedures to be used in this State
by all private condemnors and all local public condemnors. All other provisions
in laws, charters, or local acts authorizing the use of other procedures
by municipal or county governments or
agencies or political subdivisions thereof, or by corporations, associations
or other persons are hereby repealed effective January 1, 1982. Provided,
that any condemnation proceeding initiated prior to January 1, 1982, may
be lawfully completed
pursuant to the provisions previously existing. This chapter shall not
repeal any provision of a local act enlarging or limiting the purposes
for which property may be condemned. Notwithstanding the language of G.S.
40A-3(b),this Chapter also shall not repeal any provision of a local act
creating any
" 40A-2. Definitions. As used
in this Chapter the following words and phrases have the meanings indicated
unless the context clearly requires another meaning:
" 40A-3. By whom right may be
exercised.
I guess now is a good time to deal with the pipe dreams we have been taught and allowed to believe, reinforced by the governments school system, in the selective teaching of history, also, parroted by the media. The pipe dream as I said earlier is our belief we do, or can possess land in this country, under the present law, in allodial title. Notice I said under the present law, this is the key to the king's power, retaining possession to his Corporation, the Crown. What did we do at the beginning of this nation? Declare our law to be English common law, confirming the king's Corporation and the law that created it and protects it even today. "Corporation Sole: A corporation consisting of one person only and his successors. An older concept of the status of a king or a bishop as incorporated in order to give to them and their successors legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which they could not have in their natural capacities." Ballentine's Law Dictionary, Third Ed., 1969 "Reversion. The residue of an estate and left in the grantor, to commence in possession after the determination of some particular estate granted out by him. The return of land to the grantor and his heirs after the grant is over." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, vol. 3, 1914 "651. b. Civil corporations (1) Lay corporations. ....But first, as I have laid it down as a rule that the founder, his heirs, or assigns, are the visitors of all lay corporations, let us inquire what is meant by the founder. The confounder of all corporations in the strictest and original sense is the king alone, for he only can incorporate a society; and in civil incorporations, suchas mayor and commonalty, etc., where there are no possessions or endowments given to the body, there is no other founder but the king:".... Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 685 654. 10. Dissolution of corporations. ....But the body politic may also itself be dissolved in several ways; which dissolution is the civil death of the corporation: and in this case their lands and tenements shall revert to the person, or his heirs, who granted them to the corporation: for the law doth annex a condition to every such grant, that if the corporation be dissolved, the grantor shall have the lands again, only during the life of the corporation; which may endure forever: but, when that life is determined by the dissolution of the body politic, the grantor takes it back by reversion, as in the case of every other grant for life." Blackstone's Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 700 Not to get
ahead of myself, we first declared our Independence, sounded good, but
why would you place your neck back under the yoke, the law that subjected
you? Simple, as history proves, many of our fore fathers, including Washington
did not want to be separated from the king. Some stood to lose lands and
title, others understood they were subjects of the king and liked it. History
shows they were not at odds with being subjects of the king, just his policies,
regarding taxes and their government being so far removed; commerce and
legal convenience demanded representation here, but still controlled bythe
king.
