ADDEDUM  In response that the Anglo-Saxon common law was left out of the Informer's question, is as follows, and I do not answer for him, but this is in addition to his response.

Britain was first invaded in 55 BC. by Julius Caesar, then again in 54 BC. In 63 AD. Joseph of Arimathea was sent by the Pope in Rome to try and establish the Catholic Church in Britain.
In 77 AD. Britain was taken over through conquest by Rome. The Imperial governor Julius Agricola was put in place to rule over Rome's new territory. Britain was as of 77 AD. subject to Rome, with Roman law.

In 407 AD. Emperor Constantine III withdrew the Roman troops from Britain leaving a political vacuum. The Celts (Irish), and the Vikings (Scandinavians) saw an opening to obtain land. In 410 AD. Britain won its independence from Rome, when the Goths ransacked Rome.

In 446 AD. the British government sought help to defeat the invading arms of the northern countries. Rome was unable to send troops because it was defending itself from Attila the Hun. So Rome offered mercenaries to aid Britain, Britain hired these barbaric mercenaries which were from northern Germany, they as you know are called Saxons.

In 450 AD. the Saxon barbarians began to massacre the Britons and take their land, in this manner they occupied the country of Britain. The Saxons were pagans some believed the Druid religion, others worshiped the same gods Rome worshiped, mercury and Venus, etc. etc.

The long and short of it is the Saxons were not responsible for a Common law by themselves. They were not Christians and did not support Cannon or ecclesiastical law, and their law was influenced greatly by Roman law. The major difference was the Saxon king called himself king of the English, and William the Conqueror called himself king of England, meaning, William the Conqueror claimed he owned the land and the Saxon king made no such claims. Under Saxon law citizen meant freeman, and under Roman law, continuing in England in 1066 under William Conqueror, citizen meant subject. Under both systems you were forced to pay taxes to support the government. A tax payer is always a subject, so under William the Conqueror, he left no doubt as to your status, the Saxon kings were more subtle, the outcome is the same. Taxation and the subjection it confirms, is not always a bad thing. It depends on the government. Case in point, those that are Christians, are subject to Jesus Christ and are taxed 10% to support His government.

Look at what happened at Runnymede with the Magna Charta, the Barons thought they were gaining freedom, by the king granting them rights under the Charta. However, if they had stopped to read the 1213 Charta, wherein the king granted and ceded the Pope all of his lands, they would have known the king could not grant the rights without the blessing of the Pope. Did not the Pope sign off on the Charta of 1215, as a party to the Contract? Ask yourself this, did the granted rights end their tax obligations to the king, or the Pope? No. So is the granting of rights a problem or hinderance to the money lenders?  No. Did the 1215 Charta in anyway overturn the obligations of the 1213 Charta? No, and they could not. Here is another reason.

Guess what America, and the rest of the free world, that claim their rights come from the Magna Charta, which was ratified by Pope Innocent III and of course the king under duress on June 15, 1215, on August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III Declared that the Magna Charta was null and void, [(Geary) 49.3 August 24, 1215 parliamentary origins in England, Internet Medieval Source Book.]

I just found this, I do not have a copy of the above declaration at this time, it has been copyrighted, the book will have to be purchased, if it is still available. I won't speculate as to why it is kept in copyright and not released to the public as most other medieval documents have been.

To continue, Edward I, in 1297 was forced to re-declare the 1215 Magna Charta, because the Pope forbid his monks and bishops etc. etc., to pay taxes to the king, so the king began to tax the Barons again, and they drew their swords. King Edwards action holds less weight than that of his predecessor king John, because as of August 24, 1215 the Charta was an invalid document. Not
to mention the issue I raised earlier concerning debt obligations of a previous Charter could not be voided.

The Pope by his confirmation of the Magna Charta was jerking the chains of the Barons, so to speak. As I said in earlier papers, there was no way the Pope would give up what was granted/ceded to him in the 1213 Charter. The Magna Charta could not void an earlier Charter which contained a debt obligation between parties, without all parties agreeing. Since the parties
of the 1213 Charter would continue to be born, it was an unrevocable trust.

As example, read the 1689 Declaration of Rights, which became law. Did it, or could it overturn any financial obligations under previous Charters? No. Read the third section of the 1689 Declaration of Rights. It says if any provision of the Declaration comes into conflict with earlier Charters, the Declaration will be as if it were never written. If you do not have a copy of all the above cited material let the Informer or I know and we can supply you with the relevant material.

Do you see how not only Americans, but the entire world have been conned into thinking we are free? Every time the king has been challenged, the king grants rights to the combatants and they go home saying "WE WON", however nothing changed, because the king retained his power to tax, through previous Charters and new tax obligations created by accepting the kings benefits.

Another example, the Declaration of Independence and the war of Independence that followed, is no different than any other time in the history in challenging the king. The king said OK, I will grant my created Corporations, the states, Independence and allow them to establish their own governments. But wait the governors retained the power granted by the king and the council of state. The states then consolidated their corporate Charters under one Charter, called the U.S. Constitution. Could the tax obligations of previous Charters be removed by our Declaration of
Independence, or a war which did not remove the control of the king, which is obvious since in the peace Treaty of Paris he was granting us land? No.

