Sleepwalking Into a Nuclear Arms Race with Russia


By Pierre M. Sprey and Chuck Spinney

The Nuclear Question is becoming increasingly obfuscated by spin and lobbying as the West sleepwalks into Cold War II — a walk made all the more dangerous when the loose lips of the U.S. tweeter-in-chief announced that another nuclear arms race is a great idea (see link and link). Two Cold War II issues are central and almost never addressed: What will be the Russians’ understanding of all the propaganda surrounding the Nuclear Question and the looming American defense spendup? And how might they act on this understanding?


Barack Obama first outlined his vision for nuclear disarmament in a speech in Prague on 5 April 2009, less than three months after becoming President. This speech became the basis for what eventually became the New Start nuclear arms limitation treaty. But Mr. Obama also opened the door for the modernization of our nuclear forces with this pregnant statement:

“To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies –- including the Czech Republic.”

Why call for nuclear disarmament while opening the door to nuclear rearmament?

Obama’s speech paved the way to his Nobel Peace Prize in October 2009, but he was also trying to manipulate the domestic politics of the Military – Industrial – Congressional Complex (MICC). By 15 December 2009, 41 Senators sent a letter to President Obama saying that further reductions of the nuclear arsenal would be acceptable only if accompanied by “a significant program to modernize our nuclear deterrent.”

Viewed in retrospect, it is clear that the new President — either naively or cynically — acquiesced to that senatorial spending demand in order to keep the powerful nuclear laboratories and their allies in the defense industry and Congress from lobbying against his new arms limitation treaty. In April 2009 Obama took the first steps that launched a huge spending plan to modernize U.S. nuclear forces across the board. Eight years later, during his first call to President Putin on 28 January 2017, President Trump locked that program in place by denouncing Obama’s New START as a “bad deal,” saying it favored Russia.

A particularly dangerous component of the Obama nuclear spending plan is the acquisition of low-yield precision-guided nuclear bombs/warheads. These weapons only make sense within a radical strategy for actually fighting a nuclear war — as opposed to the almost universally accepted idea that our nuclear arsenal exists only to deter any thought of using these weapons — since actual use is unthinkable, with profoundly unknowable consequences. Last December, the prestigious Defense Science Board — an organization replete with members closely connected to the nuclear labs and their defense industry allies — added its imprimatur to this radical strategy by resurrecting the old and discredited ideas of limited nuclear options (LNOs). LNOs are based on the unproven — and unprovable — hypothesis that a president could actually detonate a few nukes to control a gradually escalating nuclear bombing campaign, or perhaps to implement a psychological tactic of encouraging deterrence with a few small “preventative” nuclear explosions.

Adding to Obama’s expansion of our nuclear posture is President Trump’s intention to fulfill his campaign promises to strengthen all nuclear offensive and defensive forces, with particular emphasis on spending a lot more for the ballistic missile defense (BMD) program — which implies expanding the current deployments of BMD weapons in eastern Europe within a few hundred miles of the Russian border.

Early cost estimates — really guesses — for Obama’s entire nuclear modernization program are for one trillion dollars over the next 30 years. No missile defense costs are included in this estimate — nor are the costs of Trump’s promised expansions.

The components of the currently authorized program — e.g., a new bomber, a new ballistic missile carrying submarine, a new ICBM, a new air-launched cruise missile, a complete remanufacturing upgrade of the existing B-61 dial-a-yield tactical nuclear bomb that also adds a precision guidance kit, a new family of missile warheads, new nuclear warhead production facilities, and a massive array of new large-scale intelligence, surveillance, command and control systems to manage these forces — are all in the early stages of development. Assuming business as usual continues in the Pentagon, the one-trillion dollar estimate is really a typical front-loaded or “buy-in” estimate intended to stick the camel’s nose in the acquisition tent by deliberately understating future costs while over-promising future benefits.

The money for all of these programs is just beginning to flow into hundreds of congressional districts. As the torrent of money builds up over the next decade, the flood of sub-contracting money and jobs in hundreds of congressional districts guarantees the entire nuclear spend-up will acquire a political life of its own — and the taxpayer will be burdened with yet another unstoppable behemoth.

Readers who doubt this outcome need only look at how the problem-plagued F-35 Strike Fighter lives on, resisting reductions in money flows and even receiving congressional add-ons, despite mind-numbing effectiveness shortfalls, technical failures and unending schedule delays (e.g., see this recent 60 page report by the Pentagon’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation).

Locking hundreds of congressmen and senators into this nuclear modernization program guarantees that the money flow and cost overruns will increase without interference for the next thirty to fifty years. Our many years of observing and analyzing DoD’s largest politically-engineered acquisitions makes it obvious that the initial buy-in guess of a trillion dollar total will turn into at least a three trillion dollar price tag by the end of three decades. In short, the Pentagon is planting the seed money for another F-35-like disaster, only this time on steroids.

But there is more. Once this multi-trillion dollar, self-sustaining money gusher is sluicing steadily into the boiler rooms of the Military – Industrial – Congressional Complex (MICC), U.S. force deployments, alliances, treaties and threat assessments will be shaped even more heavily than now to support the domestic politics of ever-increasing spending for the MICC. Despite this, our nation’s foreign policy mandarins seeking to steer the ship of state from their perch on Mount Olympus will remain oblivious to the fact that their “policy” steering wheel is not connected to the ship’s rudder.

As one perceptive Pentagon wag succinctly observed years ago, “In the real world, foreign policy stops at the water’s edge,” i.e., the domestic politics of the MICC always trump foreign policy. President Eisenhower understood this, though he did nothing about it before leaving office.

As of now, no one in the MICC really gives a damn how the Russians (or the Chinese) might actually react to America’s looming nuclear (and non-nuclear) spending binge. This is clearly seen in the cognitive dissonance of the Obama Defense Department: It was torn between insisting the Russians are not the target of the nuclear program but at the same time justifying the nuclear build up as a means to counter Russian conventional aggression. Equally revealing, an 8 February editorial in the Pentagon’s favored house organ, Defense News, described President Trump’s upcoming Nuclear Posture Review without once mentioning the Russians or Chinese nor how they might react to the looming American spending spree. On the other hand, the editorial took great pains to explain in detail how the forces of domestic political consensus will ensure steady funding for Obama’s nuclear spending plans throughout the Trump Administration years.

Do Actions Trigger Reactions (1)?

So, how might the Russians react to the threat of increased American defense budgets?

Let’s try to look at the nuclear modernization program — and the looming defense spendup — from the Russian leadership’s point of view.

The Russians, particularly those internal political and industrial factions that benefit from Russian defense spending, are very likely to characterize the American spending program as an aggressive sharpening of the U.S. nuclear sword and a strengthening of its nuclear shield, synchronized with a threatening buildup of America’s conventional force. And that will be used to argue that Russia is spending far too little on defense because it faces an existential threat due to increased American spending.

Don’t laugh, this is a mirror image of the argument used successfully by President Ronald Reagan in a televised address to the nation on 22 November 1982. His subject was also nuclear strategy, as well as the need to increase America’s entire defense budget. Reagan said [excerpted from pp. 3-5],

You often hear that the United States and the Soviet Union are in an arms race. The truth is that while the Soviet Union has raced, we have not. As you can see from this blue US line in constant dollars our defense spending in the 1960s went up because of Vietnam and then it went downward through much of the 1970s. Now, follow the red line, which is Soviet spending. It has gone up and up and up. …


“The combination of the Soviets spending more and the United States spending proportionately less changed the military balance and weakened our deterrent. Today, in virtually every measure of military power, the Soviet Union enjoys a decided advantage” …

If my defense proposals are passed, it will still take five years before we come close to the Soviet level.

Mirror imaging Reagan’s argument, Russian defense advocates emphasizing the dangers of the U.S. spendup are likely to point out that the United States and its allies are already spending far more on their military forces than Russia is spending. Moreover, America certainly intends to rapidly increase the size of this spending advantage, because the large new American nuclear modernization program is only part of a yet-larger long term spending buildup.

After all, have not President Trump and Senator McCain proposed huge increases to President Obama’s defense budget to rebuild what Messrs. Trump and McCain claim is a “depleted” military (see link 1 and link 2 respectively)? Advocates of increased Russian defense budgets might also ask, are not Messrs. Trump and McCain declaring an emergency by calling on Congress to exempt defense spending from the spending restrictions imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011?

Indeed, Russian politicians, echoing Mr. Reagan in 1981, might construct a graphic using the West’s own numbers to prove their points, beginning perhaps with something like this (Chart 2):


Chart 2

A Russian defense advocate using the Janes’ metric in Chart 2 could argue that (1) Russia is now spending slightly less than Saudi Arabia, less than India, and less than the UK; (2) the size of Russia’s budget is only a quarter of China’s; and (3) the size of Russia’s defense budget is an astonishing one-twelfth of that of the United States!

Add to the U.S. defense budget the contributions of its allies and close friends and the spending balance in favor the U.S. and its allies to that of Russia alone becomes an astounding 21 to 1! Even if Russia could trust China to be a reliable ally — which it can’t — the current spending imbalance is over four to one in favor of the U.S. and its allies on the one hand and Russia and China on the other.

Advocates of increased Russian defense spending might even argue their comparison does not suffer from the gross distortions created by Reagan’s earlier chart because (1) the Ruble was not convertible into dollars in 1982 (whereas it is today), and Reagan’s comparison severely overstated Soviet spending levels using an artificial exchange rate; and (2) the dollar numbers in their Chart 2 comparison start from zero, unlike the deliberately truncated dollar scale (100 to 275) Reagan used in Chart 1 to exaggerate his point.

Do Actions Trigger Reactions (II)?

Of course, from a Russian leader’s point of view, the strategic threat goes well beyond the madness implied by the asymmetries in defense budgets.

They might see the Trumpian expansion of both nuclear offense and missile defense as evidence the U.S. is planning to dominate Russia by preparing to fight and win a nuclear war — a radical shift from America’s 50+ years of building nuclear forces only for deterrence (often referred to as Mutually Assured Destruction or MAD).

Faced with such a threat, militarist factions inside Russia are likely to insist on a rational application of the precautionary principle by the Russian nation.

That principle will dictate a response, presumably a massive Russian nuclear arms race with the United States. The obvious fact that the politically engineered U.S. nuclear program cannot be reined in or terminated by politicians in the U.S. is almost certainly understood by the Russians. But that appreciation would serve merely to magnify the sense of menace perceived by patriotic Russian leaders.

Bear in mind, the Russians are unlikely to view the emerging nuclear menace in isolation. For one thing, there is the toxic question of NATO’s expansion and the mistrust it created.

The vast majority of Russians, including former President Gorbachev, President Putin, and Prime Minister Medvedev, believe strongly that the U.S. and the West violated their verbal promises not to expand NATO eastward in return for the Soviet Union’s acquiescence to the unification of Germany as a member of NATO. Many leaders of the West have either denied any promises were made or downplayed the import of any such understandings. But reporters from the German weekly Der Spiegel discovered documents in western archives that supported the Russian point of view, and on 26 November 2009 published an investigative report concluding …

“After speaking with many of those involved and examining previously classified British and German documents in detail, SPIEGEL has concluded that there was no doubt that the West did everything it could to give the Soviets the impression that NATO membership was out of the question for countries like Poland, Hungary or Czechoslovakia.”

One thing is beyond dispute: The impression or understanding or promise not to expand NATO was broken by President Clinton — largely for domestic political reasons — making a mockery of President Gorbachev’s hopeful vision of a greater European home.

Clinton announced support for NATO expansion in October of 1996, just before the November election, to garner conservative and hawk votes, the votes of Americans of Eastern European descent, and in response to an intense NATO expansion lobbying campaign mounted by the MICC — and to steal the issue from his conservative opponent Senator Robert Dole.

The expansion of NATO eastwards combined with President Bush’s unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in June 2002, followed by the deployment of ABM systems to Eastern Europe certainly increased the Russians’ sense of mistrust and menace regarding U.S. intentions. To this day, Putin’s speeches repeatedly refer to the broken American promises.

There is more to an appreciation of the Russian point of view. In parallel with the NATO expansion, the European Union (EU) expanded eastward, precipitously like an expanding cancer, beginning in 1995 and continuing to 2013. The EU’s exclusion of Russia from the “greater European home” further fueled an atmosphere of mistrust and menace.

From a Russian perspective, the NATO and EU expansions worked to deliberately isolate and impoverish Russia — and the potential (though to date frustrated) expansion by the West into Ukraine and Georgia intensified the sense that Russia had been hoodwinked by the West.

The perception of a deliberate U.S. and EU campaign to cripple Russia has a history dating back to the end of the First Cold War in 1991: Russian leaders, for example, are unlikely to forget how, during the Clinton Administration, U.S. NGOS combined with American pressure, supported the extraordinarily corrupt privatization of the former Soviet state enterprises in the 1990s (aka “Shock Therapy”). In the words of the Nobel Prize winning economist, Joseph Stiglitz (16 June 2000):

“In the early 1990s, there was a debate among economists over shock therapy versus a gradualist strategy for Russia. But Larry Summers [Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs, then Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, now Secretary] took control of the economic policy, and there was a lot of discontent with the way he was driving the policy.

The people in Russia who believed in shock therapy were Bolsheviks–a few people at the top that rammed it down everybody’s throat. They viewed the democratic process as a real impediment to reform.

The grand larceny that occurred in Russia, the corruption that resulted in nine or ten people getting enormous wealth through loans-for-shares, was condoned because it allowed the reelection of Yeltsin.”

And in a touch of irony, given the current hysteria over President Putin’s alleged meddling in the U.S. presidential election, it gets worse. Russian leaders are also unlikely to forget American intervention on behalf of Boris Yeltsin in the Russian elections of 1996, including using American control of the International Monetary Fund to float a $10.2 billion loan in March to 1996 to help the corrupt and malleable Boris Yeltsin to win the election in June.


July 15, 1996

So, from a Russian perspective, the recent increasingly severe U.S. sanctions are not only hypocritical, they certainly reinforce the view that the U.S. led campaign to cripple the Russian economy is ongoing and perhaps endless.

Moreover, the rapid, opportunistic expansion of NATO and the EU created a kaleidoscope of internal frictions. Now both institutions are in trouble, riven by contradictions and disharmonies. Great Britain is leaving the EU but will remain in NATO. Northern Europe and the EU bankers are imposing draconian austerity measures on Southern Europe, particularly Greece. Turkey, long a key NATO ally, is turning to Russia while being rejected by the EU. The destruction of Libya, Iraq and Syria, under U.S. leadership with European participation, has created an unprecedented flood of refugees into the EU, deeply threatening the EU’S organizing principle of open borders. The increasing tide of European instability and chaos, accompanied by the looming specter of growing Fascist movements from Spain to Ukraine, inevitably add to the traditional Russian sense of being endangered and encircled.

That sense of endangerment is certainly heightened by a recent creepy piece of nuttiness coming out of Poland, perhaps the most Russophobic member of the EU and NATO. The German daily DW says Jaroslaw Kaczynski, a very conservative former prime minister of Poland, chairman of the ruling nationalist-conservative Law and Justice party (PiS), has called for a massive EU nuclear force — trading on Polish fears that the United States will not sacrifice Chicago to save Warsaw. That France and Britain already have nuclear weapons and are members of NATO is, of course, left unsaid in Kaczynski’s demagoguery.

Russian leaders cannot ignore the fact that Kaczynski called for a nuclear EU shortly after the U.S. 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division (3,500 troops and 2,500 vehicles) deployed to Poland. Even worse, the commanding officer promptly declared the brigade is “ready to fight,” though it is intended to “deter” any threat to Poland. One brigade is a trip wire … or a kind of blank check that might be exploited for nutty reasons to trigger a shooting war — and as Kaczynski just demonstrated, nuttiness is afoot in that part of the world.

Now, if you were a Russian; and

(1) you remembered the West’s destruction to your homeland beginning in 1812, 1914, and 1941 together with the recent string of broken promises, economic exclusion, and destructive meddling in Russian internal affairs that made a mockery of the ideal of a post-Cold War common European home; and …

(2) you faced a country that excluded you from Europe, suborned your election and is intent on crippling your economy, a country already outspending you on defense by a factor of twelve to one while expressing an intent to increase that lopsided ratio in a major way; and …

(3) that country has already started a nuclear arms race with a hugely expensive across-the-board modernization program to buy atomic weapons some of which can be justified only in terms of fighting and winning nuclear wars;

What would you do?

To ask such a question is to answer it. For patriotic Americans interested in increasing their real national security (rather than their national security budget), the nuclear issue boils down to a question of understanding the powerful impact of America’s spending decisions and actions on patriotic Russians. In other words, it is a question of reasoned empathy and pragmatic self-interest.

Yet the mainstream media and the politicians of both parties in thrall to our MICC are working day and night to pump up anti-Russian hysteria and hype fear to ensure Americans remain completely oblivious to the powerful, dangerous impact of our senseless Obama-Trump nuclear spend-up on the Russians — or on anyone else, for that matter.

Chuck Spinney and Pierre Sprey, between them, have over 75 years of Pentagon and industry experience in engineering weapons as well as in analyzing military systems effectivness and defense budgets. Sprey was one of the early whiz kids in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in the 1960s. He led the Air Force’s concept design team for the legendary A-10 attack aircraft and, together with colonels Boyd and Riccioni, fathered the enormously successful F-16 fighter. Working in OSD in the 1980s, Spinney’s critical analyses of the Pentagon’s defective planning and budgeting landed him on the March 1983 cover of Time. Leaving the Pentagon in 2003, he did an in-depth interview on the military-industrial-congressional complex with Bill Moyers which resulted in a special Emmy Award winning edition of Bill Moyers’ Now that aired on 1 August 2003. Sprey and Spinney have testified before Congress on many occasions and were founding members of the Military Reform Movement led by their close colleague, the renowned American fighter pilot and strategist, Colonel John Boyd.

(Reprinted from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)

The Resurrection of Armageddon


Paul Craig Roberts

“The U.S. intelligence community’s extraordinary campaign of leaks claiming improper ties between President Trump’s team and Russia seeks to ensure a lucrative New Cold War by blocking detente.” — Gareth Porter

It only required 24 days for the Deep State to castrate President Donald Trump and terminate the promise that the high tensions with Russia created during the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes would be terminated by Trump’s presidency.
As Gareth Porter shows conclusively (, the case against General Flynn, Trump’s 24-day National Security Adviser, and by implication against Trump himself, is a fake news creation.

Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, planted fake reports, none of which contained any evidence whatsoever, on the CIA-compliant media whores known as “presstitutes.” The CIA’s media whores knew that the reports were a CIA response to the threat to the $1,000 billion annual budget of the military/security complex that desperately needs “the Russian threat” for its justification. But the media whores—-principally the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC—-and all the rest as well are more dedicated to serving their CIA master than they are to serving peace between nuclear powers. Interesting, isn’t it, that the US and Western media are more committed to conflict with Russia than they are to peace, despite the brutal fact that 10 percent of the nuclear arsenal of either the US or Russia is sufficient to terminate all life on earth.

As Patrick Lawrence says: “The lights upon us are dimming. We have been more or less abandoned by a press that proves incapable of informing us in anything approaching a disinterested fashion. As suggested, either the media are Clintonian liberals before they are newspapers and broadcasters, or they are servants of power before they serve us.”

All we have left, says Lawrence, is the alternative media. “To put this simply and briefly, they and we must learn that they are not ‘alternative’ to anything. In the end there is no such thing as ‘alternative media,’ as I often argue. There are only media, and most of ours have turned irretrievably bad.”

The alternative media is the Internet media, websites such as this one, RT, the Intercept, USAWatchdog, Alex Jones, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Unz Review, etc. These independent news sites are under attack. Remember the list of 200 “Russian agents/dupes”? Every source of information that does not subscribe to the Deep States’ Matrix creation of “the Russian Threat,” which is the Deep State’s replacement for the orchestrated “Soviet Threat,” has been selected for shutdown. Apparently, Alex Jones is already having problems with Google. Several websites managed to get off the 200 List, and those that have seem to have collapsed as members of the opposition.

As the Nazis said, all it takes is fear, and the people collapse.

Trump’s presidency is effectively over. Even if he is permitted to remain in office,
he will be a figurehead for the Deep State’s presidency. President Trump has already fallen into line with the military/security complex. He has said Russia has to return Crimea to Ukraine, whereas in fact Crimea returned itself to Russia. He has rejected a new strategic arms limitations treaty (START) with Russia, stating that he wants supremacy in nuclear armaments, not equality. Obama’s one trillion dollar upgrade of the US nuclear arsenal is likely to get a boost from Trump.

After one month in office the goal has changed from reduced tensions with Russia to greater tensions. Greater tensions might soon be upon us. There are plans to occupy part of Syria with US troops in order to prevent Syria with Russia’s help from reuniting the country. Part of Syria is to go to Turkey, part to the Kurds, and Washington will keep a chunk. This way Washington can keep the turmoil going forever. The Russians brought this problem on themselves. Ever hopeful for Washington’s cooperation against ISIS, Russia dallied in cleaning out ISIS. The prospect that Trump would work with Russia as part of better relations assumed that Trump would actually be in charge, which has turned out to be delusional.

It is difficult to know if the new Trump regime is more Iranophobic than Russophobic. The Trump regime’s inclination to jettison the Iran agreement and reopen the conflict means more conflict with Russia. Washington’s continued provocations of both Russia and China will dispel any lingering Russian expectations of better relations with Washington.

It is bizarre to see the liberal-progressive-left allied with the warmongers against Trump. As the neoconservatives pull nuclear Armageddon out of the grave that Reagan and Gorbachev put it in, the American left demands the impeachment of the president whose goal was better relations with Russia. Once the champion of the working class, the left now champions Identity Politics. Trump’s goal of jobs for the working class leaves the leftwing cold. The left wants to destroy the “Trump deplorables,” which the left describes as “racist, misogynist, homophobic, gun nuts.” In Identity Politics, every identity is a victim except the oppressor identity—white heterosexual males.

Where then is the opposition to the neoconservative ideology that is driving US foreign policy toward world hegemony? There are a few of us, but we are being cast as “Putin agents.” In other words, those who have sufficient intelligence to understand that Washington is not going to achieve hegemony over Russia and China or even Iran, but is likely to provoke nuclear war by trying, are relegated to the traitor class.

The reason that there is still life on earth after more than a half century of nuclear weapons is that American presidents and Soviet leaders worked together to reduce tensions. During these decades, there were numerous false alarms of incoming ICBMs. However, because the leadership of both countries were working together to avoid nuclear conflict, the warnings were disbelieved both by the Soviets and Americans.

Today the situation is vastly different. The last three US presidents, and now apparently Trump also, worked overtime to increase tensions between the two nuclear powers. Moreover, it was done in ways that convinced the Russian government that Washington is completely untrustworthy. The ongoing vicious lies about the Russian connections of Trump and his associates are so obviously false as to be laughable, but the Russians are seeing that the falsity of the charges notwithstanding, Trump’s National Security Adviser has fallen and Trump himself might be next.

In other words, the Russians are observing that in America facts are not relevant to outcomes. The Russians have already experienced this with regard to themselves with the lies about Putin, the Ukraine, Georgia, and Russian intentions toward Europe. Putin is routinely called a “thug,” “murderer,” “the new Hitler” by US politicians, presstitutes, and the Democratic Party’s candidate in the recent presidential election. Ranking US generals describe Russia as the “principal threat to the US.” NATO commanders assert that the Russian Army could occupy the Baltics and/or Poland at any moment. These nonsensical accusations and predictions suggest to the Russians that the West is preparing its populations for an attack on Russia.

