A KING'S CHARTER WHICH REFUSES TO DIE
JULY 20, 1998
By James Montgomery
I would like to start by thanking Pete Stern and the Informer for their continued research and dedication to the American people. Pete deserves special thanks for finding an annotated copy of the Definitive 1783 Treaty of Peace, wherein he found reference to the Supreme Court case, The Society for Propagating the Gospel &c v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. I will quote from the this case and the Chamberlin case below.
The Newhaven case is a true God send, it totally confirms the Informer's and my research findings concerning our being subjects bearing financial obligation for the debt owed to the king of England and his heirs and successors, as well as the main party of interest, the Pope. Which confirms what I said in "The United States Is Still A British Colony" about the following quotes.
"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
"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
I have been declaring this in spite of being slammed by pro
constitutionalist patriots, who refuse to accept the facts. The
king is still head of America Inc., the author of its
Charters, and the creator of his cestui que trust. The king
continues to be the benefactor along with his heirs and
successors of the largest corporation in the history of the
world. The Pope as well is co benefactor with the king, thanks
to the king's concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.
"We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter,
furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many
ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are
known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not
offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to
the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we,
wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for
us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not
induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and
spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do
offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and
Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord
pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom
of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights
and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those
of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now
receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the
Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph,
subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope, we perform and
swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent,
and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to
the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we
shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to
him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in
similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall
be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without
demur. Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope
The states and it's inhabitants claim this land as theirs,
patriots claim the have allodial title to the land. How can this
be when they never owned it to begin with?
"But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title
of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever
claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original
grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure
under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to
which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the
lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion
to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from
tenants who never held under it? MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412
(1801), 2 S.A. 70
The world continues to pay the benefactors of the king's
Charters, for the king's investment in America, via taxes. I have
got news for you America, if Conquest, war or the dividing of an
Empire cannot pry the possessions from a Corporate trust, the
king never lost or was in danger of losing his possessions.
Also, the king's money that was in existence and being used by
the states and their inhabitants, prior to the Revolutionary War,
remained the king's possessions, real property, on loan to
America and her inhabitants, for which the king expected and
demanded his return for his investment, under his corporate
Charters and the trust he set up for his heirs and successors.
Was this the only money infusion into this Country? No.
Beginning in 1778, just two years after the Revolutionary War
began, the states were borrowing money from the king of France.
The House of Rothschilds located in France was the money source.
France (Rothschilds) continued to loan money to the U.S.
government with the debt reaching 18 million dollars. This is
the foot hold Hamilton had over Washington during the debate on
whether or not to allow the banking families to incorporate in
the U.S., and float this countries debt. You don't have to be a
rocket scientist to figure it out, look back at what has happened
since and you will see this is in fact what took place.
Seems to me as a matter of law, a contract entered into
voluntarily by someone voids any conflict or injury to that
individuals rights. The king always intended to retain his
minerals and money, and he knew as stated by other quotes in this
article the barristers would retain his land under the corporate
Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of
North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782.
"It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty
to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan,
in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount
to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France,
according to the following twenty-one receipts of the
above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in
virtue of his full powers, to wit:
1. 28 February 1778 750,000
2. 19 May do 750,000
3. 3 August do 750,000
4. 1 November do 750,000
5. 10 June 1779 250,000
6. 16 September do 250,000
7. 4 October do 250,000
8. 21 December do 250,000
9. 29 February 1780 750,000
10. 23 May do 750,000
11. 21 June do 750,000
12. 5 October do 750,000
13. 27 November do 1,000,000
14. 15 February 1781 750,000
15. 15 May do 750,000
16. 15 August do 750,000
17. 1 August do 1,000,000
18. 15 November do 750,000
19. 10 April 1782 1,500,000
20. 1 July do 1,500,000
21. 5 of the same month 3,000,000
Amounting in the whole to eighteen millions, viz 18, 000,
By which receipts the said Minister has promised, in the name of
Congress and in behalf of the thirteen United States, to cause to
be paid and reimbursed to the royal treasury of His Majesty, on
the 1st of January, 1788, at the house of his Grand Banker at
Paris, the said sum of eighteen millions, money of France, with
interest at five per cent per annum."
Source: Treaties and Other International Acts of the United
States of America.
Edited by Hunter Miller Volume 2
Documents 1-40 : 1776-1818
Washington : Government Printing Office, 1931.
Notice also folks, this is just one year before the 1783
Treaty of Peace is signed, the king of France (Rothschilds) made
sure his debt was protected before he signed on to the con of the
millennium. The king of England's Charter on one side, the
Rothschild's debt obligations on the other, both vying for a
piece of America. The king of England for his trust, the
Rothschilds for their corporate take over and control of the
king's trust, the Pope as the main benefactor of both sides. The
Pope remains even further in the back ground than the
Rothschilds, however he stands to gain no matter what happens.
Here are a few quotes from William Manley German, in a
speech to the House of Commons December 1913.