No where in the 1783 Paris peace treaty will you find granted rights to the inhabitants of the states. No where in the treaty will you find where the taxes of gold, silver and copper (mineral rights) were ceded to the states. So much for allodial title in the states, freeman status and allodial title are synonymous, you can't have one without the other. Since the king did not cede all of his corporate enterprise he retained his taxation and the subjection of those that enjoy his benefits.

"YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same, the yearly Rent of Twenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First
payment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which shall be in the year of Our Lord One thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver Ore which, with the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time, happen to be found."
(Feast of All Saints occurred November 1 of each year.) The Carolina Charter, 1663

"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

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

Nothing has changed the parties of interest still rule. It is our pitiful lack of knowledge and understanding of history, which causes us to hang our hats (Independence) on documents that maintain and did not change our subjection. Does this sound familiar to what has happened to the blacks. They assumed, since they were made citizens and given more rights, that they were now
free. As you know a 14th Amendment citizen is subject to its creator, who granted their rights, the corporation and the trusties, subject to the contracting parties, the Crown and the Pope. Maybe, now you know why history repeats itself, it has the same authors.

James Montgomery Sui Juris Servant of Jesus Christ


Hey Al,

Just got back from deer hunting, sitting on the side of a tree 30 ft. in the air is a great place to think. I remembered a quote I was wanting to tell you about. In the book Pete sent us, there is a quote that leaves no doubt as to who George Washington was loyal to.

"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.

In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, 1789-1897 I discovered the following:
Gentlemen of the Senate:

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same," I have
thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely: The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the
State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of the State of Georgia .Page 99 March 4, 1791

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: "And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States...."

This explains completely why after a short time in office Washington created federal District States for all the states. The point being Congress outside their authority, extended and gave monarchial powers to the President of the United States, in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. One day after George Washington is given this authority, he declares the States are now controlled by the District State. This makes the State Courts, marshals, right down to the counties subject to the federal government. Because the District State was a overlay of State boundaries it removed the State borders, in violation of the Constitution wherein it is declared, the State are guaranteed a Republican form of government. Creation of the District States was and is a
violation of the 1787 Constitution of the United States, and the trust it created. This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of ......This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of......, but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of..... was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. Washington extend this District without Constitutional authority. This is how Congress under Article 1, sec. 8.1 taxes everything. This why the Courts have said the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power.

Also, the counties and the sheriffs became subject to, and creations of the District States, Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the State Districts. As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, a tax was imposed on liqueur, and under direction of Washington the District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States. THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED.



Robert, you need to read what Washington, declared again, I did not declare it, I did not write it, so I do not have anything backwards.

First of all, the Judicial Districts you are referring to 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 as you suggest, recreate them? If the District States were already created as you suggest, 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, made by the state and federal Charters/Constitutions? Why do this when Congress already had the power to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution? This was an excuse to DIVIDE the states into DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia/Congress and delegating to the President, authority given to Congress to suppress insurrection, under art. I, sec. 8.

Second, the use of any military power before Congress declares war, by direction of the President is done by him as Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stop the President unless they impeach him, or when they declare war they can stop the President with their power of the purse, unless the President were to then declare a national emergency, as Commander-in-Chief, overriding Congress, in effect declaring himself king, or in our case anyone holding that office, which we now have. I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergency powers claimed by the President, but unless the Judiciary declares the President out of line, you or I cannot change this, unless you or I were elected President, and declared this power un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to protect public policy. Around and Around it goes. Again this power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction, insular capacity, see DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), which was allowed by the Judiciary, beginning with what Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare what Congress was doing as un-Constitutional, and up to Washington to not take power delegated to Congress. This power was affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the 1850's by the insular cases. This set the stage for Lincoln to
begin the executive orders, and here we are.

Third, the Districts Washington created answered directly to the Commander-in-Chief, not Congress. In order for these Districts to be created by the President, Congress had to give the President power outside of the Constitution, as declared by Washington himself. Martial law can be used as soon as the military is called upon to put down insurrection or fight a war.  Washington created District States, not state districts, and the military occupied the Pennsylvania District until the insurgents went home, Washington said these Districts were created for putting down the rebellion, however they were never disbanded when the rebellion ended.  The fact that you say you can't see something, with all due respect does not change reality. Below you will see how Lincoln codified the war powers. You can download the whole general order 100, or ask me and I will email it to you, along with court cases and definitions on the same subject.

Martial Law - Military jurisdiction - Military necessity - Retaliation

"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 proclamation
declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect 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 continues beyond 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 dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation. The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority."
{Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General's Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office.}



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 LeftJustified 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:

ADDENDUM

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 Rothchilds 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 3rd party entities by his 1st 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 his grants and land patents, in conjunction with the law of mortmain. You will see that the 1st party grantors, included ecclesiastical and religious persons, as well as secular. This statute does not change grants between the king, and the 1st 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 Domesday 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, 4th ed..