In such a tense state of affairs, how will false alarms be interpreted? Will Americans convinced that Putin and Russia are evil incarnate believe the false alarms this time? Will Russians convinced that they have been set up for attack believe them this time?

This is the extreme risk to which the insane neoconservatives, the idiot liberal-progressive-left, the greedy military/security complex, and the aggressive generals have exposed life on earth.

And the few voices warning of the risk are dismissed as “Russian agents.”


July 15, 1996

So, from a Russian perspective, the recent increasingly severe U.S. sanctions are not only hypocritical, they certainly reinforce the view that the U.S. led campaign to cripple the Russian economy is ongoing and perhaps endless.

Moreover, the rapid, opportunistic expansion of NATO and the EU created a kaleidoscope of internal frictions. Now both institutions are in trouble, riven by contradictions and disharmonies. Great Britain is leaving the EU but will remain in NATO. Northern Europe and the EU bankers are imposing draconian austerity measures on Southern Europe, particularly Greece. Turkey, long a key NATO ally, is turning to Russia while being rejected by the EU. The destruction of Libya, Iraq and Syria, under U.S. leadership with European participation, has created an unprecedented flood of refugees into the EU, deeply threatening the EU’S organizing principle of open borders. The increasing tide of European instability and chaos, accompanied by the looming specter of growing Fascist movements from Spain to Ukraine, inevitably add to the traditional Russian sense of being endangered and encircled.

That sense of endangerment is certainly heightened by a recent creepy piece of nuttiness coming out of Poland, perhaps the most Russophobic member of the EU and NATO. The German daily DW says Jaroslaw Kaczynski, a very conservative former prime minister of Poland, chairman of the ruling nationalist-conservative Law and Justice party (PiS), has called for a massive EU nuclear force — trading on Polish fears that the United States will not sacrifice Chicago to save Warsaw. That France and Britain already have nuclear weapons and are members of NATO is, of course, left unsaid in Kaczynski’s demagoguery.

Russian leaders cannot ignore the fact that Kaczynski called for a nuclear EU shortly after the U.S. 3rd Armored Brigade Combat Team of the 4th Infantry Division (3,500 troops and 2,500 vehicles) deployed to Poland. Even worse, the commanding officer promptly declared the brigade is “ready to fight,” though it is intended to “deter” any threat to Poland. One brigade is a trip wire … or a kind of blank check that might be exploited for nutty reasons to trigger a shooting war — and as Kaczynski just demonstrated, nuttiness is afoot in that part of the world.

Now, if you were a Russian; and

(1) you remembered the West’s destruction to your homeland beginning in 1812, 1914, and 1941 together with the recent string of broken promises, economic exclusion, and destructive meddling in Russian internal affairs that made a mockery of the ideal of a post-Cold War common European home; and …

(2) you faced a country that excluded you from Europe, suborned your election and is intent on crippling your economy, a country already outspending you on defense by a factor of twelve to one while expressing an intent to increase that lopsided ratio in a major way; and …

(3) that country has already started a nuclear arms race with a hugely expensive across-the-board modernization program to buy atomic weapons some of which can be justified only in terms of fighting and winning nuclear wars;

What would you do?

To ask such a question is to answer it. For patriotic Americans interested in increasing their real national security (rather than their national security budget), the nuclear issue boils down to a question of understanding the powerful impact of America’s spending decisions and actions on patriotic Russians. In other words, it is a question of reasoned empathy and pragmatic self-interest.

Yet the mainstream media and the politicians of both parties in thrall to our MICC are working day and night to pump up anti-Russian hysteria and hype fear to ensure Americans remain completely oblivious to the powerful, dangerous impact of our senseless Obama-Trump nuclear spend-up on the Russians — or on anyone else, for that matter.

Chuck Spinney and Pierre Sprey, between them, have over 75 years of Pentagon and industry experience in engineering weapons as well as in analyzing military systems effectivness and defense budgets. Sprey was one of the early whiz kids in the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) in the 1960s. He led the Air Force’s concept design team for the legendary A-10 attack aircraft and, together with colonels Boyd and Riccioni, fathered the enormously successful F-16 fighter. Working in OSD in the 1980s, Spinney’s critical analyses of the Pentagon’s defective planning and budgeting landed him on the March 1983 cover of Time. Leaving the Pentagon in 2003, he did an in-depth interview on the military-industrial-congressional complex with Bill Moyers which resulted in a special Emmy Award winning edition of Bill Moyers’ Now that aired on 1 August 2003. Sprey and Spinney have testified before Congress on many occasions and were founding members of the Military Reform Movement led by their close colleague, the renowned American fighter pilot and strategist, Colonel John Boyd.

(Reprinted from Counterpunch by permission of author or representative)

02 28 17 The Resurrection of Armageddon


Paul Craig Roberts

“The U.S. intelligence community’s extraordinary campaign of leaks claiming improper ties between President Trump’s team and Russia seeks to ensure a lucrative New Cold War by blocking detente.” — Gareth Porter

It only required 24 days for the Deep State to castrate President Donald Trump and terminate the promise that the high tensions with Russia created during the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama regimes would be terminated by Trump’s presidency.
As Gareth Porter shows conclusively (, the case against General Flynn, Trump’s 24-day National Security Adviser, and by implication against Trump himself, is a fake news creation.

Obama’s CIA director, John Brennan, planted fake reports, none of which contained any evidence whatsoever, on the CIA-compliant media whores known as “presstitutes.” The CIA’s media whores knew that the reports were a CIA response to the threat to the $1,000 billion annual budget of the military/security complex that desperately needs “the Russian threat” for its justification. But the media whores—-principally the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC—-and all the rest as well are more dedicated to serving their CIA master than they are to serving peace between nuclear powers. Interesting, isn’t it, that the US and Western media are more committed to conflict with Russia than they are to peace, despite the brutal fact that 10 percent of the nuclear arsenal of either the US or Russia is sufficient to terminate all life on earth.

As Patrick Lawrence says: “The lights upon us are dimming. We have been more or less abandoned by a press that proves incapable of informing us in anything approaching a disinterested fashion. As suggested, either the media are Clintonian liberals before they are newspapers and broadcasters, or they are servants of power before they serve us.”

All we have left, says Lawrence, is the alternative media. “To put this simply and briefly, they and we must learn that they are not ‘alternative’ to anything. In the end there is no such thing as ‘alternative media,’ as I often argue. There are only media, and most of ours have turned irretrievably bad.”

The alternative media is the Internet media, websites such as this one, RT, the Intercept, USAWatchdog, Alex Jones, Information Clearing House, Global Research, Unz Review, etc. These independent news sites are under attack. Remember the list of 200 “Russian agents/dupes”? Every source of information that does not subscribe to the Deep States’ Matrix creation of “the Russian Threat,” which is the Deep State’s replacement for the orchestrated “Soviet Threat,” has been selected for shutdown. Apparently, Alex Jones is already having problems with Google. Several websites managed to get off the 200 List, and those that have seem to have collapsed as members of the opposition.

As the Nazis said, all it takes is fear, and the people collapse.

Trump’s presidency is effectively over. Even if he is permitted to remain in office,
he will be a figurehead for the Deep State’s presidency. President Trump has already fallen into line with the military/security complex. He has said Russia has to return Crimea to Ukraine, whereas in fact Crimea returned itself to Russia. He has rejected a new strategic arms limitations treaty (START) with Russia, stating that he wants supremacy in nuclear armaments, not equality. Obama’s one trillion dollar upgrade of the US nuclear arsenal is likely to get a boost from Trump.

After one month in office the goal has changed from reduced tensions with Russia to greater tensions. Greater tensions might soon be upon us. There are plans to occupy part of Syria with US troops in order to prevent Syria with Russia’s help from reuniting the country. Part of Syria is to go to Turkey, part to the Kurds, and Washington will keep a chunk. This way Washington can keep the turmoil going forever. The Russians brought this problem on themselves. Ever hopeful for Washington’s cooperation against ISIS, Russia dallied in cleaning out ISIS. The prospect that Trump would work with Russia as part of better relations assumed that Trump would actually be in charge, which has turned out to be delusional.

It is difficult to know if the new Trump regime is more Iranophobic than Russophobic. The Trump regime’s inclination to jettison the Iran agreement and reopen the conflict means more conflict with Russia. Washington’s continued provocations of both Russia and China will dispel any lingering Russian expectations of better relations with Washington.

It is bizarre to see the liberal-progressive-left allied with the warmongers against Trump. As the neoconservatives pull nuclear Armageddon out of the grave that Reagan and Gorbachev put it in, the American left demands the impeachment of the president whose goal was better relations with Russia. Once the champion of the working class, the left now champions Identity Politics. Trump’s goal of jobs for the working class leaves the leftwing cold. The left wants to destroy the “Trump deplorables,” which the left describes as “racist, misogynist, homophobic, gun nuts.” In Identity Politics, every identity is a victim except the oppressor identity—white heterosexual males.

Where then is the opposition to the neoconservative ideology that is driving US foreign policy toward world hegemony? There are a few of us, but we are being cast as “Putin agents.” In other words, those who have sufficient intelligence to understand that Washington is not going to achieve hegemony over Russia and China or even Iran, but is likely to provoke nuclear war by trying, are relegated to the traitor class.

The reason that there is still life on earth after more than a half century of nuclear weapons is that American presidents and Soviet leaders worked together to reduce tensions. During these decades, there were numerous false alarms of incoming ICBMs. However, because the leadership of both countries were working together to avoid nuclear conflict, the warnings were disbelieved both by the Soviets and Americans.

Today the situation is vastly different. The last three US presidents, and now apparently Trump also, worked overtime to increase tensions between the two nuclear powers. Moreover, it was done in ways that convinced the Russian government that Washington is completely untrustworthy. The ongoing vicious lies about the Russian connections of Trump and his associates are so obviously false as to be laughable, but the Russians are seeing that the falsity of the charges notwithstanding, Trump’s National Security Adviser has fallen and Trump himself might be next.

In other words, the Russians are observing that in America facts are not relevant to outcomes. The Russians have already experienced this with regard to themselves with the lies about Putin, the Ukraine, Georgia, and Russian intentions toward Europe. Putin is routinely called a “thug,” “murderer,” “the new Hitler” by US politicians, presstitutes, and the Democratic Party’s candidate in the recent presidential election. Ranking US generals describe Russia as the “principal threat to the US.” NATO commanders assert that the Russian Army could occupy the Baltics and/or Poland at any moment. These nonsensical accusations and predictions suggest to the Russians that the West is preparing its populations for an attack on Russia.

In such a tense state of affairs, how will false alarms be interpreted? Will Americans convinced that Putin and Russia are evil incarnate believe the false alarms this time? Will Russians convinced that they have been set up for attack believe them this time?

This is the extreme risk to which the insane neoconservatives, the idiot liberal-progressive-left, the greedy military/security complex, and the aggressive generals have exposed life on earth.

And the few voices warning of the risk are dismissed as “Russian agents.”

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy and associate editor of the Wall Street Journal. He was columnist for Business Week, Scripps Howard News Service, and Creators Syndicate. He has had many university appointments. His internet columns have attracted a worldwide following. Roberts’ latest books are The Failure of Laissez Faire Capitalism and Economic Dissolution of the West, How America Was Lost, and The Neoconservative Threat to World Order.

Olddogs Comments!

Really folks, Are you going to stand bye and watch these A-Holes destroy most of our planet? Hundreds of millions of human beings! Of course you are, because you are totally under the power of the media industry and have lost all courage, common sense and intelligence! How about waking up to reality and voicing your rejection of rule by a bunch of slimy Investment Bankers who intend to have they’re power recognized. How about forming a group of sane people to go before your county commissioners and demand they send a letter to Mr. Trump and Congress demanding the disintegration of the media cartel. Have them sell off their corporate holdings and form hundreds of independent media groups. Consolidation of any resource is detrimental to honesty and promotes and offensive power to truth. I knew this would happen way back when I was totally politically ignorant.






Without Justice, there is – JUST US!


American Patriot Friends Network

APFN c/o  6630 W. CACTUS RD. SUITE B107-760, GLENDALE, AZ 85304

Without Justice, there is JUST_US!



Investigate: Lawyers Guild of Great Britain

and any ties to the American Bar Association.

“BAR” stands for “British Accreditation Research”

[02/21/1999] A federal judge in Texas has moved to out law Quicken Family Lawyer, a legal software program. The reason. It was too helpful. Judge Barefoot Sanders determined that by helping people fill our their legal documents, the program treads illegally on lawyers’ turf. Specifically, it violates law that bar anyone but licensed lawyers from giving legal advise. The case was brought by a lawyers’ group, whose interest is clear enough. Lawyers typically charge anywhere from $100 to $650 an hour. Quicken costs $29.95 for life.

The Legal monopoly: An American Bar Association committee on non-lawyer practice in 1995 noted that enforcement of unauthorized practice laws declined after 1970, but rose again

in the ‘90s. Recent cases suggest the trend continues.

“The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” U.S. v. Lopez


Any Judge, Government Agent, or Bureaucrat Who Had Sworn to

Uphold the Constitution for the United States Who is

Violating that Oath is Guilty of Treason.

The Penalty is still DEATH BY HANGING.

You are weighed in the balance and are found wanting.

Daniel 5:27

Woe, unto you lawyers! for ye have taken away the key to

knowledge; ye entered [the Kingdom of God] not in yourselves,

and them that were entering in ye [have] hindered.

Luke 11:52




Edited, altered and enhanced significantly from audio tape by a private non-resident, non-domestic, non-person, non-individual, pursuant to any real or imaginary statutory regulations.

Let’s get right to the point. The courts only recognize two classes of people in the United States today.


The concept and status of DEBTORS AND CREDITORS is very important for you to understand. Every legal action where you are brought before the court: e.g. traffic ticket, property dispute or permits, income tax, credit cards, bank loans or anything else they might dream up to charge you where you find yourself in front of a court – IT IS AN EQUITY COURT, administering commercial law having a debtor/creditor law as the controlling law. Today, we have an equity court but not an equity court as referred to in the Constitution of the U.S. or any of the legal documents before 1938.

All the courts of this once great land have been

changed starting with the Supreme Court decision of 1938 in

Erie R.R. v. Thompkins, 304 U.S 64 (1938)

give you background which led to this decision. Some of this information is from the Ben Freeman tapes of 1989. They are excellent tapes if you have them. Ben used to talk about “legislative democracy.” I couldn’t find a definition for legislative democracy. It bothered me. However, by listening to his tapes as well as other tapes. I began to see the fraud that is being perpetrated on all of us Americans. Please understand that this fraud is a 24 hour, 7 days a week, year after year continuous fraud. It doesn’t happen just once in a while. This fraud is constantly upon you all your life. Whether you are aware of it or not, this fraud is perpetually and incessantly upon you and your family.

U.S. Inc. Goes To Geneva 1930’s

In order for you to understand just how this fraud works, you need to know the history of its inception. It goes like this: from 1928 – 1932 there were five years of Geneva conventions. The nations of the world met in Geneva, Switzerland for 5 continuous years in order to set up what would be the policy of all the participating countries. During the year of 1930 the U.S., Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, etc. all declared bankruptcy. If you try to look up the 1930 minutes, you will not find them because they don’t publish this particular volume. If you try to find the 1930 volume which contains the minutes of what happened, you will probably not find it. This volume has been pulled out of circulation or is hidden in the library and is very hard to find. This volume contains the evidence of the bankruptcy.

Going into 1932, they stopped meeting in Geneva. In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt came into power as President of the United States. Roosevelt’s job was to put into place and administer the bankruptcy that had been declared two years earlier. The corporate government needed a key Supreme Court decision. The corporate United States government had to have a legal case on the books to set the stage for recognizing, implementing and supporting the bankruptcy. Now, this doesn’t mean the bankruptcy wasn’t implemented before 1938 with the Erie RR v. Thompkins decision. The bankruptcy started in 1930-1931. The bankruptcy definitely started when Roosevelt came into office. He was sworn in during the month of January, 1933. He started right away in the bankruptcy with what is known as the “The Banking Holiday,” and proceeded in pulling in gold coin out of circulation. That was the beginning of the United States Public Policy for bankruptcy.

Roosevelt Stacks Supreme Court

It is a known historical fact that during 1933 and 1937-1938, there was a big fight between Roosevelt and the Supreme Court Justices. Roosevelt tried to stack the Supreme Court with a bunch of his pals. Roosevelt tried to enlarge the number of Justices and he tried to change the slant of the Justices. The corporate United States had to have one Supreme Court case which would support their bankruptcy problem.

Their was resistance to Roosevelt’s court stacking efforts. Some of the Justices tried to warn us that Roosevelt was tampering with the law and with the courts. Roosevelt was trying to see to it that prior decisions of the court were overturned. He was trying to bring in a new order, a new procedure for the law of the land.

The “Mother Corporation”

Goes Bankrupt

A bankruptcy case was needed on the books to legitimize the fact that the corporate U.S. had already declared bankruptcy! This bankruptcy was effectuated by compact that the corporate several states had with the corporate government (Corporate Capitol of the several corporate states). This compact tied the corporate several states to corporate Washington, D.C. (the headquarters of the corporation called “The United States”). Since the United States Corporation, having established it headquarters within the District of Columbia, declared itself to be in the state of bankruptcy, it automatically declared bankruptcy for all its subsidiaries who were effectively connected corporate members (who happened to be the corporate state governments of the Union). The corporate state governments didn’t have to vote on the bankruptcy. The bankruptcy automatically became effective by reason of Compact/Agreement between each of the corporate state governments and THE MOTHER CORPORATION. (Note: The writer has taken the liberty of using the term “Mother Corporation” to communicate the interconnected power of the corporate Federal government relative to her associated corporate States. It is my understanding that the States created the Federal Government, however, for all practical purposes, the Federal Government has taken control of her “Creators,” the States.) She has become a beast out of control for power. She has for her trade names the following: “United States”, “U.S.”, “U.S.A.”, “United States of America”, Washington, D.C., District of Columbia, Feds, Federal Government. She has her own U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Parks, Post Office, etc., etc., etc. Because she is claiming to be bankrupt, she freely gives her land, her personnel, and the money she steals from the Americans via the I.R.S. and her state corporations, to the United Nations and the International Bankers as payment for her debt. The UN and the International Bankers use this money and services for various world wide projects to include war. War is an extremely lucrative business for the bankers of the New World Order. Loans for destruction. Loans for re-construction. Loans for controlling people on her world property.

U.S. Inc. Declares Bankruptcy

The corporate U.S., then, is the head corporate member, who met at Geneva, to decide for all its corporate body members. The corporate representatives of corporate several states were not in attendance. If the states had their own power to declare bankruptcy regardless of whether Washington D.C. declared bankruptcy or not, then the several states would have been represented at Geneva. The several states of America were not represented. Consequently, whatever Washington D.C. agree to at Geneva was passed on automatically, via compact to the several corporate states as a group, association, corporation or as a club member, they all agreed and declared bankruptcy as one government corporate group in 1938. The several states only needed a representative in Geneva by way of the U.S. in Washington, D.C. The delegates of the corporate United States attended the meetings and spoke for the several corporate states as well as for the mother corporation located in Washington, D.C., the seat and headquarters of the Federal Corporate Government. And, presto BANKRUPTCY was declared for all.

From 1930 to 1938 the states could not enact any law or decide any case that would go against the Federal Government. The case had to come down from the Federal level so that the states would rely on the Federal decision and use this decision as justification for the bankruptcy process within the states.

Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)

Emerges as the Law of the Land

By 1938 the corporate Federal Government had the true bankruptcy case they had been looking for. Now, the bankruptcy that had been declared back in 1930 could be up-held and administered. That’s why the Supreme Court had to be stacked and made corrupt from within. The new players on the Supreme Court fully understood that they had to destroy all other case law that had been established prior to 1938. The Federal Government had to have a case to destroy all precedence, all appearance, and even the statute of law itself. That is, the Statutes at Large had to be perverted. They finally got their case in Erie R.R. v. Thompkins. It was right after that case that the American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws listed right in the front of the Uniform Commercial Code, began creating the Uniform Commercial Code that is on our backs today. Let us quote directly from the preface of the 1990 Official Text of the Uniform Commercial Code 12th edition.

The Code was originally approved by its sponsors and the American Bar Association in 1952, and was revised in 1958 to incorporate a number of changes that had been recommended by the New York Law Revision Commission and other agencies. Subsequent amendments that were deemed desirable in the light of experience under the Code were approved by the Permanent Editorial Board in 1962 and 1966.

The above named groups and associations of private lawyers got together and started working on the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). It was somewhere between 1930 and 1940, I don’t recall, but by the early 40’s and during the war, this committee was working to form the UCC and got it ready to put on the market. The UCC is the law merchant’s code for the administration of the bankruptcy. The UCC is now the new law of the land as far as the courts are concerned. This Legal Committee of lawyers put everything; Negotiable Instruments, Security, Sales, Contracts/Agreements, and the whole mess under the UCC. That’s where the “Uniform” word comes from. It means it was uniform from state to state as well as being uniform with the District of Columbia. It doesn’t mean you didn’t have the uniform instrument laws on the books before this time. It means the laws were not uniform from state to state. By the middle 1960’s, every state had passed the UCC into law. The states had no choice but to adopt the newly formed Uniform Commercial Code as the law of the land. The states fully understood they had to administrate bankruptcy. Washington D.C. adopted the Uniform Commercial Code in 1963, just six weeks or so after Kennedy was killed.


Your Lawyer’s Secret Oath?

What was the effect and the significance of the Erie RR. v. Thompkins case decision of 1938? The significance is that since the Erie decision, no cases are allowed to be cited that are prior to 1939. There can be no mixing of the old law with the new law. The lawyers (who were members of the American Bar Association, were and are currently under and controlled by the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain) created, formed and implemented the new bankruptcy law. The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain. Since the Erie RR. v. Thompkins case was decided; the practice of law in this country was never again to be the same.

It has been reported (source unknown to the writer) that every lawyer in existence and every lawyer coming up has to take a SECRET OATH to support the bankruptcy. This seems to make sense after read about Mr. Sweet’s CASE FILE DISAPPEARANCE discussed below. There is more to it. Not only do they promise to support the bankruptcy, but the lawyers and judges also promise never to reveal who the true creditor party is in the bankruptcy proceedings. In court, there is never identification and appearance of the true character and principal of the proceedings. This is where you can get them for not making an appearance in court. If there is no appearance of the true party to the action, than there is no way the defendant is able to know the true NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACTION. You are never told the true NATURE AND THE CAUSE OF WHY YOU ARE IN FRONT OF THEIR COURT. The court is forbidden to tell you that information. That’s why, if you question the true nature and cause, the judge will say, “It’s not my job to tell you. You are not retaining me as an attorney and I can’t give you legal advice from the bench. I suggest you hire a lawyer.”

Hire a Lawyer?

The problem here is, if you hire a lawyer, who is pledged not to reveal the true nature and cause. How will you ever find out the nature and cause? You won’t! Why? If the true nature and cause of the action against you is revealed, it will expose the real creditor from whom this action and cause came. In other words, they will have to name the TRUE creditor. The true creditor will have to state the nature and cause. The true creditor will have to say, “It’s a bankruptcy proceeding.” That declaration then opens the door for you to question, “Who the hell are you? How did you get attached to my back and by what vehicle did I promise to become a debtor to you?” In this country, the courts on every level from the justice of the peace level all the way up – even into the International Law arena (called the World Court), are administrating the bankruptcy and are pledged not to reveal who the true creditors really are and how you personally became pledged as a party or participant to the corporate United States debt.