Now, to the so-called 1783 Paris Treaty, wherein the king's possessions were turned over to us without his losing the War. Benjamin Franklin spent almost the entire war traveling back and forth from France and England working out the terms of the Treaty, excuse me GRANT, from the king of England. Let me see, we did not win the War, we did not dictate the terms of surrender, the king's barrister's along with the esquires chosen from America, Franklin, Jay and Adams, wrote the document. A document wherein the king's law remained in force, and he GRANTED lands to his new Corporation, the United States. However, he did not grant to his Corporation the rights to the minerals existing and all to be found in the future. As I have said before, he declared in his Charters, ownership to all minerals, and that he was to receive a portion of the gain/profit in this country forever. Go back and read the quotes earlier in this paper. Also, how can the king do anything else but give fee simple title, when his law provides for only him to have allodial title. Did he change his law? NO. Could he change the un-revocable Trust his Charters established for all his heirs and successors? No. No, and could not, without destroying his throne, his Crown (corporation) and his law, thereby conquesting himself. You see that is the only way under the king's law to own land by allodial title, via conquest, as the conqueror. This is why no country has defeated the king of England and his Crown, because if his law exists wherein the Corporate Charter was created, and the king and his heirs remain, the king's Crown and Charters remain in force. Let's look at another source, here are several relevant quotes I pulled out of the Book written by Frederic Maitland, 1901, The Crown as Corporation. "In 1522 Fineux C.J. after telling how some corporations are made by the king, others by the pope, others by both king and pope, adds that there are corporations by the common law, for, says he, "the parliament of the king and the lords and the commons are a corporation."(7*) Y.B. 14 hen. VIII, f. 3 (Mich. pl. 2). The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901 "The king has two capacities, for he has two bodies, the one whereof is a body natural... the other is a body politic, and the members thereof are his subjects, and he and his subjects together compose the corporation, as Southcote said, and he is incorporated with them and they with him, and he is the head andthey are the members, and he has the sole government of them."(12*) Plowden, p. 234. The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901 "But, says an Act of 1738, the
said premises "being vested in His Majesty, his heirs and successors in
his politick capacity, which in consideration of law never dies, it may
create a doubt whether the tenants of the said estates ought... to pay
such fines... on the death of His present Majesty (whom God long preserve
for the benefit of his People) or On the death of any future King orQueen."
So the tenants are to pay as they would have paid "in case such King or
Queen so dying was considered as a private person only and not in his or
her politick capacity".(27*) (II Geo. II, c. 30, pr. and s. 1.) Thus that
artificial person, the king in his politick capacity, who is a trustee
for the Publick, must be deemed to die now and then for the benefit of
cestui que trust.
"This is natural, for we may,
if we will, trace the beginnings of a national debt back to days when a
king borrows money and charges the repayment of it upon a specific tax;
perhaps he will even appoint his creditor to collect that tax, and so enable
him to repay himself."
"In 1714 the Governor, Council
and General Assembly of New York passed a long Act "for the paying and
discharging the several debts and sums of money claimed as debts of this
Colony". A preamble stated that some of the debts of the Colony had not
been paid because the Governors had misapplied and extravagantly expended
"the revenue given by the loyal subjects aforesaid to Her Majesty and Her
Royal Predecessors, Kings and Queens of England, sufficient for the honorable
as well as necessary support of their Government here." "This Colony",
the preamble added, "in strict justice is in no manner of way obliged to
pay many of the said claims"; however, in order "to restore the Publick
Credit", they were to be paid.(35*)(Act of 1714 13 Anne) Here we have a
Colony which can be bound even in strict justice to pay money. What the
great colonies did the small colonies did also."
"But then comes the lawyer with
theories in his head, and begins by placing a legal estate in what he calls
the Crown or Her Majesty. "In construing these enactments, it must always
be kept in view that wherever public land with its incidents is described
as 'the property of' or as 'belonging to' the Dominion or
a Province, these expressions merely import that the right to its beneficial
use, or to its proceeds, has been appropriated to the Dominion or the Province,
as the case may be, and is subject to the control of its legislature, the
land itself being vested in the Crown."(44*)St. Catherine's Milling and
Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46. esp. p. 56; A.-G. of Brit.
Columbia v. A.-G. of Canada, 14 App. Cas. 295; A.-G. of Ontario v. Mercer
(1883), 8 App. Cas. 767; A.-G. of Canada v. As.-G. of Ontario, Quebec,
Nova Scotia [1898] A.C. 700."