"A system of land-tenure, where the government takes the place of landowners and collects the rent by means of tax gatherers. The farming is done by poor peasants, (ryots), who find the capital, so far as there is any, and also do the work. The system exists in Turkey, Egypt, Persia, and other Eastern countries, and in a modified form in British India. After slavery, it is accounted the worst of all systems, because the government can fix the rent at what it pleases, and it is difficult to distinguish between rent and taxes." Black's Law Dictionary, 4th ed.

I want to inject a big however, the king and the Vatican are both in violation of the LAW, they do not have ownership of the land, or have perfected land title, no matter what their Charters and land patents say. Why? Who is the original Grantor of land? God Almighty. Not the King or the Pope, their claim to the land to the detriment of the righteous will be revoked. Who did He intrust the land to? The Church (government), the Christians, trustees of Christ's Kingdom. Are not the riches of the world stored up for the righteous? Do not the kingdoms of the world, become the Kingdom of Christ, upon his return? So who are the true benefactors of the one and only Lawful land Grant? The
servants of Jesus Christ!

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 17th grade level, that is as high as the program goes.
READABILITY INDEX: 16.97

4th 6th 8th 10th 12th 14th
|****|****|****|****|****|****|****|****|****|****|
SIMPLE | ------ GOOD ----- | COMPLEX
Readers need a 17th grade level of education.
The writing is complex and may be difficult to read.


The Informer also tried to run it on Grammatik and program went bonkers. If you have a hard time understanding this statute, don't be surprised. You will be in good company, our fore fathers with their high level of education would have a hard time understanding this statute. By the way, the Informer has said since his early book "Which One Are You", that we were still subject to the king and under the ryot-tenure system, since the inception of this country.

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

St. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 84,--Where before this time divers, as well temporal as ecclesiastical and religious persons, have made sundry leases, demises and grants to divers other persons, of sundry manors, lordships, forms, meases, lands, tenements, meadows, pastures, or other hereditaments, for term of life or lives, or for term of years, by writing under their seal or seals, containing certain conditions, covenants and agreements to be performed, as well on the part and behalf of the said lessees and grantees, their executors and assigns, as on the behalf of the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and successors; (2) and forasmuch as by the common law of this realm, no stranger to
any covenant, action or condition, shall take any advantage or benefit of the same, by any means or ways in the law, but only such as be parties or privies thereunto, by the reason whereof, as well all grantee of reversions, as also all grantees and patentees of the King our sovereign lord, of sundry manors, lordships, granges, forms, meases, lands tenements, meadows, pastures, or other hereditaments late belonging to monasteries, and other religious and ecclesiastical houses dissolved, suppressed, renounced, relinquished, forfeited, given up, or by other means come to the hands and possession of the King's majesty since the fourth day of February the seven and twentieth
year of his most noble reign, be excluded to have any entry or action against the said lessees and grantees, their executors or assigns, which the lessors for the breach of any condition, covenant or agreement comprised in the indentures of their said leases, demises and grants: (3) be it therefore enacted by the King our sovereign lord, the lords spiritual and temporal, and the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by authority of the same, That as well all and every person and
persons, and bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, which have or shall have any gift or grant of our said sovereign lord by his letters patents of any lordships, manors, lands, tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other hereditaments, or of any reversion or reversions of the same, which did belong or appertain to any of the said monasteries, and other religious and ecclesiastical houses, dissolved, suppressed, relinquished, forfeited, or by any other means come to the King's hands since the said fourth day of February the seven and twentieth year of his most noble reign, or which at any time heretofore did belong or appertain to any other person or persons, and after came to the hands of our said sovereign lord, (4) as also all other persons being grantees or assignees to or by our said sovereign lord the King, or to or by any other person or persons than the King's highness, and the heirs, executors, successors and assigns of every of them, (5) shall and may have and enjoy like advantage against the lessees, there executors, administrators and assigns, by entry for non-payment of the rent, or for doing of waste or other forfeiture; (6) and also shall and
may have and enjoy all and every such like, and the same advantage, benefit and remedies by action only, for not performing of the other conditions, covenants or agreements contained and expressed in the indentures of their said lesses, demises or grants, against all and every the said lessees and farmers and grantees, their executors, administrators and assigns, as the said lessors or grantors themselves, or their heirs or successors, ought, should, or might have had and enjoyed at any time or times, (7) in like manner and form as if the reversion of such lands, tenements or hereditaments had not come to the hands of our said sovereign lord, or as our said sovereign lord, his heirs and successors, should or might have had and enjoyed in certain cases, by virtue of the act made at the first session of this present parliament, if no such grant by letters patent had been made by His Highness. 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 hereitaments 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. (10th ed.) 74

Marty you are right, the 14th 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 14th 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 impatients 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 law suits 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

Ken, I thought I would send you this email, in case you also are sent the original message, like the one you just sent me, from eagleflt. You will see a quote below from Burke, I thought I would add a few more quotes that were not in the original message, from Burke. I can make you a copy of Burke's speech if you are interested. It is 87 pages in total, there are many more pearls contained in his speech. I am in the process of typing in several pages of quotes. The setting for his speech was just before the 1776 war, he was arguing against the use of force. The majority of the House of Commons wanted to beat the colonies into submission. I just tonight obtained a copy of the complete work of Adam Smith, Al and I each have different books, containing portions of his complete work. His complete work is 800 pages, we can hook up on the modem and I could send it to you. As you will see below from the additional quotes, if you are not yet convinced of
what I have been saying on this subject, you will be. Also, if you have ever wondered where the American taxing system came from, there will be no doubt after you read the below quotes from Adam Smith. The below quotes are only a portion of what I marked in skimming his book tonight. He obviously goes into more detail, in his 800 page book.