What would really kill these people off, would be to compel the International Bankers to send a lawyer to the courtroom and present himself as the attorney for the true creditor (the International Bankers). Then have the attorney put into the record the true nature and cause of the proceedings against you on that particular day.

The International Banksters told these various countries that they were now in a state of bankruptcy. The countries had been taken over by the creditor/bankers. And there was no choice, but for all these participating countries to declare bankruptcy. If they didn’t agree to declare bankruptcy, the banksters threatened to collapse the economies and thereby put the countries back into the depression like the one from which they were just emerging. The banksters made an offer they couldn’t refuse!

To review and elaborate: In 1930 there was a world wide depression. The bankers said, “Look. You can do it either of two ways. The easy way or the hard way. You just accept the bankruptcy and we’ll let you out of the depression. If you don’t, you’re on your own.” So all the countries involved agreed, because they realized that the International banksters had them by the throat. The countries therefore agreed that over a period of several years they would pass statutes and legislation for the implantation of the bankruptcy in favor of the International banksters.

Now, i would say that the key banksters were Rothchild and family and their agents by way of Rockefeller, by way of the Federal Reserve Banksters. Who were more specifically involved as key banksters and their agents is pure conjure on my part but it really doesn’t matter at this point. The point is, there was an international bankruptcy and an international conspiracy to cover it up. There was a banking creditor who made the offer the countries accepted the offer in order to enable the representative countries to continue without revolution and to allow the politicians to remain comfortably in place. Under a delusion of solvency the countries were allowed to continue to operate as though they were solvent while in fact the representative countries were bankrupt.

The Snare

The bankruptcy scheme was/is an extremely clever and diabolical plan. How did they possibly pull this scheme off in the area of real estate, the same way they did it in the area of Federal Income Taxes. These Foreign banksters simply and deceptively devised ways and means to con you into declaring yourself a “CITIZEN” or a “RESIDENT” of the corporate U.S. Remember the corporate United States is Bankrupt per agreement and public policy. After you have been tricked into claiming you are one of their corporate United States Citizens, you are given a Social Security Number which ties you to certain meager “benefits” and “privileges.” Then, the banksters con your employer to function as an unpaid tax collector to con you into filling out their W-4 intangible property gift forms and 1040 voluntary agreements. These slick paper agreement establishes your “voluntary” indebtedness to the bankster creditor.

If at any time you decide to balk at this scheme, because you don’t like it, the real creditor never has to make an appearance in court to list the true nature and cause of action which is being brought against you. You end up dealing with an agency. The agency can conveniently grant itself immunity from prosecution because all it is doing (without your knowledge, of course) is administrating the bankruptcy which the government agreed per the Geneva meetings. The court system never lets you put the original creditor on the courtroom stand, so you can ask him how he got attached to your back. The system is set up in such a way that the TRUE CREDITOR IS PROTECTED and never has to make an appearance and never has to answer any of your questions or produce documents. Therefore, the true creditor never has to produce the law that gives him the right to pledge you (your body and labor) in indebtedness (bondage/servitude). Why? Because the Geneva agreement in 1930 was done by treaty. The bankruptcy was not done by legislation. The agreement came first; signed in secrecy. THEN Congress began to pass legislation to fulfill the bankruptcy obligation required by the treaty. Legislation being passed by Congress was henceforth and is thereby bankruptcy legislation. When cases came before the courts, the courts could make decisions based on new controlling law of bankruptcy. It had nothing to do with Constitutional rights. Now, any case brought in is under the new bankruptcy law and is not considered as a true constitutional case. It is now a bankruptcy case as distinct from, but cleverly disguised as a constitutional case.

The Fraud

The members of the Supreme Court, of course, realized what was happening to them and the system of law. The court was being asked to perform in a creditor, debtor bankrupt proceeding for the benefit of the bankster creditors. The members of the Supreme Court said, “NO. We will not give you a bankrupt proceeding decision that you can then enforce against everybody, a decision not only affecting corporate Washington D.C. but also having effect within the corporate state governments. This, by the way is fraud. It wouldn’t be fraud if the government of corporate Washington D.C. and the government of the several corporate states declared bankruptcy then let the people know about the bankruptcy. (Notice when I say corporate “government” I don’t mean you and me. You and I are not the corporate government. The corporate government is the corporate capital of the corporate state. The government is a neutral government zone known as the capitai ci, the corporate state. The government is where the corporate state is. It is corporate headquarters. Just like corporate Washington D.C. is the seat of the corporate Federal Government. The capitai ci, the corporate state is the seat of the corporate state government. if the corporate Federal Government and her subsidiary corporate state government want to join forces and declare bankruptcy that’s not fraud. This is their corporate business.

However, it is fraud when those two corporate entities declare bankruptcy but do not disclose to you, me, and every other American, that they have so declared bankruptcy. Further they have not and do not disclose that their intention is to get you and every other American in this country to pledge to pay off their corporate debt to their corporate creditors. The corporate bankruptcy is the corporate state and federal responsibility, not the responsibility of Americans, the people.

U.S. Inc. is Distinct and Separate


“We the People” who created and signed the contract/compact/agreement of, by, and for the Constitutional Corporation (U.S.); using the trade name of the “United States of America”, is a corporate entity (legal fiction) which is DISTINCT AND SEPARATE from Americans or the unenfranchised people of America. The private natural American people did not create the corporation of the United States. The United States Inc. did not create the private natural American people. America and Americans were in existence prior to the creation of the United States Corporation. The United States Corporation has located its U.S. headquarters in Washington, D.C. Virginia state (state territory) gave land to the newly formed United States Corporation. Notice, here, we have a state giving something of value (land) to the United States. The United States Corporation agreed in the Constitutional contract, to protect the states. Instead, because of their bankruptcy (Corporate U.S. Bankruptcy) this particular U.S. corporation has enslaved the states and the people by deception and at the will of their foreign banksters with whom they have been doing business. Our fore fathers gave their lives and property to prevent enslavement. Today, we are again enslaved.

Private natural American people have been tricked, deceived, and setup to carry the U.S. Inc. perpetual corporate debt under bankruptcy laws. Every time Americans appear in court, the corporate U.S. bankruptcy is being administrated against them without their knowledge and lawful consent. That is FRAUD. All corporate bankruptcy administration is done by “Public Policy” of by and for the Mother Corporation (U.S. Inc.).

The Mother Corporation’s

“Public Policy”

The corporate bankruptcy is carried out under the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal Government in corporate Washington, D.C. The states use state public policy to carry out Federal public policy of Washington D.C. Public Policy and only public policy is being administered against you in the corporate courts today. The public policy that is dictated by all the courts from the smallest to the most powerful courts in the world, is public policy. This is why I said, in another tape that the Russian people would be enslaved into indebtedness. What will happen is that it will become public policy in Russia to have the people go into joint corporate debt. The Russians will be forced to promise to pay these debts. They will be forced to pay off on those corporate debts. Corporate Public Policy is the crux of the whole bankruptcy implementation. Corporate Public Policy is forever a Corporate Public Policy and the laws that have been passed since 1938 are all corporate public policy laws dealing only with corporate public policy. Understand that U.S. corporate public policy is not an American public policy. The public policy OF (belonging to) the United States corporation. This U.S. corporate bankruptcy public policy is not OF (belonging to) America, the Republic.

The Erie RR. v. Thompkins 1938 case was a decision based upon public policy. All decisions at any level since 1938 have been public policy decisions. All statutes, rules, regulations, and procedures that have been passed, whether civil or criminal, whether it is Federal or State, have all been passed to implement the public policy of bankruptcy. Since 1933, when F.D.R. came in office, he brought in public policy. He established that it was the public policy of the government to call in all the gold. It was the public policy of the Government in Washington, D.C. (the Federal Government) to give our government assistance. Public policy operates the same within the states. All Federal court decisions can only be handed down if the states support Federal public policy. The state legal system must be compatible with the Federal legal system.

The Monkey – Wrench

This is why, when people like us go to court without being represented by a lawyer, we throw a monkey-wrench into the corporate administrative proceedings. Why? Because all public policy corporate lawyers are pledged to up-hold public policy, which is the corporate U.S. administration of their corporate bankruptcy. That’s why you’ll find stamped on many if not all our briefs,



The reason for this notation is that when we go in to defend ourselves or file a claim we’re not supporting the corporate bankruptcy administration and procedure. The arguments we put forth predate 1938. We come in with Constitutional law, etc. All these early cases support our rights not to be in bankruptcy. However, the corporate court, lawyers, and judges have promised to give no judicial recognition of any case before 1938.

The International Banksters’

Corporate Plantation

U.S.A. Style

Before 1938, the law was not a public policy law. All these old cases were not public law deciding cases. Today, the cases are all decided under corporate public policy. The public policy exists in order to administer the bankruptcy for the benefit of the bankster creditors and to protect the bankster creditor. Corporate public policy can allow the creditor to say to the corporate legislatures, “I want a law passed requiring my debtors to wear seat belts. Why? Because I want to be able to milk my debtors for the longest period possible.” it doesn’t behoove the creditor to allow all of his labor producing debtors to die at an average age of 30 years. What would happen to the banksters’ lending, interest, penalties, increase, repayment etc. on the entire funding and lending process if the average American life span was only 30 years? Why, the bankers would have to have 2 1/2 times the current consumer population to equal their current take. The banksters would need (instead of 250 million Americans) 600 million or even more. Maybe the banksters would need 2 Billion Americans because the individual can’t contract for debt until he/she is 18 or 21 years of age. Therefore, if the average life span is only a 30 year period, the creditor could collect on the debt for only 12 years.

Now, if the banksters can just get people to live an average of 70 years you are talking a whopping 50 years of indebtedness for which they contract and for which they are forced to pay back with usury/interest. With this situation, the bankster creditor can now float loans worth 50 years of potential indebtedness and its payoff with interest in the name of the people, as opposed to 9 to 12 years. The creditors and their property and their people are well taken care of. The creditor doesn’t want the population to decrease per say, unless, it is convenient for the debtor to run up debts in anther’s name and then liquidate that debtor or that group of debtor people.

For example let’s consider the AIDS problem today among the black people. What better group to inject AIDS into than the black people? Read the Stracker Memorandum on AIDS and the World Health Organization connection. This documents their tainted vaccination program in Africa and elsewhere. Why not kill them off? Don’t you understand that the blacks as a whole have absorbed all the debt that they can? The blacks have reached the max of the debt that they can carry. In fact, they have gone over their limit to pay back. They are now heavily into welfare, public housing, medicaid, medicare, food stamps, etc. Now, the situation is that instead of paying off the creditor, they have become a drain on the creditor. The creditor must now pay them to live and take care of them. What creditor in his right mind wants to spend money on a bunch of people from whom he can’t collect any revenue?

The corporate public policy of the corporate United States and the states and the county and of the cities are that YOU must take care of these people. You must provide them with welfare, etc. Why? Because when you, as a member of the corporate body politic allow laws to be passed which says the minorities must be taken care of; then the corporate legislature can say the public policy is that the people want these people taken care of. Therefore, when given the chance, the legislature can say the public policy is that the people want these blacks and poor whites to be taken care of and given a chance, therefore, we must raise taxes to fund all these benefits, privileges and opportunities. This is what these people need to make them socially, politically, and economically equal with every one else. The legislatures have passed all kinds of statutes providing for hugh indebtedness and they float the indebtedness off your backs because you have never gone in to challenge them; telling them that it is not your public policy to assume the debts of other people.

On the contrary, all the court decisions coming out, indicate it is the corporate public policy and it is your willingness to support the corporate public policy to pay off these debts. Remember, “public” means of and for the corporate Government. It does not mean of and for private people. “Public” means corporate government. It is corporate government policy. When they talk about public debt, they are talking about corporate government debt and your presumed pledge against this corporate created debt.


The Real Estate Snare

How do they work this scheme in the area of real estate? These bankster creeps have made an agreement that it is corporate public policy, that all land (property) be pledged to the creditor to satisfy the debt of the bankruptcy, which the creditor claims under bankruptcy. They get away with this the sam way they get away with any other case that is brought before the court, whether it is a traffic ticket, IRS, or whatever. Here is how it works. You have signed instruments giving information and jurisdiction to the banksters through their agents. The instruments (forms) you signed include, but are not limited to the following: social security registration, use of the social security number, IRS forms, driver license, traffic citation, jury duty, voter registration, using their address, zip code, U.S. postal service, a deed, a mortgage application, etc. etc. The banksters then use that instrument (document) under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as a contract/agreement. These documents are considered promissory contract where you promise to perform. This scheme involves you, without you ever becoming directly in contact or in contract with the true creditor. What’s more, you are never informed as to whom the true creditor is and it is never divulged to you the true nature and the true cause of the paperwork that you are filling out.

If you will examine your real estate deed, you will find that you promised to pay taxes to the corporate government. On property you originally acquired through a mortgage, you will notice that the bank never promised to pay taxes. You did. The corporate government at all levels never promised to pay taxes to the creditor. You did. In tax and collection problems relating to real estate being enforced against you, you will notice that there is no mention in the mortgage or the deed stating the true nature and cause of the action.

Since you made the promise to perform, you get a bill every year for property taxes. You don’t realize that the only way they can bill you for taxes is through your own stupidity of AGREEING to pay the tax. You volunteered. They took advantage of you, conning you to promise to pay property taxes. When they send you their bill, they are coming against you for the collection of the promise you made to the creditor. Now the creditor on the paperwork appears that it is the local bank. The bank has loaned you credit. The bank hasn’t loaned you anything. It was not their credit to loan. This is why the bank can’t loan credit. There is a credit involved, but not the banks credit. It is the credit of the International banksters. The international banksters are making you the loan based upon their operation of bankruptcy claim which they presume to have against you personally as well as your property.

Now, let’s say you are not aware of your remedies provided for you within the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The UCC provides or allows you to dishonor the county’s presentment of the tax bill. You don’t pay your tax bill. You therefore just sit on it and don’t do or say anything. A couple of years go by and all of a sudden you are being sent letters to pay up what is owed or else in a certain period of time your property will be taken from you and put up for a tax sale. Now here is what is interesting – If you don’t pay your tax bill, and they contact you asking you to pay it and you don’t pay it, they will declare you in default. It is based on that default as provided in the UCC that they sell your property for the tax (rent).

However, the county never goes into court to put into the record the identification of the real creditor. And the county does not state the true nature and cause of the action against you (bankruptcy action disguised as a tax action). Why? Because, under bankruptcy implementation, they have developed a legal procedure which is based upon YOUR PROMISE TO PAY. The procedure provides that they don’t have to come to the court to get a court order authorizing the sale of your property. Therefore, the real creditor never makes an appearance in court. The reality is, you are denied any possibility of appearing in court to exercise your right to challenge the creditor. To ask if he became the creditor under “public policy.” To ask if it is under “public policy,” just what is “public policy”? And how did you (as an international banker) become “creditor” to me and everyone else in this country (American people). They don’t want you to ask the real creditor (the International Banksters), to PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTS upon which your personal debt is established. If they were forced to go into court, they would have to produce the deed or mortgage showing you KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY, and VOLUNTARILY promised to pay the corporate public debt. You did not KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY, and VOLUNTARILY promise to pay any U.S. Corporate Bankruptcy obligation made in the 1930’s. This would, of course, expose their racket. The fact is, that, there was absolutely no debt connected to you until you agreed to it through their deception and fraud. The deception in a broader sense, permeates the education system and the new media, etc., to sell you on the idea that you are a statutory “U.S. Citizen” and “resident of the United States.”(INCORPORATED).



Your “property” is pledged for the rest of your life upon your signature and your promise to perform is pledged into perpetual debt. The banksters don’t even bother to go to court. They leave it up to the agencies to administer the agency corporate public policy. It is the public policy of that agency to bill you on your promise to perform. If you don’t pay, they follow up on the public policy on notice of default and give you one more chance to pay. Then they proceed to sell the property at a tax auction. They never go to court or appear in court to back up their claim against you. Did any of your government licensed and controlled teachers ever stress THAT YOUR SIGNATURE IS YOUR MOST VALUABLE PERSONAL PROPERTY? Did your government teachers ever tell you, that any time you sign any document, you should sign it “without prejudice”, or with “All Rights Reserved” above your signature. This means you are reserving you God given unalienable rights (rights which cannot be transferred) and all other rights for which your fore fathers died. The Corporate U.S. Government provides, or at least pretends to provide, for this reservation of rights under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at 1-207 and 1-103. You need more information in this area. It is not in the best interest of the United States Corporate “Public” schools to teach you about their bankruptcy proceedings and how they have set the snare to COMPEL YOU INTO PAYING THEIR DEBT. The Corporate “Public” schools are strictly designed for their Corporate citizens/subjects. That is, the Corporate U.S. Public School citizens. Notice all the emphasis on being a “good” citizen.

Basically all their teachers and their students are trained to produce labor and material in exchange for valueless green paper called “money.” It is not money, it functions “AS” money. Lawful money must be backed by something of value. Banksters take your labor, services, and material (homes, cars, farms, etc.) in exchange for their valueless corporate paper. This paper is backed only by the “full faith and confidence of the United States Government” (THE MOTHER CORPORATION). I do not have faith of confidence in the U.S. BANKRUPT CORPORATE GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATORS WHO HAVE PERVERTED THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL CHARTER, enslaving the sovereign American people into THEIR bankruptcy obligations. Their fraudulent money laundering process promotes your payment on the corporate government’s bankruptcy debt. This debt is mathematically impossible to pay off. You and your family are in continual financial bondage to the international banksters. They love it so! Black’s Law Dictionary 1990, defines “Money Changers” as: – business of a banker….today handled by the international departments of banks.” Let me think for a moment, what did Christ do to the “Money Changers”? Oh, Yes, he severely interfered with their activity. Three days later Christ was crucified. Lincoln was killed for interfering with the money chargers. Kennedy was slaughtered for interfering with the money changes.

The Brother’s Case

In my brother’s case he was never in default as he never made the promise in the common law deed to pay taxes, therefore, the man who bought the property is moving against my brother through an attorney who is claiming that my brother never redeemed the property. His attorney had followed procedure by publishing the property tax notice in the newspaper for three printings. Now they show up in court to get the court to declare default. After a default judgment, the attorney’s client then has right to the property.

Now, my brother comes in and challenges this action. The problem is, the man who bought the property, is trying to claim the property when in fact he is not the original creditor. He is not the person who said my brother was in default or that he owed a tax in the first place. Now when my brother comes in and challenges the new buyer, the court rules that the new buyer is not required to produce any documents in support of his cause. The only documents they are required to produce are the documents related to procedure of foreclosure. Do you understand? There is no court case where the true creditor has to make an appearance. You cannot question or challenge the true creditor.

When you do go to court, the person you are allowed to question is the person who bought the property. THe buyer is not required to produce documents because the only one who would be required to do so, is the true creditor. Now you are in the position of fighting yourself in court. This is a very clever way for the creditor to avoid the courts in order to settle the dispute for his claim against you. This is also very clever way to avoid naming the true claimant; true plaintiff. The true plaintiff is the international bankster. The international banksters claim they have a claim against my brother’s property because my brother’s property has been pledged by the state as collateral for the corporate debts under the bankruptcy to the international banksters.

Once my brother removed his property from their jurisdiction and venue by claiming back all his rights, titles and interest, the only way that they would be able to stand a chance, would be for the original claimants (international banksters) to make an appearance through their attorney. Then, for my brother to require their attorney to place in the record, a statement, identifying the true nature and cause for their actions. The courts and the attorneys have cleverly avoided this process.

Remember, when you are dealing in bankruptcy, slight of hand, lies, and deception you have to protest to the head man in all of this action, just like the Watergate tapes. Everybody tried to protect Nixon, the head dog. It is the same in this bankruptcy scam, they all have to protect the International Banksters. The proof that this is true is that (1) My brother is now in front of the court of appeals, the attorney for the people who bought the property, has already said, the buyers should not be required to present the authority establishing the State of Maryland’s authority to tax property and to collect these taxes; This statement is the tip-off for how they are attempting to protect the International Banksters. Since the International Banksters never had to appear in court, they never were required to show where they got the right to pledge everybody’s property into the United States corporate debt. The buyer’s attorney says his client should not have to produce and this court should not demand, that he has to produce. Guess what. The court will agree with the buyer’s attorney. They don’t have to do it. They have to protect everybody’s butt.

The attorney never cited one case before 1953. The attorney put a lot of cases in his paperwork but nothing is cited before 1938. Most of the cites are since 1963, when the State of Maryland passed the UCC. All of the cites were in the 70’s and 80’s. A few cites were in the late 60’s and one in the 50’s. This lawyer knew what was going on. That’s why, no matter what happens, someone in the court will stamp on the paperwork that this case can not be cited in other cases. This case is not to be reported in the legal reports.

The Cover-up

There was a deal struck that, if any person who doesn’t have a lawyer to bring a case before the courts, and this person proves the fraud, and speaks the truth about the fraud, the courts are compelled to not allow the case to be cited or published anywhere. The courts cannot afford to have the case freely available in the public archives. This would be evidence of the fraud. This is why you can’t hire an attorney. An Attorney is compelled to uphold the fraud.

“Trust Me.”

“I’m here to help you.”

“I have the governments permission to practice law.”

“I’m a Member of the Bar.”

The attorney is there for one reason. That reason is to make sure the bankruptcy scam (established by the corporate public policy of the corporate Federal Government) is upheld. The lawyer’s will cite no cases for you that will go against the bankruptcy in cooperate public policy. Whatever the lawyers do for you is a bunch of BULL ROAR. The lawyers have to support the bankruptcy and public policy by supporting it, even at your expense. The lawyers can’t go against the corporate Federal Government statutes implementing, protecting and administrating the bankruptcy.

For all cases cited, those in the U.S. Code or the state annotated code or any other source, you may be sure that they only selected those cases that support the public policy of bankruptcy. The legal system has to work that way. After the last 30-4-50 years of cases after cases having been decided based upon upholding the bankruptcy, how could the legal system possibly allow someone to come into court and put in the record substantial information and argument to prove the fraud?

Blood in the Streets?

Can you imagine how damaging it be, if they allowed your case to be cited in another case, or if the they allowed the public to examine a copy of your brief, that discloses evidence of the fraud? This exposure would render null and void everything for which they have worked so hard. Wouldn’t this exposure make the people mad? Wouldn’t this exposure mean there would be blood running in the streets? Especially in the cities where the poor people have been really taken by this diabolical system. What they are concerned about is that the case never be cited. That goes against the bankruptcy for fear of exposing the bankruptcy and the people will then pick up their guns and shoot the SOB’s.

Mr. Sweet’s Case Disappeared!

There is a man, let’s say his name is Sweet. He has been investigating the corporate government activities for over 12 years on a full time basis. Now, let’s look at Sweet’s recent case. He won his case. He went into court and defended his common law lien on his property so as to be compatible with statutory law. The judge said, “However, since you presented me with a lien on your property, I will stipulate that the county is the owner of your property with the provision that all liens be satisfied.” Sweet was very happy about the judgment. Sweet doesn’t care if the county is the owner of the property because the county can’t take the property for the next 90 years. The county can’t take the property away from him because of his common law lien on the property. Sweet is free to use it, rent it, whatever. If the county really wants the property, they have to satisfy the lien first. However, there is a problem regarding setting a precedent. Sweet went back a couple of weeks later and asked them to punch up his case number. Guess what? The case number had disappeared! The reason the case number had disappeared is that after the judge ruled the county owned the property, subject to the lien, it became a case that goes against the corporate county bankruptcy public policy.