"Although the Secretary of State
[for India] is a body corporate, or in the same position as a body corporate,
for the purpose of contracts, and of suing and being sued, yet he is not
a body corporate for the purpose of holding property. Such property as
formerly vested, or would have vested, in the East India Company now vests
in the Crown."(45*) Ilbert, Government of India
In the quote below from Maitland, you will see that even the Postmaster General was used to secure the king's possessions in America, and was a vehicle used by the king, through the President and his powers as Commander-in-Chief, to expand the king's land west, via the king's law going west with the laws governing the mail. After that, is a quote from President Monroe, arguing that such powers were not being used and did not exist, he would no doubt have to eat a huge amount of crow today, if he was alive today, and saw the Dept. of Transportation, and the power they have been granted over the Nation's roads, and skies. You will also see the need for the king to incorporate, and that a grant of sovereign land ownership in was given to the War Dept. Sounds like the military's loyalty was bought and paid for, leading up to conquest of America, after the Civil War. "In 1840 the Postmaster-General
and his successors "is and are" made "a body corporate" for the purpose
of holding and taking conveyances and leases of lands and hereditaments
for the service of the Post Office. From the Act that effected this incorporation
we may learn that the Postmaster as a mere individual had been holding
land in trust for the Crown.(52*) 3&4 Vict. c. 96, s. 67[now - Ed.
VII, c. 48, s. 45] One of the main reasons, I take it, for erecting some
new corporations sole was that our "Crown", being more or less identifiable
with the King, it was difficult to make the Crown a leaseholder or copyholder
in a direct and simple fashion. The Treasurer of Public Charities was made
acorporation sole in 1853.(53*) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, s. 47. Then in
1855 the Secretary of State intrusted with the seals of the War Department
was enabled to hold land as a corporation sole.(54*) 18&19 Vict. c.
117, s. 2. Perhaps if there were a Lord High Admiral he would be a corporation
sole vel quasi.(55*)
"If the United States possessed,
the power contended for under this grant, might they not, in adopting the
roads of the individual states for the carriage of the mail, as has been
done, assume jurisdiction over them, and preclude a right to interfere
with or alter them? Might they not establish turnpikes, and exercise all
the other acts of sovereignty, above stated, over such roads, necessary
to protect them from injury, and defray the expense of repairing them?
Surely, if the right exists, these consequences necessarily followed, as
soon as the road was established. The absurdity of such a pretension must
be apparent to all, who examine it. In this way, a large portion of the
territory of every state might be taken from it; for there is scarcely
a road in any state, which will not be used for the transportation of the
mail. A new field for legislation and internal government would thus be
opened." President Monroe's Message, of 4th May, 1822, p. 24 to 27. .
Post Routes
Below is the
Quote section, I've also added The Treaty of Verona, a quote by Senator
Owen, from the Congressional Record, 1916 on the same Treaty, and last
but not least, the Jesuit Oath. In these documents you will see thee hidden
agenda of the Pope, had bought this information out in previous emails,
but now is the proper time to re air this subject, so you can understand
the relevance of the
Informer's comments, in his introduction. As the Informer said, in this
last chapter I have dealt primarily with our nexus with the king of England,
so as not to cloud the issue anymore than it is, by dealing with more than
this subject.
"Their wealth was considered
as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all
back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing
the poorer by any expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our
own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon theimprovement
of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people."
OUR FORE FATHERS WANTED THE BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX TO THE KING. "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 4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM. "Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to taxes in general. I. The subjects
of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government,
as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that
is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the
protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of
a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of
a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their
respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this
maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every
tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only
of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in
so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination
of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort
of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that
inequality which is occasioned by a
particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private
revenue which is affected by it.
"It is not contrary to
justice that both Ireland and America should contribute towards the discharge
of the public debt of Great Britain. That debt has been contracted in support
of the government established by the Revolution, a government to which
the Protestants of Ireland owe, not only the whole authority which they
at present enjoy in their own country, but every security which they possess
for their liberty, their property, and their religion; a government to
which several of the colonies of America owe their present charters, and
consequently their present constitution, and to which all the colonies
of America owe the liberty, security, and property which they have eversince
enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the defense, not of Great
Britain allone, but of all the different provinces of the empire; the immense
debt contracted in the late war in particular, and a great part of that
contracted in the war before, were both properly contracted in defense
of America."