"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."
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

What was it Franklin said, when asked what government have you given us, in reply he said a Republic. Our fore fathers were protecting their ass-ets and seeking to remain subject to the
king in a hidden way. For which they were to receive further privileges. I would love to be able to look into the old English records and see if their personal land holdings in England increased, after the 1783 Peace Treaty and the 1787 Constitution/Charter were approved, by an unsuspecting public.

"Men may lose little in property by the act which takes away all their freedom. When a man is robbed of a trifle on the highway, it is not the two-pence lost that constitutes the capital outrage."
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

"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."
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775

"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."
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775


"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."
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

Need I say more, I have been ridiculed by some for what I have said, in respect to our continued subjection to England, and I am sure Al has to. The above quote is further evidence that the king did not relinquish his contract/Charters and land grants/patents to the United States. Instead he preserved his ability to receive gain through his taxes for his investment. The below quotes will make you realize that the present tax system was put in place by the king and is completely British, and the way they chose to continue to receive the king's profit from his investment, as declared in his Charters. The federal reserve was also placed here by the Crown, which is proven in the Congressional Record, included in this message and what was included in the Banking paper I did. It is so clear I could even prove it to the average American, given the time, money and opportunity to present it.

"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. II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty. III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it. A tax upon the rent of land or of houses, payable at the same term at which such rents are usually paid, is levied at the time when it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay; or, when he is most likely to have wherewithal to pay. Taxes upon such consumable goods as are articles of luxury are all finally paid by the consumer, and generally in a manner that is very convenient for him. He pays them by little and little, as he has occasion to buy the goods. As he is at liberty, too, either to buy, or not to buy, as he pleases, it must be his own fault if he ever suffers any considerable inconveniency from such taxes. IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the pockets of the people a great deal more than it brings into the public treasury, in the four following ways. First, the levying of it may require a great number of officers, whose salaries may eat up the greater part of the produce of the tax, and whose perquisites may impose another additional tax upon the people. Secondly, it may obstruct the industry the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of business which might give maintenance and unemployment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so. Thirdly, by the forfeitures and other penalties which those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an end to the benefit which the community might have received from the employment of their capitals. An injudicious tax offers a great temptation to smuggling. But the penalties of smuggling must rise in proportion to the temptation. The law, contrary to all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the temptation, and then punishes those who yield to it; and it commonly enhances the punishment, too, in proportion to the very circumstance which ought certainly to alleviate it, the temptation to commit the crime. Fourthly, by subjecting the people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax-gatherers, it may expose them to much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at which every man would be willing to redeem himself from it. It is in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign."
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith

"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 ever since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the defence, not of Great Britain alone, 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 defence of America."
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith


"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 defence 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 defence 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."
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith


That is a good question, in 1213 because the Pope had earlier withdrawn his emissary and blessings, the king of England felt compelled to reestablish the blessings of the Pope, thereby God's Blessings, as he believed it. It was hard to get knights to go to the crusades and fight wars and of conquest and die without the blessings of God Almighty. See below quotes:

11. "To those knights who render military service for their lands I grant of my own gift that the lands of their demesne ploughs be free from all payments and all labor, so that, having been released from so great a burden, they may equip themselves well with horses and arms and be fully prepared for my service and the defense of my kingdom." Charter of Liberties of Henry I, 1100

"All who die by the way, whether by land or by sea, or in battle against the pagans, shall have immediate remission of sins. This I grant them through the power of God with which I am invested." Pope Urban II: Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095, according to Fulcher of Chartres

Because of the power of the Pope to raise armies, the king had to do anything he could to regain the blessing of the Church, via the Pope. So in 1213 by way of Charter/trust, the king gave all of his holding to the Pope, including England and Ireland, all that he possessed, and placed his subjects forever under the dictates of the Pope. You can find a copy of this Charter in the, "In A Nutshell" paper I just sent you.

So you now you know what the king did and why. Now you have to ask yourself, is the 1213 Charter still valid law? I obviously don't have receipts from the gold and silver taxes paid to the Pope, but there are ways to know the answer.