Since Sweet placed a lien on his own property, he is the one who has to be paid off first – not the county! The county is now required to satisfy the lien before the county is allowed to take possession of the property. The property is probably not worth the price of the lien. This would not satisfy the true creditors, the International Banksters. If the county pays Sweet off first, the city has to on their records a $75,000.00 deficit. The true creditors wouldn’t like that deficit. They certainly wouldn’t like the fact that Sweet’s clever maneuver had out foxed the foxes.

What if one hundred, two hundred, a thousand, or ten thousand, people in this state/republic would just put a common law lien on their property and then stopped paying taxes; then cited Sweet’s case. It would set a precedent. Let the county have the property as long as the judge makes the judgment subject to existing liens. In this situation, the county would end up holding all this property but could have no use of it. No rent. No taxes. All deficient. The bankster creditors certainly don’t want this scenario. The banksters don’t want any cases administered except through the application of bankruptcy procedure. The banksters want your rights, privileges, and due process strictly administered by and through the corporate courts under their corporate public policy, international bankruptcy procedure. The International Banksters and their UNREGISTERED FOREIGN AGENTS don’t want any evidence on the record, showing how you can get out from under them. Any revenue collecting individual or agency such as the courts, judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, and tax collectors who are attempting to take money from you as a private American must be registered as a foreign agent. If they are not duly registered and properly identified, they are involved in EXTORATION AND TREASON against private Americans.

How Sweet It is!

As part of Sweet’s maneuver, he filled out a financing statement using the UCC-1 form, whereby he put his wife and himself as debtors and creditors. Now, the legal situation is switched. The UCC-1 Financing record Sweet filed with the state, shows Sweet and his wife, as being parties of interest recorded with the state rather than the presumption that the international banksters are the parties of interest.

There is an office within each corporate state (Secretary of State) that handles the UCC-1 forms for personal property and the county recorders office who records the UCC-1 against real property. Since Sweet is listed on corporate state records as the debtor and the creditor on his own property, his property can’t be put up in any way for collateral against any debts claimed by the banksters. The reason is that the International Banksters and their flunky agents, now, cannot prove that Sweet’s property is debt property of the bank or the corporate county. The property is encumbered by Sweet’s lien. Thereby, the property cannot be put up against any debt claims, until it is not encumbered by Sweet’s lien. Sweet’s property is not free and clear of all liens. The result is that for all practical purposes, the property is now Sweet’s, being unencumbered by any further demand for payment of taxes. Sweet has not paid property taxes for many years. Sweet is now his own creditor. And Sweet is his own debtor. Therefore, the International Banksters along with the county corporate thieves are knocked out for the stealing process. How sweet it is! Congratulations to Mr. Sweet!

You may want to do it the way Sweet did. If you own property, you will need to get your deed and a common law lien, then fill out a UCC-1 Form. Then file it with the Secretary of State for personal property and the county recorder for real property. This seems to be the only way for you to get out from under being a debtor of these bastardly Corporate Foreign International Banksters. The judges have to know what’s going on. The only way this scheme can work is to have all the lawyers and judges pledge to uphold the corporate bankruptcy public policy. The banksters just can’t allow lawyers in a legal system who refuse to uphold the bankruptcy policy. These renegade lawyers would have to be quickly weeded out. They certainly have a neat little system going here in America. The Land of the Fee and the Home of the Slave.

Attention: Law Student

I hope you’re listening to this tape, Law Student. You said you wanted to be a lawyer. Well, I hope you’re listening closely, because here is the legal system you’re headed to serve, and serve you will. You said you wanted to be a lawyer so you can find out what oath they’re taking, in secret, behind closed doors in solemn preparation for the “business of the court” as judges and lawyers. Now, you know the oath. The oath is simply to uphold the bankruptcy. If you want to be a lawyer and want to make a living as a lawyer, I can tell you this, they will weed you out at the very beginning if you don’t bring in your paperwork under the bankruptcy procedures. If you try to defend your clients and try to help your clients they will get rid of you. The will pull your license. So you spent all that money and time going to school under the guise of helping people and you’re wasting your time. Without that license you can’t go into a courtroom. I would think about this.

Traffic Citation

Regarding the UCC-1 Form, you can also file it against your car. Wouldn’t that be a kick in the tail if you went into court for a traffic citation where you had signed “without prejudice UCC 1-207”. And you had refused [abatement] the traffic citation using the UCC in your procedure by having signed “without prejudice” and having gone home and sent in your refusal for cause without dishonor of the presentment of the traffic citation. Now let’s say you are in front of the judge. The judge says, “What’s this refusal for cause stuff all about?” The judge won’t want any mention that the citation was issued under bankruptcy. He is afraid you’ll mention the bankruptcy issue. The reason you refused for cause without dishonor the traffic citation, is that it was issued to you under bankruptcy corporate public policy. He won’t get in to that. When you get before the judge, you just state you have removed yourself from the bankruptcy. Tell him that your auto is no longer pledged for collateral against the debt. He’ll say, “Oh yeah. What are you talking about?” That’s when you hand him the UCC-1 Form that you had filed with the state. This UCC-1 Form will show that you are the debtor and the creditor on your auto. Now what happened? The corporate county/state can/t collect on the traffic citation debt instrument. Why? Because, now that you’re the creditor on the ticket, if they collect a $100.00 fine, they have to pay you the amount of the fine. How sweet it is! You’re the creditor aren’t you? People have done this. Of course, there is no record, no paper trail, in such cases. It is not cited. The corporate Bankster’s agents, clerks, lawyers, judges, etc. take the information out of the records as soon as you beat them at their own game.

The Lawyer’s Guild Connection

The American Bar Association is a franchise of the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain. The American Bar Association is not concerned primarily with what happens in any case on the local level. However, when a case leaves the local level, by that, I mean the state court, city court or the justice of the peace, or even the federal court, and goes to the appeals court, it would appear that the American Bar Association takes notice of the case. It would seem that the American Bar Association must have an agreement that any action brought on an appeal, must be reviewed by the American Bar Association. If this is true, it would make sense. How else would the American Bar Association, a branch of the Lawyer’s Guild of Great Britain, which is the legal arm of the Rothchild’s Dynasty, be able to monitor and administrate the corporate Bankruptcy. It would appear that the American Bar Association would be compelled to review all appeal cases and to make certain any case brought under the common law or the constitutional law that would expose the bankruptcy, would be immediately stamped on the back that “this case is not to be cited or published.” I believe that this is the stamp origin and purpose of the stamp message in such cases. The justice department maybe able to do that in Washington, D.C. I can’t see where any judge or lawyer could have the authority to stamp or lable the case as one not to be cited for future cases. I think that is an official stamp from the American Bar Association.

The Bankruptcy Accounting System

Now, Joe Law Student, if your still attending classes and have a good professor, ask him about just where the stamp comes from that you’ve seen on many cases. Just who put it on the paperwork and just who authorized the citation restriction. Just who is tampering with the law? There is one thing certain, the creditor and or his agents are watching these cases very carefully. The creditor and his agents must balance their books. When you think of the IRS, be aware that the IRS is an agent of the creditor, the corporate International Banksters. This is just one of the Bankster’s state side agencies. The General Accounting Office (GAO) is charged with the responsibilities to keep track of the debt. All the states have to send reports to Washington, D.C. Washington D.C., itself, has to send reports to the GAO. Take a look at your state Comptroller’s Annual Report to the Governor of your state. I found it in the library located in the city of the corporate state capital. Look under “Trust Fund” for each state sub-corporation like the state courts, HRS, Banks, Education, etc. you will be amazed at the amount of money being pumped into the Trust Fund from the various Corporate State Department Revenues (all revenue is referred to as taxes, fines, fees, licenses, etc.). There are millions and billions of your hard earned worthless Federal Reserve Notes, “dollars”, being held in “trust.” This money is being siphoned off into the coffers of the International Banksters while the corporate government officials are hounding you for more taxes.

All this accounting system is not so the people will know what is going on. The accounting reports are for rthe Bankster creditors to keep tabs on just where their collections are coming from. The Banksters want to know if the bankruptcy debt payments are coming in and just how much and from what sources. This accounting if the purpose behind M1, M2, M3, M4, and M5. All this accounting is closely monitored. Maybe every day, but at least once a week. These M’s are the reports of the amounts of money in circulation. The amount of debt out there, and the amount of credit out there. The floating of debt in the form of bonds. There are five different categories. This system had to come into existence in order for the creditors to be on top of the bankruptcy at all times. This system allows the creditors to figure out and how exactly just what is going on in their domain.

It all makes sense. Don’t the banksters hir bill collectors? Creditors hire bill collectors to snoop around to see why you’re not paying. They want to know how much you are going to pay so they can figure out how much will be coming in. How much will they collect? They want to know who will pay and who won’t. The whole system is nothing but credit and debt.

The World Credit Union

Here is what is going to very quickly happen internationally. All of the governments around the world are going to unite. They will create one big giant credit union for collecting the debt for the International Banksters. We have allowed ourselves to get into this very sad situation, but that is the way it is.

And put on NOTICE of the bankruptcy…………

Attn: “Public Servant”

On the night of December 23, 1913, the U.S. Congress committed perhaps the greatest act of treason in history. It surrendered the nation’s sovereignty and sold the American people into slavery to a cabal of arch-charlatan bankers who proceeded to plunder, bankrupt, and conquer the nation with a money swindle.

The “money” the banks issue is merely bookkeeping entries. It cost them nothing and is not backed by their wealth, efforts, property, or risk. It is not redeemable except in more debt paper. The Federal Reserve Act forced us to pay compound interest on thin air. We now use worthless “notes” backed by our own credit that we cannot own and are made subject to compelled performance for the “privilege.”

From 1913 until 1933 the U.S. paid the “interest” with more and more gold. The structured inevitability soon transpired; the Treasury was empty, the debt was greater than ever, and the U.S. declared bankruptcy. In exchange for using notes belonging to bankers who create them out of nothing on our own credit, we are forced to repay in substance (labor, property, land, businesses, resources – life) in ever-increasing amounts. This may be the greatest heist and fraud of all time.

When a government goes bankrupt, it looses its sovereignty. In 1933 the U.S. declared bankruptcy, as expressed in Roosevelt’s Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, and 6260, House Joint Resolution 192 of June 5, 1933 confirmed in Perry v. U.S. (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912, as well as 31 United States Code (USC) 5112, 5119 and 12 USC 95a.

The bankrupt U.S. went into receivership, reorganized in favor of its creditors and new owners. 1913 turned over America lock, stock, and barrel to a handful of criminals whose avowed intent from the beginning was to plunder, bankrupt, conquer, and enslave the people of the United States of America and eliminate the nation from the face of the earth. The goal was, and is, to absorb America into a one-world private commercial government, a “New World Order.”

With the Erie RR v. Thompkins case of 1938 the Supreme Court confirmed their success; we are now in an international private commercial jurisdiction in colorable admiralty-maritime under the Law Merchant. We have been conned and betrayed out of our sovereignty, rights, property, freedom, common law, Article III courts, and Republic. The Bill of Rights has been statutized into “civil rights” in commerce.

America has been stolen. We have been made slaves: permanent debtors, bankrupt, in legal incapacity, rendered “commercial persons,” “residents,” and corporate franchisees known as “citizens of the United States” under the so-called “14th Amendment.” Said “Amendment” (which was never ratified – see Congressional Record, June 13, 1967; Dyett v. Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267; State v. Phillips, (1975) affirmed a citizenship ???????????.

Instructions and Options

  1. Instructions.

This chain letter consists of two aspects:

  1. A copy of these “Instructions and Options” and the letter to “Public Servants” should be sent to as many friends and associates as you wish.
  2. Send Copies of the “Public Servant” letter (without Instructions) to as many “public servants” as possible. Send to local, State, and Federal governments – police, councilmen, mayors, district attorneys, State and Federal Agencies, Congressman, Senators, judges, lawyers, etc. Anyone in position of “authority.”

Send also to the media – newspapers, news magazines, TV, radio, etc. It is important that those in “power” know what they are doing and that we know that they know.

The point of this is to inform Americans of their extreme plight. We have no more country. It has been stolen – along with our lives, rights, and property. That is not paranoia, exaggeration, or hyperbole. It is the tragic truth. As a result, all “officials” are either fools or knaves, and they should no longer be compled with or the System considered legitimate.

  1. Options

We have been defrauded and conned out of everything – our rights, freedoms, property, and country. We have the following options:

  1. Do Nothing, remain naive-suckers, keep believing the monstrous absurdity that the “government” is our friend, represents us, or we have any ownership of and control over it. In this case we will remain slaves and become ever-increasingly hopeless with each passing instant as our legal entanglements and financial indebtedness grow. The end of this path is ruin.
  2. Trust that those in power, who now own and run the world, will have a change of heart, surrender their wealth and power and give our freedom, property, and rights back to us.
  3. Expect, hope, or pray for divine intervention (how can we expect God to care and do anything if we don’t?)
  4. Try to fight our way out. This is an inferior option, as governments, posing as “protectors,” have bled their people dry to pay for the greatest assemblage of weapons of destruction in world history, which are now arrayed against us.
  5. We can think our way out, wake up from our stupor, take legal/moral measures to withdraw from the System, and not accept any benefits or engage in any involvement with it.

The “Declaration of Independence” Jefferson wrote:

“. . whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, . .” Never has there been a more treacherous and insidious System than that which has conquered this country without Americans even knowing they have been defeated. No one, however, needs any document or other party to justify his own “Declaration of Independence.” Freedom is everyone’s innate right and responsibility. Only each individual has free will over his own life, and an obligation of stewardship for its care.

What sane man would turn over power to strangers to invent and impose the rules by which he is to be made to live? Moreover, no one has any right to delegate or “vote” for any individuals or institutions to exert power over other human beings. Life, death, economy, justice, law, and human fulfillment are at issue. Everyone is consummately justified in questioning the basis of rules imposed on him.

Suggestions for Action:

  1. Read, learn, contact “Patriot” groups for information;
  2. Realize that we have been had. Abandon totally all and every shred of the delusion that the Government is yours, represents your interests, is legitimate, or is anything other than what it actually is: the machinery for administering your permanent conquest, plunder, bankruptcy, and enslavement.
  3. Do not pay any taxes. Every penny you pay in taxes, to your State or the Federal Government, goes to pay the phony, fraudulent “National Debt,” which is unredeemable. Every cent goes to enrich the insatiable coffers of a group of arch-charlatans who have stolen our country and us along with it. All taxes go to finance America’s plunder and subjugation. Instead of 1040’s or other tax forms send a copy of the “Public Servants” letter with a blank tax form.

This letter is the result of many years of legal research. What is stated barley scratches the surface. If you wish to know more, the following books can give you a start:

U.S. of A. the Republic – How You Lost It, How You Get It Back! by Lee Brobst. $15.00 Post-paid. Write: Agro-Bio Systems, POB 1250 Grass Valley, California, 95945;

Conspirator’s Hierarchy – The Committee of 300,

Jack Coleman, 1-800-942-0821;

Secrets of the Federal Reserve (and numerous other books) by Eustace Mullins, Bankers Research Institute, POB 1105, Staunton, Virginia.


  1. Treaties between the United States and others in Geneva, Switzerland from 1928 to 1932.
  2. Minutes of the same meetings as in No. 1, specifically for the year 1930.
  3. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913.
  4. House Joint Resolution No. 192 of June 5, 1933.
  5. Presidential Executive Orders 6073, 6102, 6111, 6260.
  6. 31 USC 5112 and 5119, and 12 USC 95a.
  7. Case Law to Copy:
  8. Erie R.R. v. Thompkins, (1938)
  9. Perry v. U.S., (1935) 294 U.S. 330-381, 79 LEd 912
  10. Dyett v. Turner, (1968) 439 P2d 266, 267
  11. State of Utah v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975)
  12. Benedicts on Admiralty

Investigate; the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain and any ties to the American Bar Association.

Lawyers’ Secret Oath? An Expose’

Secret Courts – Secret Law



FIGA ON LINE: (Hartford Van Dyke Updates)

Comprehensive Destination for Legal Information
America Media Columnists (500) Listed By Names


US Star Chambers
THE SECRET COURT IS BOOMING! – “Imagine a secret court made up of anonymous judges chosen by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and empowered to grant wiretaps, approve break-ins, tap psychiatrist’s offices and bug homes — all without probable cause.

“The hearings are conducted in secret without notification of the proposed target and without due process, since the subject of the investigation can’t challenge the evidence or answer the charges brought against them.

“Such a secret court does in fact exist. It was created in 1978 under a law entitled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, that was designed to limit the abuses of authority made legion by the administration of former President Richard Nixon and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover…”

Hmmmm. Maybe that should read, “…was designed to give the appearance of limiting the abuses of authority made legion by the administration of former President Richard Nixon and FBI director J. Edgar Hoover.”

THE SECRET COURT IS BOOMING!,30,00,6,9,00.htm#THE%20SECRET%20COURT%20IS%20BOOMING!%20[Defendants%20unnamed.]
#THE SECRET COURT IS BOOMING! [Defendants unnamed.]

The Declaration of Independence


Royal oath soon no bar to lawyers

Tuesday 11 April 2000

Most lawyers can’t wait to start their careers, but Carl Moller has kept his on hold for more than a year on a point of principle. Now he feels his patience has been rewarded.

The Victorian Government has announced that it will change the rules that require law graduates to swear allegiance to the Queen before they can practise. The change means that Mr Moller, a staunch republican who has spent the past year working as a legal clerk because he refused to swear the oath, can now join the ranks of the state’s lawyers.

“This is exciting for me … I’d be a lot happier, of course, if Australia was a republic,” he says.

Mr Moller, 28, was due to be admitted as a solicitor and barrister a year ago when he applied for an exemption from swearing the oath. The Supreme Court refused and the Court of Appeal rejected Mr Moller’s subsequent appeal.

But Attorney-General Rob Hulls has agreed to change the rules, although the reforms are not expected to make it through State Parliament until the spring session.

Mr Moller says that while many of his friends and peers agreed with his views about the oath, they urged him to do the practical thing and “cross his fingers” during the admission ceremony.

That was never an option, the conscientious objector insists. White lies might be OK for some, but he says plenty of people also “see the asset-stripping of companies as an acceptable form of conduct”.

Mr Moller was a government-selected delegate to the Constitutional Convention, but he argues his opposition to the oath has never just been about the republic.

“This is about the solemnity of the oath. You don’t take an oath you don’t believe in. That would be perjury,” he says.

Mr Moller does not see himself as a radical, pointing out that only three other Australian states still require the oath, and that England abolished the requirement in 1868.

“It doesn’t add anything to the practice or the profession … If you are going to impose an oath, it should have meaning and it should have substance. It would be better to have no oath than to have an empty oath,” he says.

Mr Hulls says he has not decided whether to scrap the oath entirely, replace it with an oath of allegiance to Australia, or merely make it optional.

“My department will look at it. I think there are some royalists out there who would still want to swear allegiance. But we’ll have a look at all of the options,” he says.

Mr Moller says he just wants to concentrate on becoming a solicitor with his firm Clayton Utz, which supported him during his campaign.


This document records the official surrender,
on June 7, 1949, of Florida’s third branch of
government, the Supreme Court of Florida,
to a private professional trade group formerly
known as the Florida State Bar Association and
now known as The Florida Bar. This government
takeover set the stage for the present day graft
and corruption now found in Florida’s judicial system:




“The Law”!


The Current Federal Court System –
Why you get the run around, and XXXXXX in the end!
Who Is Running America?

An Oath is an Oath is an Oath


An Essay on the TRIAL BY JURY 12 Parts


The Lawyers Secret Oath
Judge gets orders from England


717-567-7675. 5/98: [quoting]

During the trial of James and Sharon Patterson, (Case 6:97-CR-51) William Wayne Justice, Judge of the United States District Court Texas-Eastern Division when presented with law stated: “I take my orders from
England. This is not a law this court goes by.”

For all of those who did not believe that the United States was under Great Britain here it is straight from the mouth of a Federal Judge. How much more evidence ‘do you need?’ America has never been Free. The Revolutionary war was a fraud perpetrated on the American people. The war’s purpose was to centralize power and make the people easier to control. All Federal Judges, Congressmen, U.S. Attorneys, State Judges, Legislators and most Attorneys know this and are in fact British Agents. Their job is to keep the people in line and to be productive slaves which they (The British Agents) are greatly compensated for. The police do not know that they work for Great Britain they too have been decieved so don’t attack them.

It is time for everyone in America to know the Truth. Let us all work together in exposing the British Empire. Please re-fax and e-mail this release to every Attorney, Judge, and Legislator in your area to let them know they have been unmasked. Please get out your Yellow Pages and start faxing everyone in your area and also read this release over every radio show possible. We have printed thousands of evidence packages and mailed them across America that prove that the United States is a British Colony. It is time to send the British back to England. We must work together because if, we do not. we are all doomed.

Your Friend.

Stephen Kinbol Ames Jr.

For More Information: Stephen Kinbol Ames, c/o P.O. Box 5373. Harrisburg. Pennsylvania 17110

Phone: 717-567-7675; Fax-717-567-2564

(And if one needs any further information, see August 22, 1997issue of Intelligence Review article “Britain’s ‘Invisible’ Empire Unleashes The Dogs of War”) [End quoting]

Here is very good verification or what Hatonn has been telling us all along – “from the horse’s mouth”

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security
The 545 People Responsible For All of America’s Woes
The Orginal 13th Amendment
Was the 14th Amendment Ratified?
Get That Gold Fringe Off My Flag
War Powers Act 1933

Secret Courts – Secret Law
The Oath of Office



The Federal Reserve Is A privately Owned Corporation
Travel As A Right

Citizens for Judicial Accountability Inc.

The Bankruptcy of the United States
A 39 part Series of documents, pertaining to:
The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International
Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now
operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.
and much more…






By NWV Senior Political News Writer, Jim Kouri
Information gleaned from Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks release of Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager John Podesta’s emails and DCLeaks documents from George Soros’ own Open Society Foundation corroborate that Soros’ private intelligence agents/detectives secretly meeting with top Vatican cardinals, according to the documents.

For example, while preparing for a Papal visit to North and South Americas, the Pope’s minions working in the Vatican went out of their way to get cozy with what’s commonly called the radical fringe of the U.S. Democratic Party.

“Basically, from what we’ve gleaned from the Wikileaks and DCLeaks material, the Pope is actually colluding with one of the world’s wealthiest — some say wickedest — neo-Socialist who is hell bent in creating a single ruling entity for the entire planet. His vision dwarfs even the world described by George Orwell in his cautionary tale 1984,” claims political consultant and attorney Michael Baker.

Baker believes that of all the pontiffs sitting on the Vatican throne Pope Francis is the closest to an irreligious Marxist by far. “The fact is our Pope is from South America, which is arguably a hotbed of Marxism, neo-Socialism and totalitarian communism. It gave this Pope a different perspective from those coming from European nations,” Baker noted.

At the height of the presidential race between Clinton and Trump, DCLeaks documents lifted from Soros’ Open Society exposed the more than half-million dollars Soros forked over to PACO, a radical organization of community organizers, for travel and lodging for Vatican strategy meetings in anticipation of the 2016 election. Despite the fact that Trump holds tightly to the pro-life philosophy — and in fact, he was endorsed by many Protestant clergy men and women including Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s niece Alveda King — the Catholic Church and its U.S. members appear enthralled by the likes of Clinton, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Sen. Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren, all of whom support partial-birth abortions.