"The expense of the peace establishment
of the colonies was, before the commencement of the present disturbances,
very considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can be
drawn from them ought certainly to be saved altogether. This constant expense
in time of peace, though very great, is insignificant
in comparison with what the defense of the colonies has cost us in time
of war. The last war, which was undertaken altogether on account of the
colonies, cost Great Britain, it has already been observed, upwards of
ninety millions. The Spanish war of 1739 was principally undertaken on
their account, in which, and in the French war that was the consequence
of it, Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of which
ought justly to be charged to the colonies. In those two wars the colonies
cost Great Britain much more than double the sum which the national debt
amounted to before the commencement of the first of them. Had it not been
for those wars that debt might,
and probably would by this time, have been completely paid; and had it
not been for the colonies, the former of those wars might not, and the
latter certainly would not have been undertaken. It was because the colonies
were supposed to be provinces of the British empire that this expense was
laid out upon them.
But countries which contribute neither revenue nor military force towards
the support of the empire cannot be considered as provinces. They may perhaps
be considered as appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of
the empire. But if the empire can no longer support the expense of keeping
up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay it down; and if it cannot raise
its revenue in proportion to its expense, it ought, at least, to accommodate
its expense to its revenue. If the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal
to submit to British taxes, are still to be considered as provinces of
the British empire,
their defense in some future war may cost Great Britain as great an expense
as it ever has done in any former war. The rulers of Great Britain have,
for more than a century past, amused the people with the imagination that
they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire,
however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been,
not an empire, but the project of an empire; not a gold mine, but the project
of a gold mine; a project which has cost, which continues to cost, and
which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likely to
cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the
effects of the monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shown, are, to
the great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit."
5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER. 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 upby 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 courtof common law."
Court of Exchequer: "An English
superior court with jurisdiction of matter of law and matters involving
government revenue."
Court of Exchequer: "A court
for the correction and prevention of errors of law in the three superior
common-law courts of the kingdom.
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 parliamentarybarons; 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 hereditaments, 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."
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 all the 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 surmiise of being the king's debto
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."
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:
Statute of Mortmain, 1279 "The king to his Justices of
the Bench, greeting. Where as of late it was provided that religious men
should not enter into the fees of any without the will and licence of the
lords in chief of whom these fees are held immediately; and such religious
men have, notwithstanding, later entered as well into their own fees as
into those of others, appropriated, them to themselves, andbuying them,
and sometimes receiving them from the gift of others, whereby the services
which are due of such fees, and which at the beginning, were provided for
the defence of the realm, are unduly withdrawn, and the lords in chief
do lose their escheats of the same; we, therefore, to the profit of our
realm, wishing to provide a fit remedy in this matter, by advice of our
prelates, counts and other subjects of our realm who are of our council,
have provided, established, and ordained, that no person, religious or
other, whatsoever presume to buy or sell any lands or tenements, , or under
colour of gift or lease, or of any other term or title whatever to receive
them from any one, or in any other craft or by wile to appropriate them
to himself, whereby such lands and tenements may come into mortmain under
pain of forfeiture of the same. We have provided also that if any person,
religious or other, do presume either by craft or wile to offend against
this statute it shall be lawful for us and for other
immediate lords in chief of the fee so alienated, to enter it within a
year from the time of such alienation and to hold it in fee as an inheritance.