First, in 1689 there was a Declaration of Rights that took place after civil war in England. Charles I was beheaded and Charles II took over the thrown, but what took place was even more drastic than a change in monarchy. Theology and Doctrine was turned on its head, King William declared that England and his subjects were no longer under the Pope or the Catholic Church. Even today you can see this division, in Ireland with the IRA who remain loyal to the Pope and Unionist that remain loyal to the king and the Protestant doctrine stemming back to king William. The Declaration went on to declare many rights for the subjects of king William. Did the 1689 Declaration of Rights with the blessing of king William void the 1213 Charter?

III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.

King William's lawyers said in this section ,that if any Charter or Grant prior to this 1689 Declaration of Rights, is contradicted by this Declaration as a matter of law the Declaration is as if it were never written. There are several truths to be taken from this, the obvious one is the 1213 Charter could not be invalidated because it is a non-revokable trust, a contract. Only the parties to the contract can void a trust. Parties to the trust continue to be born even today. Also, the freedom imagined by the subjects was just that, imagined, remember the quotes from Sir Edmond Burke I included in the previous email? Here is another one:


"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

As I said, king William made it clear he did not have the power, or legal authority to void the 1213 Charter with the Pope, or any other Charter that came into conflict with the 1689 Declaration of Rights. Now this is one witness to what I said in British Colony parts I, II and III. So as of 1689, the 1213 Charter was still law, is it still law today here is another witness I just got last night.

"The Bill of Rights of 1689. which is still in force as statute law and remains our central constitutional document,..."fn # "The Bill of Rights is perhaps the nearest approach to a constitutional code which we possess", Sir William Anson, The law and Custom of the Constitution, (5th Edn., Oxford 1922). Bill of Rights by Richard Munday

In Bowles v. Bank of England:

"The Bill of Rights still remains unrepealed, and no practice or custom, however prolonged, or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject, can be relied on by the Crown as justifying any infringement of its provisions."

And to bring this fact to the present:

"It is ironical, but perhaps unsurprising, that recent years have seen calls for a new Bill of Rights:" cf., e.g., A. Lester, A British Bill of Rights (2nd edn., Institute for Public Policy Research 1996).

So to answer your question, yes Britain is still subject to Rome, unknown to the Brits. Is it possible for such a important fact to remain hidden, the facts say yes. Also, as the Brits recognize the 1689 Declaration of Rights to still be the law in Britain, and their Constitution, we are faced with the same thing in this country. Do not Americans believe themselves to be totally free, and claim the Bill of Rights in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, which is modeled after the 1215 Magna Charta? Did not Sir Edmund Burke say in the quote above, "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."?

We are a colony yet today, be it unknown, lack of knowledge does not change the facts. Just because the World was believed to be flat in the middle ages, did not make it indeed flat. A
portion of the taxes paid to day go by treaty to Great Britain. Our tax system was given to us by England, our Federal Reserve was given to us by the Bank of England. The Bankruptcy of England in the 1700, and their debt was taken over by the Rothchilds, who controlled the Bank of England. If you want to learn more about this issue you I will send you "A Country Defeated In Victory, parts I and II, and read the attached Congressional Record. Where did the Rothchilds get their money,
seemingly overnight and enough to finance war and government around the world including the United States, the Vatican? The Vatican, via, the Pope is the only source of such immense wealth.
The Pope regained land given him in the Charter of 1213 thru debt and taxes and supplying financial assistance at the right time. How did the king regain his land in America as declared in his Charters? Debt taxes and supplying financial assistance at the right time. I wonder where he learned this practice from?

James Montgomery


Hello Bill,

I agree completely, I have already reported this along with documentation, so has the Informer, maybe you have not seen it. In 1213 the king of England ceded all of his holding to the Pope.
This is why Pope Innocent III is one of the parties of interest in the 1215 Magna Charta, and later that same year declared the Magna Charta to null and void. The 1213 Charta was reconfirmed in the Declaration of rights of 1689, wherein after declaring many rights for the people of England and that they were no longer subject to the Pope or the Catholic Church, declared in the last section this Declaration of Rights would be null and void if it came into conflict with any prior Charta, see the
following quote:

"III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached
or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made."

In the Treaty of Verona, November 22, 1822, the Pope entered an agreement with Austria, France and Russia to destroy all self representative forms of government, because it threatened all monarchies. The Pope's henchman, the jesuits have been responsible for the down fall of governments and murders all over the world, the most known was Abraham Lincoln. The Secret Treaty of Verona it says:

Article 1: "The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchical principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, 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."