Within weeks of the new Francis papacy, Jeffrey Sachs — a longtime George Soros associate and adviser — who is on record taking $50 million of Soros $40 billion treasure-trove, was invited to and featured as the Pope’s leading expert on the far-left’s climate change agenda.

A detailed report on the critical PICO/Vatican trip would certainly be of critical interest to the Chairman of the Clinton Presidential Campaign, underscoring the Soros/Clinton/Vatican partnership. Soros gave at least $25 million to the Clinton presidential campaign and Podesta previously chaired the Soros’ Center for American Progress. And, indeed, the meeting notes disclose valuable insight and intelligence about the leftist cabal at work in the Vatican.

WikiLeaks pulls back the curtain on the radicals entrenched in the Francis papacy. The PICO Vatican meeting was not simply a brisk cursory papal meet and greet. Rather, documents reveal that Alinsky activists were invited, welcomed, and dined in intense strategy sessions with high level Vatican cardinals. The leaked emails expose the leftist political machinations behind the Francis papacy, where the Soros-funded community organizers coordinated radical messaging with high level papal cardinal confidantes.

While there is no evidence of the multi-billionaire or the Pope ever meeting face-to-face, the Bishop of Rome did acknowledge Soros, who helped with a Catholic event in the U.S.

In a letter, which is dated February 10, Pope Francis publicly praises the organization PICO — People Improving Communities through Organizing — which was one of the promoters of this Vatican event.

What Pope Francis does not mention is that PICO is heavily funded by George Soros. A leftist watchdog website describes PICO as a group that “uses [Saul] Alinsky-style organizing tactics to advance the doctrines of the religious left.” As John-Henry Westen, editor-in-chief of LifeSiteNews reported in August, leaks from the Soros Foundation have shown how Soros funded PICO and other organizations in order to influence the Vatican in favor of certain policies and agendas. Westen reports.

“Leaked emails through WikiLeaks reveal that billionaire globalist George Soros — one of Hilary Clinton’s top donors — paid $650,000 to influence Pope Francis’ September 2015 visit to the USA with a view to “shift[ing] national paradigms and priorities in the run-up to the 2016 presidential campaign.” The funds were allocated in April 2015 and the report on their effectiveness suggests that successful achievements included, “Buy-in of individual bishops to more publicly voice support of economic and racial justice messages in order to begin to create a critical mass of bishops who are aligned with the Pope.” […] Grantees were PICO, a faith-based community organizing group, and Faith in Public Life (FPL), a progressive group working in media to promote left-leaning ‘social justice’ causes. Soros has funded left-wing causes the world over and was just found to have been funding an effort to eliminate pro-life laws around the globe.”

The Soros Dynasty

According to Oath Keepers, a conservative non-partisan association of current and formerly serving military, police, and first responders, who pledge to fulfill “defend the U.S. Constitution, the tentacles of George Soros can be traced directly or indirectly to his Open Society Foundations (OSF). A partial list of verified beneficiaries of Soros’s generosity includes the following.

Catholics for Choice: This nominally Catholic organization supports women’s right to abortion-on-demand; as well as Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a political nonprofit group is dedicated to generating support from the Catholic community for leftist candidates, causes, and legislation.

Soros is also either a primary controller or a large contributor for scores of leftist and socialist groups including:

  • Advancement Project: This organization works to organize “communities of color” into politically cohesive units while disseminating its leftist worldviews and values as broadly as possible by way of a sophisticated communications department.
  • Air America Radio: Now defunct, this was a self-identified “liberal” radio network, with hosts such as Al Franken, Rachel Maddow, Rev. Al Sharpton and others, was a total failure despite getting almost constant coverage by the mainstream news media.
  • Al-Haq: This NGO (non-governmental agency) produces highly politicized reports, papers, books, and legal analyses regarding alleged Israeli human-rights abuses committed against Palestinians.
  • All of Us or None: This organization seeks to change voting laws — which vary from state to state — so as to allow ex-inmates, parolees, and even current inmates to cast their ballots in political elections.
  • Alliance for Justice: Best known for its activism vis a vis the appointment of federal judges, this group consistently depicts Republican judicial nominees as “extremists.”
  • America Coming Together: Soros played a major role in creating this group, whose purpose was to coordinate and organize pro-Democrat voter-mobilization programs.
  • America Votes: Soros also played a major role in creating this group, whose get-out-the-vote campaigns targeted likely Democratic voters.
  • America’s Voice: This open-borders group seeks to promote “comprehensive” immigration reform that includes a robust agenda in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.
  • American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Policy: This organization “opposes laws that require employers and persons providing education, health care, or other social services to verify citizenship or immigration status.”
  • American Civil Liberties Union: This group opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government. It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn — wife of Bill Ayers — to its Advisory Board.
  • American Constitution Society for Law and Policy: This Washington, DC-based think tank seeks to move American jurisprudence to the left by recruiting, indoctrinating, and mobilizing young law students, helping them acquire positions of power. It also provides leftist Democrats with a bully pulpit from which to denounce their political adversaries.
  • American Friends Service Committee: This group views the United States as the principal cause of human suffering around the world. As such, it favors America’s unilateral disarmament, the dissolution of American borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, the abolition of the death penalty, and the repeal of
  • American Immigration Council: This non-profit organization is a prominent member of the open-borders lobby. It advocates expanded rights and amnesty for illegal aliens residing in the U.S.
  • American Immigration Law Foundation: This group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, on whose behalf it litigates against the U.S. government.
  • American Independent News Network: This organization promotes “impact journalism” that advocates progressive change. The editor of Media Matters, David Brock, is the top honcho.
  • The American Prospect, Inc.: This corporation trains and mentors young left-wing journalists, and organizes strategy meetings for leftist leaders.
  • Amnesty International: This organization directs a grossly disproportionate share of its criticism for human rights violations at the United States and Israel.
  • Applied Research Center: Viewing the United States as a nation where “structural racism” is deeply “embedded in the fabric of society,” ARC seeks to “build a fair and equal society” by demanding “concrete change from our most powerful institutions.”
  • Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now: This group conducted voter mobilization drives on behalf of leftist Democrats. These initiatives have been notoriously marred by fraud and corruption. The group helped start a Chicago community organizer named Barack Obama on the road to the Oval Office and was exposed by two young journalists — James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles — and was disbanded but still functions underground.
  • Black Alliance for Just Immigration: This organization seeks to create a unified movement for “social and economic justice” centered on black racial identity.
  • Blueprint North Carolina: This group seeks to “influence state policy in North Carolina so that residents of the state benefit from more progressive policies such as better access to health care, higher wages, more affordable housing, a safer, cleaner environment, and access to reproductive health services.”
  • Brennan Center for Justice: This think tank/legal activist group generates scholarly studies, mounts media campaigns, files amicus briefs, gives pro bono support to activists, and litigates test cases in pursuit of radical “change.”
  • Brookings Institution: This organization has been involved with a variety of internationalist and state-sponsored programs, including one that aspires to facilitate the establishment of a U.N.-dominated world government. Brookings Fellows have also called for additional global collaboration on trade and banking; the expansion of the Kyoto Protocol; and nationalized health insurance for children. Nine Brookings economists signed a petition opposing President Bush’s tax cuts in 2003. While the news media call them a non-partisan group, the moment one of their spokespeople starts “lecturing” audiences, it become apparent it is a left-wing think tank.
  • Campaign for America’s Future: This group supports tax hikes, socialized medicine, and a dramatic expansion of social welfare programs.
  • Campus Progress: A project of the Soros-bankrolled Center for American Progress, this group seeks to “strengthen progressive voices on college and university campuses, counter the growing influence of right-wing groups on campus, and empower new generations of progressive leaders.”
  • Center for American Progress: This leftist think tank is headed by former Clinton chief of staff John Podesta, works closely with Hillary Clinton, and employs numerous former Clinton administration staffers. It is committed to “developing a long-term vision of a progressive America” and “providing a forum to generate new progressive ideas and policy proposals.”
  • Center for Community Change: This group recruits and trains activists to spearhead leftist “political issue campaigns.” Promoting increased funding for social welfare programs by bringing “attention to major national issues related to poverty,” the Center bases its training programs on the techniques taught by the famed radical organizer Saul Alinsky.
  • Center for Economic and Policy Research: This group opposed welfare reform, supports “living wage” laws, rejects tax cuts, and consistently lauds the professed achievements of socialist regimes, most notably Venezuela.
  • Center for International Policy: This organization uses advocacy, policy research, media outreach, and educational initiatives to promote “transparency and accountability” in U.S. foreign policy and global relations. It generally views America as a disruptive, negative force in the world especially in their goal of a New World Order.
  • Center for Reproductive Rights: CRR’s mission is to guarantee safe, affordable contraception and abortion-on-demand for all women, including adolescents. The organization has filed state and federal lawsuits demanding access to taxpayer-funded abortions (through Medicaid) for low-income women.
  • Center on Wisconsin Strategy (COWS): Aiming to redistribute wealth by way of higher taxes imposed on those whose incomes are above average, COWS contends that “it is important that state government be able to harness fair contribution from all parts of society – including corporations and the wealthy.”
  • Change America Now: Formed in December 2006, Change America Now describes itself as “an independent political organization created to educate citizens on the failed policies of the Republican Congress and to contrast that record of failure with the promise offered by a Democratic agenda.”
  • Coalition for an International Criminal Court: This group seeks to subordinate American criminal-justice procedures to those of an international court.
  • Color Of Change: This organization was founded to combat what it viewed as the systemic racism pervading America generally and conservatism in particular.
  • Common Cause: This organization aims to bring about campaign-finance reform, pursue media reform resembling the Fairness Doctrine, and cut military budgets in favor of increased social-welfare and environmental spending.
  • Constitution Project: This organization seeks to challenge the legality of military commissions; end the detainment of “enemy combatants”; condemn government surveillance of terrorists; and limit the President’s executive privileges.
  • Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund: Defenders of Wildlife opposes oil exploration in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It condemns logging, ranching, mining, and even the use of recreational motorized vehicles as activities that are destructive to the environment.
  • Democracy Alliance: This self-described “liberal organization” aims to raise $200 million to develop a funding clearinghouse for leftist groups. Soros is a major donor to this group.
  • Democracy 21: This group is a staunch supporter of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act.
  • Democracy Now!: Democracy Now! was created in 1996 by WBAI radio news director Amy Goodman and four partners to provide “perspectives rarely heard in the U.S. corporate-sponsored media,” i.e., the views of radical and foreign journalists, left and labor activists, and ideological foes of capitalism.
  • Democratic Justice Fund: DJF opposes the Patriot Act and most efforts to restrict or regulate immigration into the United States — particularly from countries designated by the State Department as “terrorist nations.”
  • Drum Major Institute: This group describes itself as “a non-partisan, non-profit think tank generating the ideas that fuel the progressive movement,” with the ultimate aim of persuading “policymakers and opinion-leaders” to take steps that advance its vision of “social and economic justice.”
  • Earth justice: This group seeks to place severe restrictions on how U.S. land and waterways may be used. It opposes most mining and logging initiatives, commercial fishing businesses, and the use of motorized vehicles in undeveloped areas.
  • Economic Policy Institute: This organization believes that “government must play an active role in protecting the economically vulnerable, ensuring equal opportunity, and improving the well-being of all Americans.”
  • Ella Baker Center for Human Rights: Co-founded by the revolutionary communist and Barack Obama friend Van Jones, this anti-poverty organization claims that “decades of disinvestment in our cities” — compounded by “excessive, racist policing and over-incarceration” — have “led to despair and homelessness.”
  • EMILY’s List: This political network raises money for Democratic female political candidates who support unrestricted access to taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand.
  • Energy Action Coalition: Founded in 2004, this group describes itself as “a coalition of 50 youth-led environmental and social justice groups working together to build the youth clean energy and climate movement.” For EAC, this means “dismantling oppression” according to its principles of environmental justice.
  • Fair Immigration Reform Movement: This is the open-borders arm of the Center for Community Change.
  • Faithful America: This organization promotes the redistribution of wealth, an end to enhanced interrogation procedures vis a vis prisoners-of-war, the enactment of policies to combat global warming, and the creation of a government-run heath care system.
  • Families USA: This Washington-based health-care advocacy group favors ever-increasing government control of the American healthcare system.
  • Feminist Majority: Characterizing the United States as an inherently sexist nation, this group focuses on “advancing the legal, social and political equality of women with men, countering the backlash to women’s advancement, and recruiting and training young feminists to encourage future leadership for the feminist movement in the United States.”
  • Four Freedoms Fund: This organization was designed to serve as a conduit through which large foundations could fund state-based open-borders organizations more flexibly and quickly.
  • Free Press: This “media reform” organization has worked closely with many notable leftists and such organizations as Media Matters for America, Air America Radio, Global Exchange, Code Pink, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, the Revolutionary Communist Party, and Pacifica Radio.
  • Funding Exchange: Dedicated to the concept of philanthropy as a vehicle for social change, this organization pairs leftist donors and foundations with likeminded groups and activists who are dedicated to bringing about their own version of “progressive” change and social justice. Many of these grantees assume that American society is rife with racism, discrimination, exploitation, and inequity and needs to be overhauled via sustained education, activism, and social agitation.
  • Gamaliel Foundation: Modeling its tactics on those of the radical Sixties activist Saul Alinsky, this group takes a strong stand against current homeland security measures and immigration restrictions.
  • Gisha: Center for the Legal Protection of Freedom of Movement: This anti-Israel organization seeks to help Palestinians “exercise their right to freedom of movement.”
  • Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect: This group contends that when a state proves either unable or unwilling to protect civilians from mass atrocities occurring within its borders, it is the responsibility of the international community to intervene — peacefully if possible, but with military force if necessary.
  • Global Exchange: Established in 1988 by pro-Castro radical Medea Benjamin, this group consistently condemns America’s foreign policy, business practices, and domestic life. Following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Global Exchange advised Americans to examine “the root causes of resentment against the United States in the Arab world — from our dependence on Middle Eastern oil to our biased policy towards Israel.”
  • Grantmakers Without Borders: GWB tends to be very supportive of leftist environmental, anti-war, and civil rights groups. It is also generally hostile to capitalism, which it deems one of the chief “political, economic, and social systems” that give rise to a host of “social ills.”
  • Green For All: This group was created by Obama pal Van Jones to lobby for federal climate, energy, and economic policy initiatives.
  • Health Care for America Now: This group supports a “single payer” model where the federal government would be in charge of financing and administering the entire U.S. healthcare system.


  • Human Rights Campaign: The largest “lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender” lobbying group in the United States, HRC supports political candidates and legislation that will advance the LGBT agenda. Historically, HRC has most vigorously championed HIV/AIDS-related legislation, “hate crime” laws, the abrogation of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, and the legalization of gay marriage.
  • Human Rights First: This group supports open borders and the rights of illegal aliens; has filed amicus curiae briefs on behalf of terror suspect Jose Padilla; and deplores the Guantanamo Bay detention facilities.
  • Human Rights Watch: This group directs a disproportionate share of its criticism at the United States and Israel. It opposes the death penalty in all cases, and supports open borders and amnesty for illegal aliens.

Olddogs Comments!

Given the power and authority to do so, I would deport every member of these organizations. Keeping them here is no different than sleeping with the enemy. And every dime of tax money would be returned. And as far as soro’s goes I would have all of his money confiscated and send him to hell.






Let’s have a little quiz:

  1. Who meets there?
  2. What do they do there?
  3. Do they help you in any way?

If your answers were

1 “Members of the government”

2 “They represent all the people living in the country” and

3 “Yes, they create laws to protect me and my family”

Then let me congratulate you on getting every one of the answers wrong.

Didn’t do too well on that quiz? OK, let’s have another go:

  1. When was slavery abolished?
  2. Was slavery legal?
  3. Are you in debt to a financial institution?

Here are the answers:

  1. The serving officers of a commercial company.
  2. They think up ways to take money and goods from you.
  3. No, absolutely not, they help themselves and not you.
  4. Slavery has NEVER been abolished and you yourself, are considered to be a slave right now.
  5. Yes, slavery is “legal” although it is not “lawful” (you need to discover the difference).
  6. No. You are NOT in debt to any financial institution.

Does this seem a little strange to you?   If it does, then read on:


Paying tax is OPTIONAL !!

Getting a licence is OPTIONAL !!

Registering a vehicle is OPTIONAL !!

Paying a fine is OPTIONAL !!

Attending a court is OPTIONAL !!


Surprised?     Well – try this for size:

Every Mortgage and Loan is FULLY REPAID from day one – you can pay it again if you want to, but you don’t have to !!

If nobody has told that you that you have a Strawman, then this could be a very interesting experience for you.   Your Strawman was created when you were very young, far too young to know anything about it.     But then, it was meant to be a secret as it’s purpose is to swindle you, and it has been used very effectively to do just that ever since it was created.

Perhaps it is about time that you learnt about your strawman and how you can stop it being used against you.     Knowing about it is the most important first step.   You need to go on a journey of discovery, and I’m afraid that what you are about to discover is not very pleasant.   However, if you decide to act on what you learn, it could change your life for the better.   If you think that you are in debt, then you can get out of it if you are willing to stand up for your rights and refuse to be swindled any longer.   Interested?   If so, then let’s start at the beginning and find out where your strawman came from and why you should care about it.

It all started when your parents had a happy event and you entered the world.   You don’t know exactly when that was, because you were not aware of the days of the week, the months of the year or even what year it was.Even after some months had gone by, you still were not aware of these things, but by that time, your strawman had already been created and it was being used to make some very unscrupulous people rich.   None of this was your fault.   It happened because your parents were fooled into thinking that they needed to register your birth and get a birth certificate for you.   So, they APPLIED for a birth certificate, not understanding what would happen when they did.   Well then, what did happen?   According to the Local Authority:

1 They lost ownership of their baby (you).

2 They allowed a strawman to be created.

This is not something which they can be blamed for, as nobody told them it would, or even could, happen.   Nor did anybody tell them what a strawman is or how it can be used against their baby.   In actual fact, the “registration” is a contract and in reality, it is null and void because there was not full disclosure by the Local Authority, nor was there ‘intent to contract’ on the part of the parents.

Tricia corrects this information, stating: “There is no “application” for a Birth Certificate. The State creates one no matter what, with or without any parent providing information. The paper on which they provide information is called an information sheet, not an application. The parent signs only as informant, not as any applicant. The baby is not registered at all. Only the birth event is registered which is the birthing of the new fictitious entity Name being created by the State.

The State then issues you a certified COPY of the original which the State keeps as legal title to that fictitious entity Name. You merely USE the State owned legal “person” to conduct any commerce within the State regulated legal system of commerce, all of which is just fiction. Even when the parent signed as informant, that was not their signature they signed, but the signature for the fiction Name the State owns and created after they were born.

Everyone who has a copy of the birth certificate is authorised by the State to USE the State property Name and authorised to sign that Name FOR that Name. Everything you USE that Name for is all liability of the State. It is their property. They hold original legal title to it. The only reason everyone has problems from using that Name is only because they BELIEVE that is their property. So they make CLAIMS to that Name because of merely BELIEVING that is their property which is actually a false claim they make against State owned property.

Any time a CLAIM is made in any court that claim MUST be bonded or insured. So your CLAIM becomes your CONSENT where you pledge your body and/or property as your bond/insurance as surety against your CLAIM. When you lose they take your body and put it in jail while their bond created cures or they take your property to pay your loss in court for YOUR claim which you made!

If you use their property Name properly and do not claim it or anything registered in that Name, then they have no consent from you and no claim by you and the State then must settle any claim against their property Name. It is as simple as that…. Any time a names has a Last Name included that is a fiction name. There is no last name for living men or women, ONLY a given name, first-middle. So unless there is ONLY a first-middle name where NO last name exists at all, then the name is not for a man or woman. It does not matter how it spelled at all. It only matters whether it includes a last name or not. That is what the difference between a name for a living being and a fiction name. You will not find a Birth Certificate that does not have a Last Name. …

In fact, no name can BE the human. The human can only be CALLED BY a name. James is the name the human would be called by. There is no last name attached. The only way to properly refer to a human by a name is where you would have write, the man called by James. Man is man and woman is woman no matter what. Man is not James. Woman is not Jane. Man is only called by James and woman is only called by Jane.

James Martin or Jane Martin is fiction and has nothing at all to do with a living man or woman …. Of course, when one actually KNOWS THYSELF, then they know all those codes and statutes and their definitions are not important at all because they know none of it applies to them anyway. They don’t even volunteer any more as a participant to that fictitious Law Society because they know that it has nothing to do with them and they are not a party to it.”

So, what is a strawman?   A strawman is a fictitious legal entity, created with the hope that as the child grows up, he will be fooled into believing that he is actually the strawman (which he most definitely is not) and pay all sorts of imaginary costs and liabilities which get attached to the strawman by con artists.

How is a strawman created?   Well the mechanism involves that unnecessary birth certificate which the parents imagine is about, and belongs to, their baby (neither of which is actually true).   If the baby has been named James and the family name is Martin, then you would expect the birth certificate to have the name James Martin written on it.   If that is what is written on it, then all is well and it is a genuine birth certificate.   However, if any other name is there, then the document is not a birth certificate but instead is the creation of a strawman masquerading as James Martin.   The alternative entries might be any of the following examples:   “JAMES MARTIN”, “Mr James Martin”, “Martin, Mr James” or anything else which is not exactly “James Martin” and nothing else.

Why create a strawman?   The answer is ‘in order to charge the strawman imaginary costs and penalties and fool the human James Martin into paying those amounts’.   These imaginary charges include ‘Income Tax’, ‘Council Tax’, ‘Inheritance Tax’, ‘Capital-Gains Tax’, ‘Road Tax’, ‘Import Tax’, ‘Value-Added Tax’, ‘Fuel Levy’, ‘Loan Interest’, ‘Bank Charges’ and anything else that full-time professionals can think up and are confident that you will not notice that you never agreed to pay and don’t need to pay.

Legalese   is a secret language invented to trick you. It uses English words but attaches secret meanings to those words with the sole intention of stopping you believing that what they are saying to you has nothing to do with the normal meaning in the English language. Their purpose is to cheat you and rob you.

For example, they will say to you “Do you understand?” .   In English, that means “Do you comprehend what I am saying to you?” and the automatic response would be “Yes”, meaning “I do comprehend what you are saying to me”. But these sneaky, underhand people have changed the meaning in Legalese to mean “Do you stand under me?” meaning “Do you grant me authority over you so that you have to obey whatever I tell you to do?”.

What makes it even worse, is the fact that they will never tell you that they have switched from English to Legalese, and if that is not dishonest, underhand and unscrupulous, then I don’t know what is!   If you answer the question believing that English is being spoken, then they pretend that you are contracting with them to become subordinate to them.   Whether or not that is actually true is debatable because that is effectively a verbal contract between you and them and for any contract to be valid, there has to be full and open disclosure of all of the terms of the contract, and then, unreserved acceptance by both parties, and in these cases, that has most definitely, not occurred.

But what is the point in all this?   Well, this manoeuvre is intended to trick you into agreeing to represent your strawman.   Why?   Aaah now, that is a good question, but to answer it takes a bit of explaining, and you need to understand the overall situation:

All humans are born equal, with complete freedom of choice and action.   If you live in the same place as a lot of other people, then there are a few restrictions which have grown up, by common consent, over time.   These restrictions are for your protection and the protection of the other people living near you.   These restrictions are called “the Law” (or more accurately: “Common Law”) and they are few in number and very easy to understand.   They are:

You must not injure or kill anyone.

You must not steal or damage things owned by somebody else.