"....Referring to Canada's bank acts: I believe the plan outlined
follows the English system, a system applied to the great banks
of England. Mr. White, House of Commons, December 17, 1912, in
response to a question from the Honorable William Manley German.
i.e. they were creating an English system which is to say a
"Senator Robert L. Owen continues: "It was not very long until
this information was brought to the Rothschild's Bank, and they
saw that here was a nation ready to be exploited; here was a
nation setting up an example that they could issue their own
money instead of the money coming through the banks"
"The Rothschild's Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the
English Parliament, which provided that no colony of England
could issue its own money."
"Thus, they had to use English money. The colonies were
compelled to discard their money and mortgage themselves to the
Rothchild's Bank of England to get money."
"Then, for the first time in the history of the United States,
money began to be based on debt. Benjamin Franklin stated that
in one year from that date the streets of the colonies were
filled with the unemployed."
"Franklin later claimed that this was the real cause of the War
of Independence. He said: "The colonies would gladly have borne
the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that
England and the Rothschild's Bank took away from the colonies
their money which created unemployment, dissatisfaction and
debt." William Manley German, in a speech to the House of Commons
December 1913, Brigham Young University, web site
Nothing changes, the Rothschilds have always played both
sides against each other, they did the same thing during the
Civil War, see my research paper, "A Country Defeated In Victory,
parts I & II.
Before I go any further lets look at the facts that prove
the king never lost his Corporations created by his Charters, or
lands held by his Corporations, by and through the supposed loss
of the Revolutionary War, or the signing of the 1783 Treaty of
Peace, or the 1794 Jay Treaty.
"The property of British corporations, in this country, is
protected by the sixth article of the treaty of peace of 1783, in
the same manner as those of natural persons; and their title,
thus protected, it confirmed by the ninth article of the treaty
of 1794, so that is could not be forfeited by any intermediate
legislative act, or other proceeding for the defect of alienage."
The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c v. New Haven, 8 Wheat.
464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. (Footnote-annotated, Definitive Treaty of
"The capacity of private individuals (British subjects), or of
corporations, created by the crown, in this country, or in Great
Britain, to hold lands or other property in this country, WAS NOT
affected by the revolution.
The proper courts in this country will-interfere to prevent
an abuse of the trusts confided to British corporations holding
lands here to charitable uses, and will aid in enforcing the due
execution of the trusts; but neither those courts, nor the local
legislature where the lands lie, can adjudge a forfeiture of the
franchises of the foreign corporation, or of its property.
The property of British corporations, in this country, is
protected by the 6th article of the treaty of peace of 1783 in
the same manner as those of natural persona; and their title,
thus protected, is confirmed by the 9th article of the treaty of
1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate
legislative act, or other proceeding, for the defect of alienage.
The termination of a treaty, by war, DOES NOT devest rights
of property already vested under it.
Nor do treaties, in general, become extinguished, ipso
facto, by war between the two governments. Those stipulating for
a permanent arrangement of territorial, and other national
rights, are, at most, suspended during the war, and revive at the
peace, unless they are waived by the parties, or new and
repugnant stipulations are made." The Society, &c., v. The Town
of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
The king holds the rest of the world to different standards,
as does the Pope, they hold us to the king's law on trusts and
does not apply the same law to himself, so he can retain his
lands and possessions, as does the Pope, under British made
"It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act
of parliament unless he be named therein by special and
particular words. The most general words that can be devised (for
example, any person or persons, bodies politic or corporate)
affect not him in the least, if they may tend to restrain or
diminish any of his rights and interests. He may even take the
benefit of any particular act, though not named. The rule thus
settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable to
this government, and it has been applied frequently in the
different states, and practically in the Federal courts. It may
be considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives
as belonged to the King in his capacity of parens patrioe, or
universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it
does into the principles of the British Constitution." U.S. v.
Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 (1911), "Dollar Sav. Bank v. United
Do the king and the Pope have proper claims to their land
holdings? No. The king's claim would not exist accept for his
barristers (lawyers), his backers the bankers, the Pope, via his
churches land holdings and financial backing of the early banking
families. The reason I also say no, is fraud and deception are
involved. How did the king come by his claim? By the Conquest
of Britain by William the Conqueror in 1066, and thanks to the
Pope's partnership with England as trustee for Rome, working
inside of Britain with her Jesuit priests. Conquest does not
change land held in trust. So the lands held by the Brits and
trusts (wills of testament), and traditions of the fathers land
going to the sons, could not be overturned by the Conquest of
William the Conqueror. But even further than that, God Almighty
granted to Adam and his descendants the entire earth, it was
given away to satan, but later reclaimed by Jesus Christ as the
second Adam, the land was then placed in trust for the
descendants of Israel, including the lost 10 tribes. Causing the
world to be ruled over by Israel and the riches of the world to
be stored up for the righteous. To deny this trust and Charter
is to deny the written Word of God Almighty, if the Pope denied
this he would expose himself as the apostate Church (the whore)
spoken of in Revelations. Why do I say this, because he and the
king hold lands by the king's civil law, through creations of
Trusts and Charters, over land they do not own, for they cannot.