President Lincoln new what was being done, just before he took office he said: "As George Washington was the first President, so James Buchanan will be the last President of the United States." There was a huge undertaking to bring America and her people back under rule of England and the Pope. The attack and conquest was complete and universal, England admonished the South for their owning slaves and making war against the United States. The Pope's henchmen, the jesuit priests in the South insured the wrath of the North, after the jesuits murdered President Lincoln. The leader of the six jesuits priests, John H. Surratt, escaped to England where he stayed, hidden by the Catholic Church until safe passage could be arranged to Rome. John Wilkes Booth was initiated into the Knights of the Golden Circle in Baltimore in the fall of 1860, and was not brought into the plot to kill President Lincoln until November of 1864, where in a meeting with the other jesuit conspirators, Booth was drawn by lot, to kill President Lincoln. John H. Surratt was finally caught and returned for trial for his part in the assignation. Jesuit priest filled the court room daily during his trial, on July 26, 1867 the jury came back split, half for conviction and acquittal. Surratt was jailed and denied bail, the following September his case was nolle prosequi, meaning the case would not be tried again. Surratt was then indicted for rebellion and later the district attorney entered the same nolle prosequi. The jesuit priest John H. Surratt, proven to be the ring leader in the death of President Lincoln was untouchable. In the affidavit of Henri De Sainte Marie, Aims Report, House of Representatives, 39th Session Congress, Page 15, Ex. Document No. 9., he says: "I believe he is protected by the clergy and that the murder is the result of a deep laid plot, not only against the life of President Lincoln but against the existence of the republic, as we are aware that priesthood and royalty are and always have been opposed to liberty. "
(Henri De Sainte Marie, Rufus King, Minister Resident)

After the 1213 Charter made the Pope Contracting party, he and the monarchs of Europe declared in this treaty that representative governments were an enemy to the Catholic Church and the monarchies of the earth. As we know the monarchy of  England retains its claim to America, but not without intervening and destroying the 1787 Constitution. The third prong of their attack was the Bank of England, taken over by the Rothschilds money after Britain's bankruptcy. The Rothchilds put in place the Bank of the United States and later the Federal Reserve, which was born in the Bank of England. Where did the Rothschilds get their huge gold reserve? It seems like their banking house just suddenly appeared in the 1700's. In 1850 in the preface of "The Negation Of God", M. About said: "....the Rothschilds who would borrow money from the Pope at six per cent interest".

The tremendous amount of capital it took to bankroll many of the countries the Rothschilds loaned to only existed in Rome. Why? To bankrupt the world, to hold the title to all land, and to rule the people of the world. The Pope's plan is almost complete, but his ownership will be short lived. The above is a matter of history, but is never taught and is allowed to disappear from all but old history books, lost forever, thanks to the advent of television.

I wonder if you would believe substance or historical fact?  I can wall paper my walls with historical fact, since that is what the Informer and I base our facts on.

The united states is still a British colony and the 1787 Constitution does not exist. You obviously have not studied our English and American history, because my friend "I" did not write it.

Let's look at some facts, I am not going to deal with the British issue, since you have not excepted a more recent historical fact, the death of the 1787 Constitution.

1. The Constitution is a contract/charter between the states, creating a corporation called the united States government.

2. This contract/charter contains the bylaws of the united States, concerning its powers or lack or power, if any part of a contract between the creating parties is broken it dissolves the contract/charter.

3. The Constitution states clearly enough, that even you could not question its intent; Article IV section 4, The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of government.

4. If you had studied history you would know, the state governments of the southern states were booted out and un-elected governments put in their place, so the 14th Amendment would be ratified. The U.S. government not only denied a Republican form of government to the southern states, it removed a Republican form of government from them. From this act alone the 1787 Constitution was dead and a new Constitution forced on the southern states.

5. Article V section 1, and that no state , without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. The Senators of all southern states were kicked out of the Senate, along with the New Jersey Senator.

6. Not only was the Constitution ripped to shreds by the above unlawful acts but this was a political/military take over. All of the southern states were Democrat and the northern states Republican, the action of the northern states destroyed a two party system, and said you will not only vote as we say, you will also change your state constitutions to read as we dictate.

7. If this was not enough to destroy the Constitution, these same renegade northern states passed the Reconstruction Acts. These Acts were declared un-Constitutional by President Johnson, a lawful President. His veto was overridden by an unlawful congress, an unrepresented government, because 12 lawful Constitutional states were removed by force. A government that no longer had any lawful form as proven above, was trying to do business outside of the charter that gave it life.

8. I mentioned the Senator from New Jersey, he had taken his seat in the Senate and was properly voted in by his state, he was then removed by an unlawful U.S. government, only represented by the northern states.

9. The southern states just before the political take over, retook their seats in the House and the Senate, voted and ratified the 13th Amendment, proving they were once again lawful parties to oversee the 1787 Constitution, which also proves they had Republican forms of government, and that these governments were militarily overthrown.

10. By the above facts a 1787 Constitutional government DOES NOT EXIST, NOR CAN IT, the contract and charter were broken and a new form of government installed by military force, different from the approved 1787 government. This de facto government still exists today only by its military powers and martial rule. The action taken by the northern states was a military coup d'etat.

I know you want some historical proof so here it is. If you are man enough to admit that you are wrong, email me with your real name and I will send you all the historical proof you can handle. Don't accuse the Informer or myself in front of others in an assumed name, of not having proof of what we are saying, or I will assume, as will others that you are a government employee, doing damage control, trying to protect your spineless backside. (paycheck)


HISTORICAL FACTS, CAN YOU REBUT THEM OR CHANGE HISTORY?