You must be honest in your dealings and not swindle anyone.

These have resulted from hundreds of years of disputes which have been dealt with through using common sense and the opinions of ordinary people.   They are the only limitations on you, and if you don’t want to abide by them, then you need to go to some isolated place and stay away from other people.

Many people think that there are hundreds of other laws which they have to keep (and new ones every other day), but that is not so.   Those other things are called “statutes” and keeping them is optional for you, the human, BUT they are not optional for your fictitious strawman, and that is why the people who benefit from those things want to persuade you to represent your strawman and so become subject to all of their invented restrictions and charges.

If you knew that they were optional, would you agree to:

Give most of your earnings away in taxes and similar charges?

Pay to own a vehicle?

Pay to own a television set?

Pay to drive on roads which were built with your money?

Be forced to join armed services if you are told to?

Send an army which is supposed to represent you, into another country to murder innocent people there?

Were you ever told that these things are optional?   If you agree to represent your strawman, then these things become binding on you.   These are some of the “statutes” which ‘politicians’ keep inventing in order to make you poor, make them and their friends rich, and keep you in a position where you have to do everything they say, no matter how much that harms you and does away with your natural rights and freedom.

But, says somebody, we elect a government to represent us and so we have to do what they say, after all, they have our best interests at heart don’t they?

Well, that is a nice thought, but is it actually true?   No it isn’t.   You think that you elect politicians to represent you in your government, but that is not what you actually do.   That is part of a very carefully fostered illusion intended to keep you in your place and giving most of your earnings away (typically, 80% of all you earn).   Part of the secret is that what is supposed to be your ‘government’ is actually a privately owned, for-profit company and all that you do when voting, is help choose the serving officers inside that company.   It will never make the slightest difference to what happens in the future as the company policy and actions are controlled by the owners of the company and they are not influenced in any way whatsoever by what you want.

Think this is far fetched?   Then check it out via Dun & Bradstreet or any of the other places which records the setting up and performance of the 160,000,000 commercial companies world-wide.   When you do that, you will discover that, for example, the House of Commons is a commercial for-profit company (number UC2279443), The Labour Party is a commercial company which trades under the name of “Allister Darling MP”, The House of Lords which is the highest court in the land is a private company, the United Kingdom Corporation Ltd. formerly known as the “United Kingdom plc” and which never complied with the law which requires it to file it’s financial records, is also a private company.   The Ministry of Justice D-U-N-S Number 22-549-8526, Directors: Lord Falconer of Thoroton is a private company set up in the year 1600.   The Bank of England is a private company, as is every Court and every Police Force and even the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is a company and not a person.

It gets even more ridiculous when you discover that The Devon and Cornwall Police is a company which has been taken over by a company owned by IBM which is paid an annual budget of £256,800,000 taken from members of the public.   Gilbert and Sullivan would have loved this reality as a script for one of their comedies.   Lancashire County Council was incorporated as a company (IP00666C) in 2002.   It’s registered office was “3rd Floor, Christ Church Precinct, County Hall, Preston” and it was completely dissolved on 25th January 2008 and all of it’s Assets and Liabilities were transferred on 12th November 2007 to another company – “The Blues and Twos Credit Union Ltd.” whose registered address is Lancashire Police Headquarters, PO Box 77, Hutton, Preston.   Do you by any chance get the feeling that you are being taken for a ride here?

Just in case you are not aware of it, the purpose of any commercial ‘for-profit’ company or corporation is to make money for it’s owners (and shareholders if there are any).   The people whom you think of as ‘The Government’ don’t do anything which earns money – instead, they take money from you and their main job is to make sure that you don’t realise that they are in the same position as IBM which takes away a cool £256 million of your money every year.”

So, why all the pretence of there being a genuine government which you elect and who serve you?   They don’t want you to understand that they are just running a company which produces nothing of any worth – something like a betting shop, where almost every customer loses money – and wake up to the fact that, unlike what you have been told all your life, this is all optional and you don’t need to play their rip-off game any longer unless you want to.

They want you to be so burdened down with paying them money and working so hard and so long that you don’t have the time, money or energy to stop and think about what is happening to you and your family.

They are desperate to stop you from just walking away from their scam, and so they make every effort to connect you with the fiction which is your strawman because fictitious entities like commercial companies can’t have any dealing with a real man or a real woman – they can only deal with another fiction like your strawman, and it is essential that they fool you into believing that you have to act on behalf of your strawman – which you don’t.

They have a number of well-proven methods of distracting you and keeping you from finding out.   They want you to see a great deal of entertainment, not because there is anything wrong with entertainment, but while you are watching it you will not be asking awkward questions.   Also, they are very careful that most entertainment reinforces their make-believe world and makes it appear to be “the real world” where everyone is under ‘The Government’, Police Officers uphold the law, taxes are essential in order to keep things going and things which are said to be bad for you, are taxed heavily (not to make money) but supposedly, to encourage you to avoid those things.

They also have another very effective technique, and that is fear.   They want you to be afraid.   Afraid of imaginary terrorists.   Afraid of disasters.   Afraid of new diseases.   Afraid of foreign countries.   Afraid of “the economy” doing badly and inflation rising.   If you doubt this, then take a look at the news and count the number of positive, uplifting news items, and the number of negative or depressing news items.   It doesn’t take much in the way of research to see the very heavy negative bias in the news.   The reason behind this is to make you feel that you need a government and an army to protect you from these supposed dangers.   It is easy to keep the news items biased that way, because all of the major news agencies and media outlets in the world are owned by only five or six privately owned commercial companies.

So to supposedly connect you to the strawman which they created for you when your birth was registered, they use the Legalese technique of conning you with the Name of the strawman.   If you are ill-advised enough to go to a Court (which is a Corporate place of Business) as the accused, you will be asked to confirm your name, quoting the full name shown on your birth certificate, which is the LEGAL PERSONALITY.   Titles such as Mr, Dr, Lord, PC, QC, or whatever are not asked for as they are not required.   The “Accused” is actually the LEGAL PERSONALITY which is the name on the birth certificate, so when they ask for the person’s NAME, they are talking to the LEGAL PERSONALITY and not the human.   This is because a human cannot exist in the legal world – only pieces of paper can, and that is something which they are very careful not to tell you.

This is a really key issue.   Natural Law and Common Law are the only laws which apply to humans and they deal only with harming other people or causing them loss, and outside of those restrictions, a human has free and unlimited entitlement to do anything he chooses which complies with these principles.   As opposed to this, Acts of Parliament, “Statutes” and Statutory Instruments “Contracts” do not apply to the human but only to the piece of paper which is the LEGAL PERSONALITY and which has no reality.   As the legal fiction of the LEGAL PERSONALITY was created by the company called “the United Kingdom Corporation”, it is that company which gets to say what the rights and duties are for that piece of paper.

When a person is born in Britain, the mother and father submit a Birth Certificate Registration Form, which is a piece of paper.   There is no requirement under common law to do this.   When any limited company or corporation is set up, there is always a Certificate of Registration in order to create it’s LEGAL PERSONALITY and that is a piece of paper.   Please note that a British Birth Certificate states quite clearly that it is not evidence of identity, that means that, it has nothing to do with any human.   Marked on it is “Crown Copyright” showing clearly that it does not belong to an individual and was created by the crown.   This act of Registering a child, makes that child a “ward of the court” and the child can be taken away from the parents at any time.   The Legalese definitions of words which sound commonplace, can be found in Black’s Law Dictionary and the current edition is the eighth.

Another trick they try to play on you is to imply that a Summons is something which you MUST obey while in fact, it is only an Invitation to attend their place of business.   They are NOT inviting you, the man, but instead, they are inviting a LEGAL PERSONALITY to their place of business, and please note that there is a CHOICE as it is only an invitation.   The LEGAL PERSONALITY is just a piece of paper, a BIRTH CERTIFICATE created by the commercial company called “The United Kingdom Corporation” and it is not the human.   You can’t be forced into a contract, so they have to deceive you into entering into one without understanding what you are doing.   They are using deception as every Magistrates Court is a trading name of the commercial company called “The Ministry of Justice” D-U-N-S Number 22-549-8526 which does not have a Parent Company listed meaning that it is a Parent Company itself.   Legal people on being shown this company registration, responded by saying that if this information is genuine (which it is), then the UK has been lawless for more than 400 years because the whole Justice System is being dealt with by a commercial company.

Going to court in connection with any civil action, is a very bad idea as the only function of a court is to judge between two parties who disagree and then penalise the loser.   The court doesn’t care who wins or loses, and the objective of the court is to make a profit for it’s owners as it is a commercial enterprise and it’s purpose is to acquire money from anybody who is fool enough to attend.   If you look at the Summons (which is really an invitation) to go to court, you will see that it is not in your name, but in the name of the strawman which they are hoping to fool you into representing.

Dealing With “Debt”   Because of the very high percentage of the money earned being taken away from the average person, it is not unusual for people to end up with what looks like “debt”.   Most people spend their time worrying over the statement of what they are told they owe, and do endless calculations to see if they agree with the numbers which they have been sent.   Again, this is the sort of misdirection which magicians use to fool audiences, distracting their attention away from where the action is really taking place.   Here, the question is really not “How much is owed?” but instead it is “Is anything actually owed?”.

You need to remember that any financial institution is a legal fiction and does not actually exist.   As a result of this, it can only deal with other legal fictions (essentially, other pieces of paper) and it can’t have any dealings with a man or a woman as they are not legal fictions.   It is also important to understand what passes for money nowadays.   Let’s say our trusty friend James Martin goes looking for a loan and he fills in an application form with the Swindle Bank Limited for £10,000.   Interestingly, the form which he is asked to sign, says that he has already received the £10,000 although the loan has not yet been approved.

The next day, the loan is approved and James is handed a cheque which he is asked to sign and lodge to his account with the bank.   We won’t follow up on that very interesting procedure at this time, but please remember that he has now provided two signatures for £10,000 in the strawman name, and all he has received is a 1 and four zeros in the accounts of the Swindle Bank Limited.

All goes well for several months until James loses his job and does not manage to get another one.   This is financial trouble which he does not know how to deal with. Time goes by and James has not had sufficient money to make payments against his loan from the Swindle Bank Limited.   He starts getting letters from the bank saying that he must pay the arrears immediately and keep up with the payments in future.   There is not the slightest chance of that happening as James just does not have the money and he does not know what to do.

Fortunately, Peter, the next door neighbour of James happens to be an independent financial advisor with years of experience, and James has the brainwave of asking him for help.   Peter is willing to help and so he sits down and goes through all of the paperwork.   Then he tells James:   “You must not ignore this situation.   Write back immediately and say that you agree to pay any financial obligation which you might lawfully owe, ON CONDITION that they:


  1. Provide validation of the debt, that is, the actual accounting.
  2. Verification of their claim against you, that is, a signed Invoice.
  3. A copy of the Contract binding both parties (you and them), and send that letter by recorded delivery so that there is an independent witness to it having been delivered.”


Every letter you write should be marked clearly “Without Prejudice” which means that you reserve all your lawful rights and accept no contract unless it is shown to be lawful by meeting the four conditions essential to a lawful, binding contract, namely:

Full Disclosure (you were not told that you were actually creating the credit with your signature)

Equal Consideration (they brought nothing of value to the table and so have nothing to lose)

Lawful Terms and Conditions (yours were actually based on fraud), and

The signatures of both parties (corporations can’t sign because they have no Right or Mind to contract since they are soul-less legal fictions, and no third party can sign a contract on their behalf)

Peter then tells James that agreeing to pay, provided that evidence of a lawful debt can be produced, stops him being taken to court because courts only adjudicate between parties who are in dispute, and as James has agreed to pay, there is no dispute, so the court would not accept any application for a hearing.   If the Swindle Bank were foolish enough to try, James has only to send the court a copy of his letter agreeing to pay and the case would be thrown out immediately (and the Bank might well be penalised for wasting court time).

The bank is now in trouble as it has been running a con game on James and so can’t produce the documents for which James has asked.   The request by James was reasonable in every respect.   However, a loan agreement is a contract and so there has to be full disclosure of all the details (which there wasn’t), both sides have to put up something of equal worth (which didn’t happen) and the contract has to be signed by both parties (which the bank can’t do).   So, the bank has a real problem.

The bank will probably send a Statement of what it wants James to believe is the outstanding amount.   James should return this with a polite note saying that a Statement is not an Invoice, so would they please provide a signed Invoice as requested.   They will also probably send a photocopy of his Loan Application form, at which point James should write back and point out politely that it does not constitute a contract as it is only signed by one of the parties (himself) and he has asked for a copy of the Contract signed by both parties.

The bank is likely to go silent at this point and stop corresponding with James.   James should then write again, requesting that the necessary documents be sent to him within the next fourteen (or perhaps 28) days, and if that does not happen, then he will consider the debt to be fully discharged.

The bank will either remain silent or write back to say that the debt is fully discharged.   If the bank tries phoning, then just tell them politely that you only wish to deal with this matter in writing, and ring off.   If the bank remains silent for the stated period, then James should write back stating that due to the bank’s failure to provide the necessary evidence of a lawful debt within the reasonable time provided, that James now considers that the debt is fully discharged and ask the bank to confirm that in writing.   The bank will normally write back confirming that the debt is fully discharged and that there is nothing owing and if it does not do that, then it will just stop asking for any further payments.

The reasons for how and why this takes place, takes a good deal of explaining and many people find it difficult to understand.   So, it is covered in detail here.   Many people think that this process sounds like you ripping off the bank, but this is definitely not the case.

What is money?

Originally in England, the unit of money was called “one pound sterling”. That was because it was literally, sterling silver a weighing one pound.   As it was quite difficult to carry several pounds weight of currency round with you, it was arranged that the actual silver could be held in a bank and a promissory note which was essentially, a receipt for the deposit of each pound of silver, was issued.   It was much easier to carry these “bank notes” around and to do business with them.   If you wanted to, you could always take these notes to a bank and ask for them to be cashed, and what happened then was that the bank would hand you the equivalent weight of sterling silver in exchange for the notes.

Today, the currency in England is still “bank notes” which are certainly easier to carry around, but there is one very important difference.   These notes are issued by the private company called “The Bank of England” (which is as good a name for a company as any other name).   However, if you were to take one of their bank notes to the premises of that company and ask for it to be cashed, all that they would do is give you another note with the same number of pounds written on it, or alternatively, some other notes with smaller numbers printed on them.   This is because, unlike the original bank notes, there is nothing of any physical value backing up the bank notes of today – they are only worth the physical paper on which they are printed.

It actually gets worse than that.   What happens most commonly nowadays is that they do not even bother printing those pieces of paper.   Now, they just tap some numbers into a computer record, or if they are old-fashioned enough, they write the numbers into a ledger.   What do those numbers represent?   Nothing at all – they have no actual value, in other words, just as much value as if you typed them into your own computer – quite meaningless.   And yet, a bank or other financial institution will merrily “lend” you those numbers in return for years of your work – now isn’t that really generous of them?

Actually, this is not at all funny, because if you don’t keep paying them money earned by your very real work, then they will attempt to take your house and possessions away from you.   This won’t happen if you understand that what they lent you was actually valueless.   Take the case of Jerome Daly of Minnesota in America.   In court, Jerome challenged the right of the bank to foreclose on his home which had been purchased with a loan from the bank.   Jerome argued that any mortgage contract required that both parties (that is, himself and the bank), to put up a legitimate form of property for the exchange.   In legal language, that is called a legitimate “consideration” put forward by both parties to the contract.

Jerome explained that the “money” was in fact, not the property of the bank as it had been created out of nothing as soon as the loan agreement was signed.   That is, the money does not come out of the bank’s existing assets as the bank is simply inventing it and in reality, the bank is putting up nothing of it’s own, except for a theoretical liability on paper.   As the court case progressed, the President of the bank, Mr Morgan, took the stand and admitted that the bank, in combination with the (privately owned commercial company called) “The Federal Reserve Bank”, created the entire amount of the loan in credit in it’s own books by means of a bookkeeping entry, the money and credit coming into existence when they created it.   Further, Mr Morgan admitted that no United States Law or Statute existed which gave him the right to do this.   A lawful consideration must exist and must be tendered to support the loan agreement.   The jury found that there had been no lawful consideration put forward by the bank and so the court rejected the bank’s application for foreclosure and Jerome Daly kept his home.

That is exactly the situation with all British mortgages.   When someone makes an application for a mortgage or any other loan, the applicant’s signature is required on the application form before the loan is approved.   That signed application is a valuable piece of paper which the bank can lodge in it’s accounts as a credit to the bank for the amount of the loan.   The bank could just keep that application form and stay £100,000 or whatever, ahead, but they want more, much more.   They want the borrower to pay them that same amount again, funding it by years of work, and not only the amount of the supposed “loan” but significant extra in interest.   Why do you think that they are so keen to lend you “money” – they are even willing to lend to people with very poor credit records as there is no way that the bank can lose out on the deal, no matter what happens.

This is why, if a company starts demanding payment of large sums of money, you start by asking them to provide the “accounting” for the deal.   In other words, you are asking them to show in writing that they provided something of genuine worth as their side of the loan contract.   As they invented the money as numbers in their books with no real worth attached to those numbers, they are in deep trouble as they can’t comply with your demand to see their accounting for the deal.   Did you ever wonder how the average bank manages to make hundreds of millions of pounds profit every year?   Well, you are looking right at where a large chunk of it comes from.

The Bookkeeping

This next part of the information may be a little difficult to understand.   When any business is being run, the accounts are recorded as money coming in and money going out.   For a bank, the money coming in is called a “Credit” and money going out is called a “Debit”.   The objective is to have these two amounts match each other for any customer.   Not everything done in banking is immediately obvious to the average person and so it may be a little difficult to understand how everything works in this area.

If you have an account with a bank and you deposit £500 to open the account, the bank enters that in it’s books as a Credit.   The Credit on your account is £500 and the Debit is £0 and so the balance has a positive, or Credit value of £500.

If you were to withdraw £600, then the bank would record this as a Debit of £600 and as the Credit balance on your account is £500, the balance on your account would be £100 in Debit, that is, overdrawn by £100.

If you were to lodge a further £100 and then close your account, the bank would not have any problem, other than the fact that they would like to keep you on as a customer.   As far as the accounting goes, your account is balanced and the bank is satisfied with the state of affairs, £600 has come in and £600 has gone out, the books balance – case closed.

Now, if you were to apply for a loan (mortgage or otherwise) for £100,000 from the bank, they would give you an application form which is set out in such a way that you have to fill in the strawman’s name rather than your own – separate boxes with one of them containing “Mr” and they may even require you to fill the form in using block capitals.   You may think that the capitals are so that they can read you writing or perhaps, to make it easier for it to be entered into a computer, but the name in those capital letters belongs to the strawman and not to you.   You have actually just made an application on behalf of the strawman and not on behalf of yourself!

You might wonder why they would want to do that.   After all, what could they ever get from the strawman?   Well, you might be surprised.   When the strawman was incorporated they assigned a large monetary value to it, possibly £100,000,000 and they have been trading on the stock market on behalf of the strawman ever since, and you know how many years that has been.   So, very surprisingly, in their opinion, the little fellow is really very rich, and you have just authorised them to take the amount of your loan application from the strawman’s account.   So before the bank passes you any money, it has already got it’s money from the strawman account and entered it in it’s books as a £100,000 Credit to your loan account.   They then place £100,000 into your loan account as a Debit.   Interestingly, that loan account is now balanced and could easily be closed off as a completed deal.

This is where the sneaky part comes in.   To get the money out of your account, you have to write and sign a cheque for £100,000 on that account.   What does the bank do with cheques which you sign?   It assigns them to the account as an asset of the bank, and suddenly, the bank is ahead by £100,000 because the cheque is in the name of the strawman who can supply the bank with almost any amount of money.   But it doesn’t end there, as the bank is confident that you know so little about what is going on that you will pay them anything up to £100,000 over the years, against what you believe you owe them!   If that happens, then they have made yet another £100,000 for the bank.   To make things even better for them, they want you to pay them interest on the money which you (don’t actually) owe them.   Overall, they make a great deal of money when you borrow from them, so perhaps you can see now why banks make hundreds of millions in profit each year.

If the loan was used to buy a property, then the bank probably insisted that you lodged the title deeds with them as soon as the property deal was completed.   If you then fail to keep paying them, they are likely to attempt to foreclose on the “loan” and sell your property quickly for an even greater profit.   And to add insult to injury, if the property sale did not exceed the amount of the “loan” plus the charges for selling it, then they are likely to claim that you owe them the difference!

Perhaps you can now see why Jerome Daly told them to go take a running jump at themselves, and why your asking for “the accounting” for any loan made to you, puts the bank in an impossible situation.   If the bank then just writes and says that the “debt” is fully discharged, they still have made a massive profit on the operation and they also hope that the vast majority of customers will not catch on to the fact that they are paying far too much or even that there is a strawman involved.

Please don’t feel that you are ripping the banks off if you don’t pay them what they are asking you to pay – they have already recovered everything paid out before you start paying them for the second or third time.

John Samphier ( states: “I personally have a Social Security number and an Australian Birth Certificate number and a strawman bond under both. In one I have 577 million U.S. Dollars and in the other just over one billion. If you search for your information it is important to enter your numbers correctly otherwise it will not recognise them. You must enter the in 3 numerals and then a space and the last as 2, 3 or 4 to open the bond. Then scroll down the page until you come to Search and log in to find the total value. Spending on the bond there may have two search buttons. Check both to find the value”.

When it is a Mortgage   the entire process is very much the same.   The Debt-Free Sovereign website gives a very clear description of the process in Canada, and the process everywhere else is much the same.   They describe a typical property sale and mortgage this way:

The buyer goes to Magic Bank in response to the bank’s claim that it is in the business of lending money in accordance to its corporate charter.   The buyer went to the bank believing that Magic Bank had the asset (money) to lend.   Magic Bank never tells its customers the truth that it does not have any money to lend, nor that Magic Bank is not permitted to use their depositors’ money to lend to its borrowers.

Notwithstanding the fact that Magic Bank does not have any money to lend, Magic Bank makes the buyer/borrower sign a mortgage loan application form which is essentially a promissory note that the buyer/borrower promises to pay Magic Bank for the money (what money?) which he is supposed to receive from Magic Bank even before any value or consideration is received by the buyer/borrower from Magic Bank.   This promissory note is a valuable consideration, a receivable and therefore an asset transferred from the buyer to the bank which Magic Bank enters into its own asset account as a cash deposit.

After making sure that the buyer has the ability to pay the required monthly payments (the buyer has credit), Magic Bank agrees to lend the buyer the money (cash) to pay the seller.   Magic Bank has no money to lend but it gave the buyer a promise to lend money by way of a commitment letter, loan approval letter, loan authorisation or loan confirmation letter, etc., signed by a bank official or loans/mortgage officer employed by Magic Bank.

Magic Bank’s acceptance of the buyer’s promissory note made the bank liable to the buyer/borrower for the full face value of the promissory note which is the agreed purchase price of the property, less any cash deposit or down payment money paid by the buyer directly to the seller.   It is important to note at this point that all real estate transactions require that the property being sold must be conveyed by the seller to the buyer free of all liens and encumbrances which means that all liens such as existing mortgages, judgments, etc. must be paid before the property can be mortgaged by the buyer as collateral to the mortgage loan which is yet to be received by the buyer pursuant the promise made by Magic Bank.   How can the seller pay off his mortgage and obtain clear title if he has not yet received any money from the buyer?   And how can the buyer mortgage a property that does not yet belong to him?