And if the immediate lord in chief shall -be negligent and be not willing
to enter into such fee within the year, then it shall be lawful for the
next mediate lord in chief, within the half year following, to enter that
fee and to hold it, as has been said; and thus each mediate lord may do
if the next lord be negligent in entering such fee as as been said. And
if all such chief lords of such fee, who shall be of full age, and within
the four seas and out of prison, shall before one year negligent or remiss
in this matter, we, straightway after the year is completed from the time
when such purchases, mgifts, or appropriations of another kind happen to
have been made, shall take such lands and tenements into our hand, and
shall enfief others therein by certain services to be rendered thence to
us for the defence of our kingdom ; saving to the lords
Could the President as trustee, in behalf of the Crown, sell what it does not control, as trustee? No. Will the unsuspecting purchasers of the sold property own it? No. They might be granted fee simple title, or be made to pay taxes if given only fee tail title. Either way the king is still the corporate sole, and they will not have allodial title. Remember this Executive Order, I use it because it further proves the American people do not own any land in America. 19063 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that the United States achieves the most beneficial economic use of its resources, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section 1. Definitions. For purposes
of this order:
(b) "Infrastructure asset" means any asset financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government and needed for the functioning of the economy. Examples of such assets include, but are not limited to: roads, tunnels, bridges, electricity supply facilities, mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports, waterways, water supply facilities, recycling and wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing, schools, prisons, and hospitals. (c) "Originally authorized purposes" means the general objectives of the original grant program; however, the term is not intended to include every condition required for a grantee to have obtained the original grant. (d) "Transfer price" means: (i) the amount paid or to be paid by a private party for an infrastructure asset, if the asset is transferred as a result of competitive bidding; or (ii) the appraised value of an infrastructure asset, as determined by the head of the executive department or agency and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, if the asset is not transferred as a result of competitive bidding. (e) "State and local governments" means the government of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and any county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastatedistrict, regional or interstate governmental entity, council of governments, and any agency or instrumentality of a local government, and any federally recognized Indian Tribe. Sec. 2. Fundamental Principles. Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following objectives an principles: (a) Adequate and well-maintained infrastructure is critical to economic growth. Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No. 12612, and in order to allow the private sector to provide for infrastructure modernization and expansion, State and local governments should have greaterfreedom to privatize infrastructure assets. (b) Private enterprise and competitively driven improvements are the foundation of our Nation's economy and economic growth. Federal financing of infrastructure assets should not act as a barrier to the achievement of economic efficiencies through additional private market financing or competitive practices, or both. (c) State and local governments are in the best position to assess and respond to local needs. State and local governments should, subject to assuring continued compliance with Federal requirements that public use be on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, have maximum possible freedom to United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.
[Signed George Bush]
THE WHITE HOUSE
"The undersigned specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows: ARTICLE I. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchial principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments, in whatever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known. ARTICLE 2. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own state but also in the rest of Europe. ARTICLE 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their own interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant co-operation in their views of submitting the nations. ARTICLE 4. The situation of Spain and Portugal unite unhappily all the circumstances to which this treaty has particular reference. The high contracting parties, in confiding to France the care of putting an end to them, engaged to assist her in the manner which may at least compromit them with theirown people and the people of France by means of a subsidy on the part of the two empires of 20,000,000 of francs every year from the date of signature of this treaty to the end of the war. ARTICLE 5. In order to establish in the peninsula the order of things which existed before the revolution of Cadiz, and to insure the entire execution of the articles of the present treaty, the high contracting parties give to each other the reciprocal assurance that as long as their views are not fulfilled, rejecting all other ideas of futility or other measure to be taken, they will address themselves with the shortest possible delay to all the authorities existing in their states and to all their agents in foreign countries, with the view to establish connections tending toward the accomplishment of the objects proposed by this treaty. ARTICLE 6. This treaty shall be renewed with such changes as new circumstances may give occasion for; either at a new congress, or at the court of one of the contracting parties, as soon as the war with Spain shall be terminated. ARTICLE 7.
The present treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications exchanged at
Paris within the space of six months.
Senator Owen "This Holy
Alliance, having put a Bourdon prince upon the throne of France by force,
then used France to suppress the condition of Spain, immediately afterwards,
and by this very treaty gave her a subsidy of 20,000,000 francs annually
to enable her to wage war upon the people of Spain and prevent their exercise
of any measure of the right of self-government. The Holy Alliance
THE JESUIT OATH
"I.............................., now
in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Blessed Michael
the Archangel, The Blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, Peter and
Paul, and all the Saints, sacred hosts of Heaven, and to you, my ghostly Father,
the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyaola,
in the Ponification of Paul theThird, and continued to the present, do by the
womb of the virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare
and swear that his holiness, the Pope, is Christ's Vice-regent, and is the true
and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and
that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing, given to his Holiness
by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes,
states, commonwealths and governments, all being illegal without his sacred
confirmation, and that they may be safely destroyed.
|
\