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

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


Veto Message of President Johnson, March 2, 1867

"It is plain that the authority here given to the military officer amounts to absolute despotism. But to make it still more unendurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as many subordinates as he chooses to appoint, for it declares that he shall 'punish or cause to be punished'. Such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years. In all that time no people who speak the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole population of the ten States- all persons, of every color, sex and condition, and every stranger within their limits- to the most abject and degrading slavery. No master ever had a control so absolute over
the slaves as this bill gives to the military officers over both white and colored persons...." "I come now to a question which is, if possible, still more important. Have we the power to establish and carry into execution a measure like this? I answer, 'Certainly not', if we derive our authority from the Constitution and if we are bound by the limitations which is imposes.".... "The United States are bound to guarantee to each State a republican form of government. Can it be pretended that this obligation is not palpably broken if we carry out a measure like this, which wipes away every vestige of republican government in ten States and puts the life, property, and honor of all people in each of them under domination of a single person clothed with unlimited authority?" "....,here is a bill of attainder against 9,000,000 people at once. It is based upon an accusation so vague as to be scarcely intelligible and found to be true upon no credible evidence. Not one of the 9,000,000 was heard in his own defense. The representatives of the doomed parties were excluded from all
participation in the trial. The conviction is to be followed by the most ignominious punishment ever inflicted on large messes of men. It disfranchises them by hundreds of thousands and degrades
them all, even those who are admitted to be guiltless, from the rank of freeman to the condition of slaves."
Veto Message of President Johnson, March 2, 1867

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


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



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

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

The following, is an excerpt from Joint Resolution No.1 of the State of New Jersey of March 24, 1868, when they rescinded their prior ratification and rejected: "It being necessary, by the Constitution, that every amendment to the same, should be proposed by two thirds of both Houses of Congress, the authors of said proposition, for the purpose of securing the assent of the requisite majority, determined to, and did, exclude from the said two Houses eighty representatives form eleven States of the Union, upon the pretence that there were no such States in the Union; but, finding that two-thirds of the remainder of said Houses could not be brought to assent to the said proposition, they deliberately formed and carried out the design of mutilating the integrity of the United States Senate, and without any pretext or justification, other than the possession of power, without the right and in palpable violation of the Constitution, ejected a member of their own body, representing this State, and thus practically denied to New Jersey its equal suffrage in the Senate and thereby nominally secured the vote of two-thirds of the said Houses." "The object of dismembering the highest representative assembly in the Nation, and humiliating a State of the Union, faithful at all times to all of its obligations, and the object of said amendment were one- to place new and unheard of powers in the hands of a faction, that it might absorb to itself all executive, judicial and legislative power, necessary to secure to itself immunity for the unconstitutional acts it had already committed, and those it has since inflicted on a too patient people."

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

"To conceal from the people the immense alteration of the fundamental law they intended to accomplish by the said amendment, they gilded the same with propositions of justice..." "It imposes new prohibitions upon the power of the State to pass laws, and interdicts the execution of such part of the common law as the national judiciary may esteem inconsistent with the vague provisions of the said amendment; made vague for the purpose of facilitating encroachment upon the lives, liberties
and property of the people."

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

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

"This Legislature, feeling conscious of the support of the largest majority of the people that has ever been given expression to the public will, declare that the said proposed amendment being designed to confer, or to compel the States to confer, the sovereign right of elective franchise upon a race which has never given the slightest evidence, at any time, or in any quarter of the globe, of its capacity of self-government, and erect an impracticable standard of suffrage, which will render the right valueless to any portion of the people was intended to overthrow the system of self-government under which the people of the United States have for eighty years enjoyed their liberties, and is unfit, from its origin, its object and its matter, to be incorporated with the fundamental law of a free people."
(The 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and the threat that it poses to our democratic government, Pinckney G. McElwee, South Carolina Law Quarterly 1959)


Hello Rob,

I am going to answer your questions, but first I must lay a few things out. I have been out of this system, as much as one can since 1992. I have caused myself a great deal of problems, thinking I was doing the Lords will, based on certain scriptures. Such as, you cannot serve two masters, you love one and hate the other, paraphrase, and come out of Babylon, lest you suffer her plagues, paraphrase, just to name a few.

Lets first look at why I and others have felt compelled to come out of this system. I and others have discovered fraud and deception in our government. Not to mention oppression and great harm to many in this country, via. the IRS and the other alphabet agencies. The greatest problem that I have found is that, not only is the above true, but our history has been covered up, modified by unnamed individuals, to change the course of our government. This goes back to the founding of our country. I am talking about the Charters creating the commercial enterprise we now call the United States. I can prove that we were allowed and encouraged to believe we were free, and that the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War were overturned by the Peace Treaty of 1783, Jay Treaty of 1795 and the Treaty of Ghent 1814.

I can prove our fore fathers for the most part were mainly concerned with their holdings in England, and their fortunes that were tied to England, through trading in their businesses. Because of this they conceded to the wishes of the king and allowed him to retain control of his Colonies, but do it in a way that the Colonist would not be aware of. The United States Constitution was just a continuation of the earlier Charters, a continuation of the king's corporate enterprise.