This dilemma is solved using Magic Bank’s magic tricks.   Magic Bank, in concert with other magicians, the bank’s lawyers or notaries, causes all the liens and encumbrances to magically disappear by using a cheque drawn in the name of Magic Bank backed by the buyer’s promissory note and the agreement of purchase and sale. This cheque is deposited into the lawyer’s trust account.   In essence, Magic Bank and it’s magicians, the lawyers and notaries used the buyer’s promissory note as the cash to enable the purchase agreement.   It was the buyer’s promissory note that made the conveyancing possible.   Magic Bank caused the property to be conveyed to the buyer from the seller clear title, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.   The property now belongs to the buyer which makes it possible for the buyer to mortgage the property to Magic Bank.   The buyer paid for it using his own promissory note.

At this point, the seller has not yet received any money or cash so Magic Bank and it’s magicians must perform more magic in order to satisfy the seller’s requirement that he must get paid or the whole deal is null and void.   The seller does not even know that the property had been magically conveyed to the buyer’s name in order for the seller to receive any money.

The ensuing magic trick is accomplished this way.   The buyer is made to sign another promissory note.   The mortgage contract is attached to the bottom of the promissory note which makes the buyer liable to pay Magic Bank for the money or the loan which the buyer has not yet or will never receive for up to twenty five years or more depending on the term of the mortgage contract.   This note is linked to the collateral through the mortgage contract and as such, it is valuable to Magic Bank.

Magic Bank then goes to Bank of Canada or to another bank through it’s accomplice, the Canadian Payment Association to pledge the deal that they have just got from the buyer for credit.   Bank of Canada then gives Magic Bank the “credit”.   Remember, it is not Magic Bank’s credit, it was the buyer’s credit who promised to pay Magic Bank if and when the money is received by the buyer from Magic Bank, payable for up to 25 years or more.

Note: What happened above is basically a “swap”, a transaction all banks do to ‘monetise’ security.   In this case, the second promissory note that is linked to the mortgage contract and signed by the buyer is a mortgage-backed security.

Magic Bank will then agree to pay Bank of Canada a certain percentage of interest over “prime”.   Thus the buyer’s loan package goes to Bank of Canada which credits Magic Bank with the full amount of credit which is the total amount of the money Magic Bank is entitled to receive after 25 years which is the amount of the principal plus all the interest payments the buyer has promised to pay to Magic Bank for 25 years or more which is usually three times the amount of the money promised by Magic Bank to the buyer.   By magic, Magic Bank just enriched itself and got paid in advance, without using or risking it’s own money.

Magic Bank’s magician, the lawyer who holds the cheque that is backed by the buyer’s original promissory note, then writes a cheque to the seller as payment for the property.   In effect, the buyer paid the seller with his own money by virtue of the fact that it was the buyer’s own money (the promissory note) that made the purchase and sale possible.   Magic Bank just made a cool 300% profit without using or risking any capital of its own.   Neither was there any depositor’s money deducted from Magic Bank’s asset account in this transaction.

What really happened was pure deception and if we the people tried to do this, we would end up in prison being found guilty of fraud and criminal conversion not to mention that the property would have been seized by the court.

This is only a crime if we, the people, do it to each other, as it would be an indictable crime if we issue a cheque with no funds.   There would not be any deal, no purchase and sale agreement because there is no valuable consideration.   In order to de-criminalise the transaction, we need Magic Bank and their cohorts to make the deal happen.   It is really a conspiracy of sorts but these “persons”, the banks, the lawyers, the land title offices or even the courts do not consider the transaction as fraudulent transactions because these transactions happen all the time.

Such a contract is “void ab-initio” or “void from the beginning” which meant that the contract never took place in the first place.   Moreover, the good faith and fair dealing requirement through full disclosure is non-existent which further voids the contract.   Magic Bank failed to disclose to the buyer that it will not be giving the buyer any valuable consideration and taking interest back as additional benefit to unjustly enrich the corporation.   Magic Bank also failed to disclose how much profit they are going to make on the deal.

Magic Bank led the buyer to believe that the money going to the seller would be coming from its own asset account.   They lied because they knew, or ought to have known, that their own book or ledger would show that Magic Bank does not have any money to lend and that their records will show that no such loan transaction ever took place.   Their own book will show that there would be no debits from Magic Bank’s asset account at all and all that would show up are the two entries made when the buyer gave Magic Bank the first collateral or the promissory note which enabled Magic Bank to cut a cheque which made it possible to convey the property from seller to the buyer free and clear of all liens or encumbrances as required by the agreement of purchase and sale entered into in writing between the buyer and the seller.   What really happened was not magic; in reality, the buyer’s promissory note was used by Magic Bank and it’s magicians – the lawyers and land title clerks, to convey free title to the buyer from the seller.   So why do we need the mortgage contract?

The other entry that would show up when we audit Magic Bank’s accounts, is the other pledge of collateral including the buyer’s promissory note which was converted (unlawfully and without disclosure or permission from the buyer) into a mortgage-backed security which was “swapped” or deposited by Magic Bank to Bank of Canada and “cleared” through the Canadian Payment Association for which another deposit was entered into Magic Bank’s transaction account.

From the above, we can list all the criminal acts perpetrated by Magic Bank:

The mortgage contract was “void ab-initio” because Magic Bank lied and never intended to lend a single cent of their own asset or depositor’s money to the buyer.

A valid contract must have lawful or valuable consideration.   The contract failed for anticipated breach.   Magic Bank never planned to give the buyer/borrower any valuable consideration.

Magic Bank breached all its fiduciary duties to the buyer and is therefore guilty of criminal breach of trust by failing in it’s good faith requirement.

Magic Bank concealed the fact from the buyer that it would be using the buyer’s promissory notes; first to clear all the liens and encumbrances in order to convey clear title to the buyer and then use the second promissory note to obtain more money from Bank of Canada or other institutions that buy and sell mortgage-backed security.   Magic Bank received up to three times the amount of money required to purchase the property and kept the proceeds to itself without telling the buyer.

Magic Bank violated its corporate charter by lending “credit” or “nothing at all” to the buyer and then charging interests on this make-believe loan.   Banks are only licensed to lend their own money, not other people’s money.   Magic Bank used the buyer’s promissory note to clear the title which essentially purchased the property from the seller.   The transaction is “an ultra vires” transaction because Magic Bank has engaged in a contract outside of it’s lawful mandate.   An ultra vires contract is void or voidable because it is non-existent in law.

Everyone involved in this undertaking with Magic Bank, starting with the loan or mortgage officer, the lawyers, the land title office and even the central bank are equally guilty by association by aiding and abetting Magic Bank in it’s commission of it’s crimes against the buyer and the people who would eventually have to absorb all of the loss through increased taxes, etc.

In the final analysis, Magic Bank and the others who profited from the ultra vires transaction are all guilty of unjust enrichment and fraud for deceiving the buyer and the people, and for acting in concert in this joint endeavor to deceive the buyer.

Dealing With The Police   Years ago, a policeman was your friend and defender.   Things have changed now that Police Forces have become commercial organisations, dedicated to producing a profit by taking money from you in the form of Fixed Penalty Notices, Speeding Fines, Parking Fines and any number of other charges.   It was stated on national TV this morning that in the last thirteen years, three thousand additional offences have been invented.

As each individual Police Force is a commercial company, in a way, not unlike a McDonalds Restaurant in strategy, it has no authority to enforce anything, any more than a McDonalds has.   The men and women who work under the banner of their local Police Force have two separate roles.   When they take up their occupation, they take an oath of office, pledging to uphold the law.   That oath, and nothing else, gives them the authority to act to enforce Common Law – that is, the few things which are listed near the start of the “Legalese” section of this web site.   It does not authorise them to do anything connected with so-called “government” statutes and so they have been trained to use Legalese to entrap uninformed members of the public.   To be fair, it is highly likely that members of the police force are not aware of what they are doing and do not understand the difference between “legal” statutes (which are optional) and the “lawful” Common Law requirements which apply to everyone and are not optional.

Please don’t get me wrong.   Most policemen and policewomen do a great job and assist members of the public, often above and beyond the requirements of their job – opposing bullying, intimidation, fraud, etc. and comforting in cases of bereavement or injury.   Admittedly, the commercial companies who control the Police Forces are working hard to end this sort of positive behaviour, using ridiculous “Health and Safety” regulations as an excuse, even to the extent that police officers are instructed to stand by and watch somebody drown and not attempt to save them.   This is not the choice of the officer but the instructions of the owners of the company.

Because these thousands of invented offences don’t apply to anybody unless they agree to be bound by them, it becomes essential for a police officer to (possibly inadvertently) persuade a member of the public to agree to subject himself to these unnecessary restrictions and agree to pay invented cash penalties to the local commercial company called the “Police Force” or “Constabulary”.   The normal first attempt to establish this spurious dominance of the police officer is by him asking for your name.   This is not an innocent question and it is essential that you are very careful in what you say as there are verbal Legalese booby traps all over the place.

One suitable reply is “The law does not require me to provide that information” which is entirely correct and avoids pitfall number one, and no matter how often the question is asked, the answer is always the same.   It is also vitally important not to argue with a police officer as that is another Legalese booby trap which makes you subject to the thousands of hateful regulations designed to part you from your money.   So, only answer questions (ideally with a non-aggressive question) and don’t volunteer any information at all.

If the police officer says “You were exceeding the speed limit”, you could say “Was I?” as you don’t argue, nor do you point out that Common Law does not require anyone to keep to speed limits, obey road signs, park only where directed, etc. even though that is perfectly true.

As mentioned before, if the police officer says “Do you understand?” then your response should be “No!   I do NOT stand under you in this matter”.   As before, the question is a Legalese trap and has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding anything which has been said.

Under Common Law, an offence has only been committed if there is a victim (somebody who has been killed or injured, had possessions damaged or stolen or who has been defrauded).   So, if the police officer keeps pushing you to agree to pay his company money when you don’t need to, then a good question to ask might be “Who is the victim?”.   An alternative is to ask “What is the charge, or am I free to go?”.   If you stick to these things, then the police officer has nothing to work on as you have not agreed to be bound by statutes, you have not provided a name and address for him to write on an Invoice (or “Fixed Penalty Notice” as they like to call it) and you have not entered into a “controversy” by arguing with him or into “dishonour” by refusing him point blank.

There is one other thing, and that is, without being aggressive or offensive in any way, you must not do anything which he tells you to do because if you do, then those charming Legalese people can see that as you agreeing to “stand under” him and become subject to his “legal” (not “lawful”) authority, and so become liable to those thousands of cunning plans called “statutes”, carefully crafted in order to rob you in a perfectly “legal” way.

One thing which any police officer needs to become aware of is the fact that they do not have any security provided by the Police Force which employs them.   In any situation which does not involve Common Law, the police officer is on his own, acting as an individual and as such is wide open to action against him either under Common Law if he is acting unlawfully or by civil court action if his actions warrant it.   If there is failure to establish “Joinder” or more aptly named “pretensive joinder”, (which is where a human agrees voluntarily to represent the strawman and so become subject to statutes), then the presumed authority of a police officer does not exist in any respect and he is acting solely as an individual whose only authority is to enforce Common Law and nothing else.

Registration   Most people believe that when they buy a new car that they have to register it (in Britain, with the commercial company known as the “Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency”).   What very few people are aware of is the fact that the act of applying for registration actually transfers the physical ownership of the vehicle from you the purchaser who paid the money, to the Licensing Authority who licenced the vehicle.   That is, you have just given the vehicle away to a commercial company who has done nothing at all for you and which does not have your best interests at heart.   As it is unlawful to swindle anyone, I would be most interested to hear any reason whatsoever as to why this registration should not be deemed to be unlawful as I can’t think of any reason or basis why this should not be considered blatant and obvious fraud, and there has certainly not been full disclosure of the terms of the contract.

The change of ownership is shown by the fact that you, the previous owner, are now sent a document stating that you are now “the Registered Keeper” of the vehicle which you have just bought.   You are left to pay for maintaining the vehicle which you do not own, and the actual owner can, and will, destroy the vehicle (which cost the owner nothing) if you, the ‘Registered Keeper’ do not keep on paying for the use of the vehicle.   Destroying the vehicle would be unlawful if the vehicle did not belong to the company doing the destroying.

The vehicle will be crushed if the “Road Tax” is not paid.   That ‘tax’ is substantial and was originally introduced as a fund contributed to by the drivers of vehicles, in order to build new roads for those vehicles to drive on, and to maintain all existing roads.   That was a very reasonable idea, and it means that all the roads in the country belong to the people who paid the money for them to be built and repaired.

That Road Tax Fund has been hi-jacked and I have seen reports that state that 85% of that money is taken for other things which are in no way related to roads or driving.   Local Authorities say that they can’t maintain roads properly as they do not have sufficient funds to do the work.   The ‘Road Tax’ is increased for vehicles with large engines on the laughable excuse that they burn more fuel and so contribute more to global warming.   The real reason for the increase is, as ever, just a method of taking more money from people who have no idea what is going on.   There is even a proposal now, that motorists be charged for every mile that they drive along the roads which they paid for and own.

That, of course, is not the only stream of income from vehicles.   A major source of income is from the massive ‘tax’ on fuel for vehicles, and it has been stated that an incredible 85% of the selling price is the proportion which is not needed for the location, extraction, processing and delivery of the actual fuel.   In passing it can be remarked that vehicles can be run on water, compressed air, energy direct from the environment, permanent magnets, and even on gravity.   It, no doubt, will come as a great shock to you that the inventors who have done this have disappeared suddenly as soon as they started testing their prototypes.   Far fetched?   I personally know five people who have been told to “cease and desist – or else”.   When you understand the billions and billions in profit which are made through selling oil products, actions like that become very understandable, especially since the people who do these things own the police forces and courts and so they know that there will be no comeback no matter what they do.

You would think that there could be no further money to be squeezed out of the person who buys a car, but that is not the case.   There are two further major charges.   The first is an import duty on vehicles brought into the country from outside and that can be a substantial amount.   The second is a most damaging charge called “Value Added Tax” in Britain and “Sales Tax” elsewhere.   That tax is at present, 17.5% and forms a major increase in the selling price of almost everything.   No matter how much your earned income is taxed, the remainder will be used to make purchases, almost all of which will be taxed themselves and the components used in their manufacture, transport and advertising are themselves taxed, raising the price even further.   When these things are taken into account, it has been estimated that 80% of a person’s earnings is taken away by the various taxes and other unnecessary charges.   Professional economists have stated that the supposedly-free people living in ‘democratic’ Britain are actually substantially worse off than the ‘serf’ slaves of earlier times – so much for ‘freedom’ !

So, what about the Driving Licence or in America, the Driver’s Licence?   Under Common Law, humans have the right to travel freely and these days, that includes using a vehicle when travelling.   The Legalese people want to persuade you that you are no longer a “Traveller” under Common Law, but instead, you are a “Driver” subject to their statutes, and they demand that a “Driver” must have a driving licence, car tax, car insurance, and anything else that they can think up.   If you wish to live in freedom and somebody asks to see your licence (which would have been issued by your ‘begging’ for the supply of one and so subjecting yourself voluntarily to their authority by doing so), then the question is “Why would I want one of those?”.

A driving licence is only needed for the driver of a vehicle which is taking part in commerce.   It can be argued that transporting a strawman is a commercial undertaking, so it would be advisable not to have anything related to a strawman with you.   It is also very important not to give your name, address or (supposed) date of birth or to show any form of ID as that places you in a position of voluntary submission by:

(a) Obeying the command of another human being (who is of equal standing to you) and/or

(b) Associating yourself with, and consequently representing, a strawman who is automatically subject to all statutes, being itself, a legal fiction and part of that fictional world.

So, if you are not carrying a passenger who is paying for the journey and you are not stopping off on the journey to sell things and you are not transporting a strawman, then you are not a “Driver” with a “Passenger”, but instead, you are a “Traveller” with a “Guest” if you are accompanied by a human who is not a “person” and who is not carrying a strawman around with him.   Travellers do not need a driving licence.

Postal Demands   Each person generally gets a number of demands for amounts to be paid.   As an example of this, in Britain there is an annual charge for a television Licence.   This is something which Americans find bizarre and highly amusing as they have nothing like it and find the notion laughable.   If you get a demand for payment for any such licence, you will notice that it is not addressed to you, the human, but to the fiction which is the strawman which has a name which sounds like your name but is not the same.   The name will be printed on the demand in all capital letters, or in rare cases will be preceded by “Mr”, “Mrs” or “Miss”, and any of those names refer to the strawman who sounds like you and which has a creation date which matches what you have been told was your birthday.   You can pay this demand if you want to, but it is entirely optional and remember that it is not YOU who is being billed.   Also worth remembering that you, the human, are bound by Common Law and not legal statutes, and Common Law does not require you to pay any form of tax.

The company invoicing the strawman is hoping that you don’t catch on to the fact that it is not you who is being billed, and so make the payment as a mistake on your part.   Interestingly, the strawman does not own a television set and so is not required to have a licence anyway.   Being only a piece of paper, the strawman can be considered to be deaf, dumb, blind and paralysed as it can’t perform any action, can’t see anything, can’t hear anything and can’t say anything.   Anyway, the company looking for the money is in the business of fooling people, so it sends out batches of letters to an area, claiming that a “detector van” will be in the area in a few days and so anyone without a licence will be detected and prosecuted, so better get one now.   This is done in the hope that a percentage of the people mailed will fall for it and start paying them money.   They may even send around a van with all sorts of peculiar attachments on it, in the hope that it will frighten residents of the area who are not already paying them.   A driver of one of those vans says that none of the equipment in the van does anything and certainly can’t detect anything to do with television – it’s all there as window dressing for the operation.   The reality is that they just check the addresses against their database of who is already paying them.

If you don’t want to pay this unnecessary charge on behalf of a strawman, then you can mark the envelope “NO CONTRACT – Return to Sender” and put it in a post box.   Any subsequent letters can be treated in exactly the same way.   As in all cases, do not have any telephone conversations about it, as verbal communications bristle with Legalese verbal traps.   At most, say that you wish to deal with any such matters by post and terminate the call.   It does not matter in the slightest if an employee turns up at your home and hands you a letter or puts it through your letter box.   The letter is NOT for you or even addressed to you – it is addressed to the strawman, so it can be posted back the same as any other letter.

Recently, Tony Rooke in the UK took a different approach. He refused to pay for a TV licence and went to court over it. There, he stated that he would not pay a TV licence fee because the BBC (“British Broadcasting Corporation”) intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks. As is widely known, the BBC reported the collapse of the World Trade Centre Building 7 – the 47-storey Salomon Brothers’ building which was never hit by an aeroplane but which collapsed at free-fall speed later that day – over twenty minutes before it occurred.

Rooke stated that the BBC had to have had prior knowledge of that terror attack and so were complicit in the attack. He then showed a recording of the BBC video news broadcast along with considerable additional evidence. The judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest and he was found ‘not guilty’ by the court and was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.

If it is still available, the BBC news report of the collapse, showing the building still standing in the view behind the reporter, is here.

If you wish, you can take a more forceful, direct stance as demonstrated here by a letter issued by Christopher Lees when dealing with a Fixed Penalty Notice:

Dear Sirs,

Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding.   It is a notice.   It informs you.   It means what it says.

The reason why you need to read carefully is simple.   I am offering conditional agreement.   This removes controversy, and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter, because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate.   You always have the option of dragging these conditions into a court of law only to be told that they are, indeed, perfectly lawful.   That is, of course, always your prerogative should you decide to waste your time.

For this reason it is important that you consider and respond to the offer in substance.   The ‘nearest official form’ will not suffice, and consequently is likely to be ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.

On the other hand there is a time-limit on the agreement being offered.   It is reasonable, and if it runs out then you and all associated parties are in default, removing any and all lawful excuse on your part for proceeding in this matter.

For these reasons it is recommended that you carefully consider this notice and respond in substance, which means actually addressing the points raised herein.

You have apparently made allegations of criminal conduct against me.

You have apparently made demands upon me.

I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them.   I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of inalienable Natural Rights.

Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 (seven) days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am legal fiction ‘person’ Mr Christopher Mark Lees and that I owe £70 for services rendered by your company, upon proof of claim of all of the following:


  1. Upon proof of claim that I am a person, and not a human being.


  1. Upon proof of claim that you know what a ‘person’ actually is, in legal terms.


  1. Upon proof of claim that you know the difference between a ‘human being’ and a ‘person’, legally speaking.


  1. Upon proof of claim that you know the difference between ‘legal’ and a ‘lawful’.


  1. Upon proof of claim that I am legal fiction ‘person’ Mr Christopher Mark Lees, being the entity to which your paperwork was addressed, and not Christopher: of the Lees family, as commonly called.


  1. Upon proof of claim that the charge was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.


  1. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are enforcing.


  1. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification.


9 Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to and that the laws covered within any alleged transgressions state that they apply to me within that named society.

Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity

By: ***_____________________ *** (Agent)

Christopher: of the Lees family

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights Reserved

Please address all future correspondence in the matter to a direct Human Self, namely Christopher: of the Lees family, as commonly called.

Encl: Original paperwork as received.

Less than 1% of parking tickets are appealed, mainly because motorists don’t know how. Two thirds of appeals are successful and 30% of those appealed never go to arbitration and one third of tickets should never have been issued. When you appeal, the Local Authority is likely to feed you meaningless and confusing information in order to get you to give up on your appeal. They may even tell you to pay the fine and then appeal, knowing full well that you can’t appeal after the fine is paid and they may well tell you that additional charges and costs will be added if you don’t pay immediately. Their objective is to part you from your money and they may even issue an automatic rejection of the appeal and fail to follow the appeals procedure which they are required to follow.

In some cases, the Council knowingly reject your valid grounds for appeal, hoping that you will give up and pay them. If you continue with your appeal, then 40% of the time, the Council will not turn up for the adjudication and so they lose automatically.

Many parking tickets are invalid and the appeal will be immediately successful because of this. The people issuing tickets are instructed to issue so many each day that they are very rushed when writing out each ticket. Each ticket must show:


  1. Your vehicle registration. If this is wrong, they will not be able to determine your address and so the ticket can just be ignored.


  1. The make of your vehicle. A copy of your V5 form demonstrates that the ticket is invalid.


  1. The precise location of the alleged offence must be shown on the ticket, that is, the house number outside which it was parked, or some other exact location described. If only a road name is given, then ask the Council to specify exactly where your vehicle was supposed to have been.


  1. Date and Time. If these are not shown correctly, then write to the Council stating that your vehicle was not at that location at that time, and if they can’t prove otherwise, then the ticket has to be cancelled.


  1. If there is an entry describing the colour of your vehicle and that entry is clearly wrong as the stated colour could not easily be mistaken for the actual colour, then the ticket is invalid.


  1. If the stated offence is not correct, then the ticket is not valid.


  1. If the amount of the fine is incorrect, then the ticket is invalid.


  1. The traffic Management Act 2004 requires that tickets which have been placed on vehicles must state:


  1. The date on which the notice is served.
  2. The name of the enforcement authority.
  3. The vehicle registration.
  4. The date and time of the offence.
  5. The grounds on which the fine is thought to be payable.
  6. The amount of the penalty charge.
  7. A statement that the charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the ticket was served.
  8. That if the fine is paid within fourteen days starting on the issue date, that there will be a reduction of any applicable discount.
  9. The manner in which the charge must be paid.
  10. If the fine is not paid within the period of g. above, then a notice to the owner may be served by the enforcement authority on the owner of the vehicle.