God Almighty owns the land and grants the land to whom he
Just as the king held on to his possessions after the
Revolutionary War for his heirs and successors, and just as
conquest does not change ownership of lands and possessions held
in trust, we now have the same claim. The fraud is, the king is
taxing us for a trust he created, based on an earlier conquest.
"As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of
taxes that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For
those that study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means
Individual Master File, all tax payers have one. To read one you
have to be able to break their codes using file 6209, which is
about 467 pages. On your IMF you will find a blocking series,
which tells you what type of tax you are paying. You will
probably find a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 says is
reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which is the
Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to 1991,
this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone
is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are
being held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the
U.K., payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used
for this is form 8288, FIRPTA - Foreign Investment Real Property
Tax Account, you won't find many people using this form, just the
1040 form. The 8288 form can be found in the Law Enforcement
Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. If you will check the OMB's paper
- Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury,
List of Active Information Collections, Approved Under Paperwork
Reduction Act, you will find this form under OMB number 1545-
0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for dispositions by
foreign persons of U.S. real property interests-statement of
withholding on dispositions, by foreign persons, of U.S. Form
These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF
300-309, Barred Assement, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which
is the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309
reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax
Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the
government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a
foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in
financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.
The United States Is Still A British Colony, part I
It's a big con. Only God Almighty owns the land, by grant
and charter, also trust, the land is reserved for us and our use,
the benefactors of his kingdom and covenant. How can you take
that which does not belong to you? By force of arms, that is why
Jesus Christ with his angels will take by Conquest what belongs
to Him and His Heirs, see Matthew chapter 13. We can prove our
title and possession of the land, which predates any other claim.
It is a shame we could not have learned from the American Indian,
that no man owns the land.
"....In Harden v Fisher, 1 Wheat Rep. 300, which was also under
the treaty of 1794, this court held that it was not necessary for
the party to show a seisin in fact, or actual possession of the
land, but only that the title was in him, or his ancestors, at
the time the treaty was made...." The Society, &c., v. The Town
of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
"....In Terrett v. Taylor, it was stated that the dissolution of
the regal government, no more destroyed the rights of the church
to possess and enjoy the property which belonged to it, than it
did the right of any other corporation or individual to his or
its own property. In the later case, the Chief Justice, in
reference to the corporation of the college, observes that it is
too clear to require the support of argument, that all contracts
and rights respecting property remained unchanged by the
revolution; and the same sentiment was enforce, more at length,
by the other judge who noticed this point in the cause...."
The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464;
5 Cond. Rep. 489.
As a matter of law these treaties were written in such away
they could not be overturned using civil law, so the
Revolutionary War changed nothing concerning the king's
investment and creation of America Inc.
"....His lordship observes that that was a case in which the old
government existed under the King's charter, and a revolution
took place, though the new government was acknowledged by this
country. Yet it was held, that the property, which belonged to a
corporation existing under the King's charter, was not
transferred to a body which did not exist under his authority,
and, therefore, the fund in this country was considered to be
bona vacantia belonging to the crown...."The Society, &c., v. The
Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
"....The treaty of 1783 forbids all forfeitures on either side.
That of 1794 provides that the citizens and subjects of both
nations, holding lands (thereby strongly implying that there were
no forfeitures by the revolution), shall continue to hold,
according to the tenure of their estates; that they may sell and
devise them; and shall not, so far as respects these lands and
the legal remedies to obtain them, be considered as aliens. In
the case Kelly v. Harrison, 2 Johns. cas 29., Mr. Chief Justice
Kent says:" I admit the doctrine to be sound (Calvin's case, 7
Co. 27 b.; Kirby's Rep. 413), that the division of an empire
works no forfeiture of a right previously acquired. The
revolution left the demandant where she was before...."
The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464;
5 Cond. Rep. 489.
I remind America what Edmond Burke said:
"....Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights
associated with you government-they will cling and grapple to
you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from
their allegiance. But let it be once understood that your
government may be one thing and their privileges another, that
these two things may exist without any mutual relation - the
cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens
to decay and dissolution. As long as you have the wisdom to keep
the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of
liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith,
wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom,
they will turn their faces towards you. The more they multiply,
the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love
liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they
can have they may have it from Spain, they may have it from
Prussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your true
interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from
none but you. This commodity of price, of which you have the
monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you
the commerce of the -colonies, and through them secures to you
the wealth of the world. Deny them this participation of
freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and
must still preserve, the unity of the empire....Let us get an
American revenue as we have got an American empire. English
privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone
will make it all it can be." Edmund Burke, speech on conciliation
with America, pages 71-72, March 22, 1775, web site,
America what about "you have been conned" do you not understand? What will it take for you to wake up?