The states granted certain powers in the 1787 Constitution to the United States government (corporation) it created, and no more. Yet, I can prove as early as 1791 Congress violated the corporate Charter and gave unconstitutional powers to the President, whereby President Washington created District states, by "dividing the states", his words. Since that time Congress has continued to ceded Congressional powers to the President completing the office of king. Congress is now going to give the President fast track authority to enter treaties, without prior Senate approval.

The biggest fraud and unconstitutional act to take place was during and after the Civil War. Namely the death of the 1787 Constitution, via Congress going out of session, Sine Die in 1861 and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress then installed an unconstitutional de facto government, under the disguise of the 1787 Constitution, which forbid their actions. The re declaration of War against the South, after the Civil War was over, and after they were granted a full pardon by President Johnson, was against the 1787 Constitution and American jurisprudence. Since that time we have had a military government, not a Constitutional government. As soon as Congress
went Sine Die as a result of the Southern states removing their representatives from Congress, the United States government had to operate in its military capacity. President Lincoln had to act as Commander-in-Chief, it was the only position left, he could not act as President, all states were not represented in Congress, so the corporation was dissolved. After the Civil War and pardon, the Southern states retook their seats in Congress. The northern states decided they would rather remain a de facto government, because they had more power that way, so they kicked the southern states out of Congress again and demanded the new United States Constitution be ratified by the southern states, before they could be re admitted again for a second time.

The Fourteenth Amendment was not properly ratified, and this is very easy to prove. The Republican governments of the south were kicked out of office by the military district commanders, and puppet governments put in place to pass the Amendment. This is a matter of history, but hardly anyone is aware of it. The fraud has been kept from Americans, by selected history being taught to
Americans in the public school system, colored to meet the purpose of the military government and those they work for.

If that weren't enough, in 1933 all Americans were made enemies of the Bankers, to force us to pay their fraudulent debts, which they created. This brings us to the SS# problem you were asking about. This number has one purpose, to number and identify those responsible for the debt owed to the Bankers, making us chattel property, natural resources, or to be blunt, financial slaves. Even with all this, until recently I had not changed my opinion about coming out of this monetary system. 

However, because of the nature of our government and its laws, this is not possible. The use of FRN'S is just as binding in maritime contract law, see Law of the Flag, in Bouvier's Law Dictionary. The physical presence of your body in this country, brings you under their military jurisdiction. Remember under the rules of Conquest and military rule, see the same dictionary, you have only the rights granted by the Commander-in-Chief. So to give up a job you have had for 20 years, and violate your oath to your family, to provide for their needs would be wrong and foolish. Why? Because you would not change anything by declaring you do not have a SS# and losing your job.

But even with this knowledge I was willing to endure all, if it was the will of God Almighty, that I stay out of this system.  After a great deal of prayer and soul searching, the Lord showed me a verse that I had already been aware of years earlier. I had written a paper on the subject of Israel asking for another King, other than God Almighty, 1 Samuel 8.

Last year I was given a speeding ticket and was ready to go to jail if necessary. I believed God Almighty would be there with me to fight my battles, against my enemies, according to Psalms 91 and other verses. I asked the Lord to show me if it was His will for me to fight the system on THIS issue. The Lord brought to mind the verse out of Samuel 8, in that day when you cry out for me, I WILL NOT HEAR YOU. The truth of this blew me away, I was forced to reevaluate positions I have had for many years. God Almighty said, because we rejected Him as King, in that day when
the earthly king oppress us He will not help us. If you fight the worldly king, you fight alone, this is suicide and utter futility, which is not the will of God. 

We were never free from the yoke of subjection, in regards to the king and queen of England. This brings me to another verse of God's Word that I based my separation on. If you are subject to a king remain there until the chance of freedom comes, paraphrase. Because I was taught we were freed from the king of England in 1776, I did not feel any obligation to a tyrannical government. However, what God Almighty said in 1 Samuel 8, is controlling so to speak. This is foundation for understanding all scripture on the subject of government, in relation to God Almighty's children in their relationship to civil government. God's Word makes it clear that the destruction of Babylon (this
system) comes by His hand, not by ours, and not because of our being abused.

So the long and short of it is, we do not have a Constitutional government in which we could separate ourselves from. Because of Conquest and military rule and our later being declared enemies of the government and the Bankers, we are under force of arms. In this condition you will do as you are told or else, I will leave the or else up to your imagination. So to write a letter to the Social Security Administration and declare you no longer have a SS#, means nothing. The only way to retake our Country would be to re-educate our youth, and get them in as many government jobs as possible. At the same time educate as many of the mainstream public as you can. This would be the only way to change anything. It took years to get into this situation, it will take years to get out of it, left to our own doing, without intervention by God Almighty. A small group of people with this knowledge will be denied access to critical government positions, and labeled extremists. The facts are what they are, in the system, or out of the system, the facts of our internment remain the same. I suggest you stay where you are and learn what you can, then teach this information to anyone that will listen, pray and fast for direction.

James

The United States is still a British Colony; Part 1

The United States is still a British Colony; Part 2

The United State is still a British Colony; Part 3

Return to American Patriot Network