If any of these are wrong or are omitted, or if the ticket is issued more than six months after the alleged offence, then the ticket is invalid and unenforceable. Interestingly, they will not admit that the actual owner of ‘your’ vehicle is the DVLA and that you are only the “registered keeper” of that vehicle.

The exact wording is critical and the ticket becomes invalid if the prescribed wording is not there. The required wording is:


  1. The date of the notice, which must be the date on which it is posted and this must be on the main body of the ticket as the tear-off section at the bottom does not form part of the actual Penalty Charge Notice. It has to say “Date of Notice” and if it doesn’t, then it is invalid.


  1. That the penalty charge must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the penalty charge notice is served.


  1. That if the penalty charge is paid not later than the applicable date, the penalty charge will be reduced by the amount of any applicable discount.


  1. That if after the last day of the period referred to in 2. above, then (i) no representations have been made in accordance with regulation 4 of the Representations and Appeals Regulations; and (ii) the penalty charge has not been paid, the enforcement authority may increase the penalty charge by the amount of any applicable surcharge and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;


  1. The amount of the increased penalty charge; and


  1. That the penalty charge notice is being served by post for one of the following reasons:


(i) that the penalty charge notice is being served by post on the basis of a record produced by an approved device;

(ii) that it is being so served, because a civil enforcement officer attempted to serve a penalty charge notice by affixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person in charge of the vehicle but was prevented from doing so by some person; or

(iii) that it is being so served because a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a penalty charge notice for service in accordance with regulation 9, but the vehicle was driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or had served it in accordance with regulation 9

Failure to ensure correct wording is printed on the PCN means that the ticket does not conform to legally recognised standards and so is unenforceable. For example, if the ticket refers to “a sum” rather than “a penalty” then the that is enough to invalidate the ticket. There is more detail on this along with successful appeal cases which can be quoted and templates for letters of appeal at Remember that the Council is doing a volume business here and is not inclined to put very much effort into any one ticket if it is disputed. A recent news item remarked that one Council has twelve million pounds outstanding in unpaid parking fines. Now that is definitely a volume business – one which is rigged against the motorist in many different ways and which relies almost entirely on the motorist’s ignorance of the exact details.

Yellow lines and parking restriction notices have to be clearly marked and in good condition for them to be enforceable. If they are not and a ticket is issued, then photograph them to support your appeal.

A vehicle may not be clamped or towed away from a ‘paid for’ marked bay during the thirty minutes following the expiry of the ‘paid for’ period.

If all of the ticket issuing machines in a Pay and Display area are not working, you can park there without paying, but leave a note on the vehicle saying that all of the ticket machines areout of order.

You may legally stop for loading in a Pay and Display marked bay without displaying a ticket.

Parking on Private Land

Private parking tickets are only notices issued by a company saying that they intend to take you to court for trespassing on their land or alternatively, breaching your “contract” with them and they are offering you the option of paying them and settling out of court.

Only the driver can be subject to any charges – the owner is not involved in any way nor does the driver have any legal obligation to identify the driver. If you don’t pay, then the company has to take the matter through the small claims court where they will be required to prove that the driver entered into a contract with them and then breached that contract. There is no criminal element involved in any of this.

If you were not the driver and receive a reminder through the post, just inform them that you do not know who the driver was at that time and tell them never to contact you again. If you were the driver, then ask them to provide proof of who the driver was at that time. If they make a claim, then they have to prove who the driver was and you do not need to prove that you were not the driver. Much more detail is available in an eBook from the web site.

Consent   All men are born equal and so nobody has the right to command you, make demands of you or force you to do anything.   The most that anyone can do is to make you an offer.   Even though they may say that it is an “Order” or a “Demand” or a “Summons”, it is in reality, an offer which you are free to accept, or not accept, as you choose.   This is why they keep using “Applications”, “Registrations” and “Submissions” as those things give them power over you through your (unwitting) consent.   They are hoping that you will break the law by the way that you deal with their offer.   If you just ignore the offer, you are stepping into what is called “dishonour” so the only effective way of dealing with the offer is ‘conditional acceptance’ as already mentioned.   If you accept their offer without imposing any conditions, then you are accepting that they have the power to order you around, and that places you under their authority, because you have just chosen to accept their offer (even though you may not understand that you are accepting their offer for them to have authority over you).

They are also very keen to get you arguing with them as that also places you in “dishonour” and if there is a court case, the judge just looks to see who is in dishonour.   Remember, in civil cases the court is a commercial operation where the judge doesn’t care who is right or wrong, just who will pay the court.   So, we accept all offers but with our conditions attached to each offer and that prevents them taking us to court – remember, courts only deal with disputes and if you accept (conditionally) each offer, there can’t be any dispute and so there can’t be any kind of court involvement.   Some offers are “Notices” and a Notice has to be clear, concise and unequivocal.   You can discharge a Notice by seeking clarification, that is by writing back, asking the meaning of a word, stating that you don’t understand the word.   They were hoping that you would just ignore the Notice and so go into dishonour and become liable.

A Parking Ticket is a “Notice”, and please be aware that a Parking Ticket is not a bill, but instead it is a Notice telling you that there is something to which you should pay attention.   So you write back saying that you have noticed their Notice and that as they appear to think that you owe them money, you are happy to pay, but first you need some verification before payment is made.   “First, there is a need to verify the debt, so please send me a bill with a signature on it.   Also, I need to see the lawful, two-party contract supporting that bill”.   As they can’t supply either of those things, it kills the claim stone dead, so just keep insisting that they either supply those things or else stop bothering you.

An interesting alternative is that if they send you a final notice marked “Remittance”, then that piece of paper actually has the value of the money amount written on it.   The really silly thing is that you have the option to write “Accepted for value” on that piece of paper, sign it with your name and post it back to them, and technically, that concludes the matter by paying the amount demanded.   Who was it that said “it’s a mad, mad, mad, mad world”?   Actually, the payment comes out of the vast amount of money which your strawman has accumulated over the years, and your signing the document as “Accepted for value”, authorises them to take the payment from your strawman account and that suits them as well as suiting you.   There is a web site for checking how much you strawman is worth – see this video where the presenter discovers that his strawman has $224,440,000 as it’s current balance and the web site also states who is currently managing the strawman account for him.   Your writing “Accepted for Value” means that you are authorising them to take the amount they want out of the strawman account which has such a large amount in it that the balance will hardly be affected at all.

Society   We come now to the very difficult subject of British society.   I certainly don’t know all the answers in this area.   A society is a group of people who willingly join together and abide by a set of rules decided on by the members of that society.   Loosely speaking, the system which has been set up by the commercial companies who have control of Britain, is a society.   It is one which has good features as well as bad features.   Common sense says that there is an advantage for any large number of people to organise themselves together and have skilled specialists provide paid services for the other members of that society.

For example, having a communal collection to enable roads, water supplies, sewerage and the like, certainly makes sense.   The National Health Service also looks like a good idea as does having a state pension and benefits for those who are unfortunate enough to become ill or who are unable to find work.   However, those things have been subverted by those in charge, and manoeuvred into a state where these things serve their ends rather than the needs of the general population.   The collection of Council Tax is essentially a protection racket where people are told that they must pay or else force will be used against them.

While a country-wide medical service sounds like a good thing, it has been reported that the price of some of the medicines supplied to the National Health Service now cost literally ten times what they did two years ago.   This looks very much as if the people in control of that service are using it to make massive profits on pharmaceuticals, and probably many other services such as parking where millions per year are made from people who have no option but to park in the hospital grounds.   So, what looks like a sensible arrangement, appears to have been converted to something different.   Perhaps this is an unduly cynical view, but it is certainly in line with many of the other scams which are being run.

Income Tax was introduced as a temporary measure in connection with a war (and who organises wars?).   It has never been removed and yet the country did not seem to have any major problems when there was no Income Tax.   The employees of the commercial company which runs the country – those people who take the title of Member of Parliament or some similar meaningless title, spend a lot of time thinking up “new legislation” which if it can be introduced without too many people noticing it, will become a “statute”.   I suggest that the main intention of all legislation is to provide a smoke-screen to hide additional charges which members of the public are required to pay.   An argument can be that “you elected” those politicians, so you must abide by whatever they dictate.   This carefully avoids mention of the fact that those politicians have actually nothing whatsoever to do with the public, other than to give the appearance that the public has some say in what happens, while the reality is that everything that does happen is dictated by the (non-elected) owners of the companies in charge.

The payment of benefits to those in need looks like a very good and necessary thing, but the people in charge see it as an admission that the adult is not capable of taking care of himself and so they literally think of these ordinary people as “cattle” (their word, not mine).   What they ignore is the fact that their many, many direct and indirect taxes and charges, along with the low level of pay which they reckon that people can be made to work for, are the things which have many ordinary, hard-working people in the very poor financial positions which they despise.   They are willing to cheat, steal and lie while the ordinary person is not comfortable doing those things.   So, what should be a good and helpful system, has been changed into an oppressive thing which is used to force people into dependency.

While a certain level of public contribution for what are thought of as being essential services, is understandable and a desirable thing, that system has been twisted into a mechanism to enslave and defraud ordinary people.   It has long since reached a ridiculous level with the average person being expected to pay Income Tax, Council Tax, Inheritance Tax, National Insurance, Capital Gains Tax, Stamp Duty on house purchases, Value Added Tax, Parking charges, Airport charges, Fuel Tax, Road Tax, Import Duty, Tax on alcohol, Tax on tobacco, payments for a driving licence, passport, TV licence … the list goes on and on and on and additional items are added all the time.

People who have been caught in this system for many years will have already paid so much that they will not want to leave the system and lose the pension for which they have been paying for so long.   Others may well consider starting to refuse to pay some of the things demanded of the strawman – things such as Council Tax, TV licence and the like.   This is a personal choice and one which should be though about carefully before any action is taken.

Please note that this web site does not provide you with legal advice, but instead, presents facts for information purposes only.   If you want legal advice, then consult a lawyer.

The Armed Services   The commercial company which has chosen the name “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”, has a large number of people employed in what it calls ‘the British Armed Forces’.   Most countries have a similar arrangement.   If you were asked “what is the purpose of these armed and trained people?” what would your reply be?

It may surprise you to know that the people who employ them want them to protect them (the employers) from their enemies.   Not too startling an idea you say.   Yes, as you say, not too startling a revelation, but what may surprise you to discover is that the enemy is quite openly stated to be you!   So, not only do they describe you as a “monster” but also as their “enemy”.

Because they are so heavily outnumbered, they are actually frightened of you and feel that they need armed bodyguards to keep them safe from the anger of ordinary people, in case they every find out how they are being manipulated and robbed.   In passing, they consider anybody who asks permission to do something which they are already entitled to do under Common Law, to be a “child” and so, of no consequence.

Let’s check out a possible scenario.   You take some young people to a McDonalds restaurant and order several meals.   When the food has been prepared, the manager says, “I will do a deal with you: you can have your meals free if you just take this loaded revolver and go over to that corner table and shoot that man dead – there will be no comeback as I am authorising you to do it”.   Having blinked a few times, you ask why you should shoot him dead when he has never done anything to you.   The manager then says, “he has never done anything to me either, but he has a lot of money in his wallet and I want to steal it, so just go and shoot him dead, it’s ok to do that because I am telling you to do it”.

Sound a bit mad?   Well, it should do as murder is a criminal offence under Common Law, and somebody telling you to do it and it is ok because they say so, is quite ridiculous.   Nobody has the authority to tell you to murder somebody – remember, all of us were born with exactly the same rights and privileges, and nobody has authority over anyone else, and most definitely not to be able to authorise murder.

The owners of the commercial company which amusingly is thought of as “the government” are in the same position as the manager of that commercial company, McDonalds and they have the same lack of authority to breach Common Law and send their armed employees into another country to kill the people there – people who have done them no harm and whom they want to rob.   All wars and recessions are deliberately manoeuvred by the people who gain financially from them.   Did you ever wonder why vast sums of ‘public’ money are spent every year on arms?   Who owns the companies which make the profits on selling these arms?   Who gets the profits on rebuilding the places damaged or destroyed by “your” very own army?   Who makes a profit on ‘lending’ vast sums of imaginary money to the country which has been devastated by their unprovoked actions, creating an imaginary debt which can never be repaid?

Since World War Two, more than four million people have died as a result of commercial companies interfering in other countries, and every one of those deaths was a criminal offence under Common Law.   These companies believe that they and their employees are above the law and so they do whatever they want.   From time to time, these companies demand that people are, without their consent, conscripted into their armed forces.   Do you ever remember being asked if you would consent to such press-gang operations?   If you were asked – did you say “Yes”?   And if you did, does it make it lawful to force the people who said “No”?   Do you ever get the impression that things are done which breach both your personal rights and the demands of Common Law?

Not only does invading other countries and murdering the people there destroy them, but it also has a major negative impact on the people who joined the armed forces, not being aware that their (commercial) employers are the terrorists of this world.   Try watching this short video to see the impact that it has on ordinary, decent people.   Do you feel that this is a little far-fetched?   Well, it was reported on UK national TV news on 6th September 2010 that ex-Army Chief, General Sir Richard Dannatt claimed that “vested interests” rather than national security had decided military spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.   All major wars are carried out for commercial reasons although that fact will never, ever, be admitted publicly.

Michael Rivero has put together a concise statement on the situation in America, (which actually impacts on the whole world). His statement is here where he says:

I know that many people have a great deal of difficulty with understanding just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks on to nations, so let me share a few examples, in order that that you can understand why the US Government is engaged in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

The United States fought the war of the American Revolution primarily over the Currency Act of King George III, which forced the colonists to conduct their business only using printed bank notes borrowed from the Bank of England at interest. After the revolution, the new United States adopted a radically different economic system in which the government issued its own value-based money, so that private banks like the Bank of England were not siphoning off the wealth of the people through interest-bearing bank notes.

“The refusal of King George 3rd to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the ordinary man from the clutches of the money manipulators, was probably the prime cause of the revolution”. — Benjamin Franklin, Founding Father

But bankers are nothing if not dedicated to their schemes to acquire your wealth, and they know how easy it is to corrupt the leaders of a nation. Just one year after Mayer Amschel Rothschild had uttered his infamous statement: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who makes the laws”, the bankers succeeded in setting up a new Private Central Bank called the First Bank of the United States, largely through the efforts of the Rothschild’s chief US supporter, Alexander Hamilton.

Founded in 1791, by the end of its twenty year charter the First Bank of the United States had almost ruined the nation’s economy, while enriching the bankers. Congress refused to renew the charter and signalled their intention to go back to a state-issued value-based currency on which the people paid no interest at all to any banker. This resulted in a threat from Nathan Mayer Rothschild against the US Government: “Either the application for renewal of the charter is granted, or the United States will find itself involved in a most disastrous war”. Congress still refused to renew the charter for the First Bank of the United States, whereupon Nathan Mayer Rothschild railed, “Teach those impudent Americans a lesson! Bring them back to colonial status!”

Financed by the Rothschild-controlled Bank of England, Britain then launched the war of 1812 to re-colonise the United States and force them back into the slavery of the Bank of England, or to plunge the United States into so much debt they would be forced to accept a new private central bank. The plan worked. Even though the War of 1812 was won by the United States, Congress was forced to grant a new charter for yet another private bank issuing the public currency as loans at interest, and that was the Second Bank of the United States. Once again, private bankers were in control of the nation’s money supply and cared not who made the laws or how many British and American soldiers had to die for it.

Once again the nation was plunged into debt, unemployment, and poverty through the plundering of the private central bank, and in 1832 Andrew Jackson successfully campaigned for his second term as President under the slogan, “Jackson And No Bank!” True to his word, Jackson succeeds in blocking the renewal of the charter for the Second Bank of the United States.

“Gentlemen! I too have been a close observer of the doings of the Bank of the United States. I have had men watching you for a long time, and am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! If I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I have determined to rout you out, and by the Eternal, (bringing his fist down on the table) I will rout you out!” — Andrew Jackson, shortly before ending the charter of the Second Bank of the United States. From the original minutes of the Philadelphia committee of citizens sent to meet with President Jackson (February 1834), according to Andrew Jackson and the Bank of the United States (1928) by Stan V. Henkels

Shortly after President Jackson (the only American President to actually pay off the National Debt) ended the Second Bank of the United States, there was an attempted assassination which failed when both pistols used by the assassin, Richard Lawrence, failed to fire. Lawrence later said that with Jackson dead, “Money would be more plenty”.

Of course, the present day American public school system is as subservient to the bankers’ wishes to keep certain items of history from you, just as the corporate media is subservient to Monsanto’s wishes to keep the dangers of Genetically Modified foodstuffs from you, and the Global Warming cult’s wishes to conceal from you the fact that the Earth has actually been cooling for the last 16 years. Thus is should come as little surprise, that much of the real reasons for the events of the Civil War are not well known to the average American.

When the Confederacy seceded from the United States, the bankers once again saw the opportunity for a rich harvest of debt, and offered to fund Lincoln’s efforts to bring the south back into the union, but at 30% interest. Lincoln remarked that he would not free the black man by enslaving the white man to the bankers and using his authority as President, he issued a new government currency, the “greenback”. This was a direct threat to the wealth and power of the central bankers, who responded quickly.

“If this mischievous financial policy, which has its origin in North America, becomes entrenched, then that Government will issue it’s own money without cost. It will pay off debts and be without debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on it’s commerce. It will become prosperous to a degree which is without precedent in the history of the world. The brains, and wealth of all countries will migrate to North America. That country must be destroyed or it will destroy every monarchy on the globe”. — The London Times responding to Lincoln’s decision to issue government Greenbacks to finance the Civil War, rather than agree to private banker’s loans at 30% interest.

In 1872 New York bankers sent a letter to every bank in the United States, urging them to fund any newspapers which opposed government-issued money (Lincoln’s greenbacks): “Dear Sir: It is advisable to do all in your power to sustain such prominent daily and weekly newspapers… as will oppose the issuing of greenback paper money, and that you also withhold patronage or favours from all applicants who are not willing to oppose the Government issue of money. Let the Government issue the coin and the banks issue the paper money of the country…To restore to circulation the Government issue of money, will be to provide the people with money, and will therefore seriously affect your individual profit as bankers and lenders”. — Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

“It will not do to allow the greenback, as it is called, to circulate as money any length of time, as we cannot control that.” — Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

“Slavery is likely to be abolished by the war, power, and chattel slavery destroyed. This, I and my European friends are in favour of, for slavery is but the owning of labour and carries with it the care for the labourer, while the European plan, led on by England, is for capital to control labour by controlling the wages. THIS CAN BE DONE BY CONTROLLING THE MONEY”. — Triumphant plutocracy; the story of American public life from 1870 to 1920, by Lynn Wheeler

Goaded by the private bankers, much of Europe supported the Confederacy against the Union, with the expectation that victory over Lincoln would mean the end of the Greenback. France and Britain considered an outright attack on the United States to aid the confederacy, but were held at bay by Russia, which had just ended the serfdom system and had a state central bank similar to the system the United States had been founded on. Left free of European intervention, the Union won the war, and Lincoln announced his intention to go on issuing greenbacks. Following Lincoln’s assassination, the Greenbacks were pulled from circulation and the American people forced to go back to an economy based on bank notes borrowed at interest from the private bankers.

Finally, in 1913, the Private Central Bankers of Europe, in particular the Rothschilds of Great Britain and the Warburgs of Germany, met with their American financial collaborators on Jekyll Island, Georgia to form a new banking cartel with the express purpose of forming the Third Bank of the United States, with the aim of placing complete control of the United States money supply once again under the control of private bankers. Owing to hostility over the previous banks, the name was changed to “The Federal Reserve” system in order to grant the new bank a quasi-governmental image, but in fact it is a privately owned bank, no more “Federal” than Federal Express. Indeed, in 2012, the Federal Reserve successfully rebuffed a Freedom of Information Lawsuit by Bloomberg News on the grounds that as a private banking corporation and not actually a part of the government, the Freedom of Information Act did not apply to the operations of the Federal Reserve. The year 1913 proved to be a transformative year for the nation’s economy, first with the passage of the 16th “income tax” Amendment and the false claim that it had been ratified.

“I think that if you were to go back and try top find and review the ratification of the 16th Amendment, which was the internal revenue, the income tax, I think that if you went back and examined that carefully, you would find that a sufficient number of States never ratified that Amendment”. – U.S. District Court Judge James C. Fox (Sullivan vs United States, 2003).

Later in 1913, apparently unwilling to risk another questionable amendment, Congress passed the Federal Reserve Act over the Christmas holiday, while members of Congress who were opposed to the measure were at home. This was a very underhanded deal, as the Constitution which explicitly grants Congress the authority to issue the public currency, does not authorise it to delegate that authority, and so it should have required a new Amendment to allow Congress to transfer that authority to a private bank. But Congress did pass it, and President Woodrow Wilson signed it (as he had promised the bankers that he would, in exchange for generous campaign contributions). Wilson later regretted that decision, stating: “I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is now controlled by its system of credit. We are no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men”. – Woodrow Wilson 1919.

The next year, World War One started, and it is important to remember that prior to the creation of the Federal Reserve, there was no such thing as a world war.

The First World War started between Austria-Hungary and Serbia, but quickly shifted to focus to Germany, whose industrial capacity was seen as an economic threat to Great Britain, who saw the decline of the British Pound as a result of too much emphasis on financial activity to the neglect of agriculture, industrial development, and infrastructure (not unlike the present day United States).

Although pre-war Germany had a private central bank, that bank was heavily restricted, and inflation kept to reasonable levels. Under government control, investment was guaranteed to internal economic development, and Germany was seen as a major power. So, in the media of the day, Germany was portrayed as the prime instigator of World War One, and subsequently, not just defeated, but had its industrial base flattened.

Following the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was ordered to pay the war costs of all of the participating nations, even though Germany had not actually started the war. This amounted to three times the value of all of Germany itself. Germany’s private central bank, to whom Germany had gone deeply into debt to pay the costs of the war, broke free of government control, and massive inflation followed (mostly triggered by currency speculators), permanently trapping the German people in endless debt.

When the Weimar Republic collapsed economically, it opened the door for the National Socialists to take power. Their first financial move was to issue their own state currency which was not borrowed from private central bankers. Freed from having to pay interest on the money in circulation, Germany blossomed and quickly began to rebuild its industry. The media called it “The German Miracle”. TIME magazine lionized Hitler for the amazing improvement in life for the German people and the explosion of German industry, and even named him TIME Magazine’s “Man Of The Year” in 1938.

Once again, Germany’s industrial output became a threat to Great Britain, resulting in these comments:

“Should Germany merchandise (do business) again in the next 50 years, we have led this war (WW1) in vain”. – Winston Churchill in The Times (1919)

“We will force this war upon Hitler, if he wants it or not”. – Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)

“Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it.” – Winston Churchill (November 1936 speaking to US – General Robert E. Wood).

“This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany”. – Winston Churchill (- Autumn 1939 broadcast) .

Germany’s state-issued value-based currency was also a direct threat to the wealth and power of the private central banks, and as early as 1933 they started to organise a global boycott against Germany to strangle this upstart ruler who thought he could break free of private central bankers!

As had been the case in World War One, Great Britain and other nations threatened by Germany’s economic power looked for an excuse to go to war, and as public anger in Germany grew over the boycott, Hitler foolishly gave them that excuse. Years later, in a spirit of candour, the real reasons for that war were made clear:

“The war wasn’t only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we had intended to, prevented this war from breaking out without firing one shot, but we didn’t want to”. – Winston Churchill to Truman (Fultun, USA March 1946).

“Germany’s unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the world-finance couldn’t profit any more. …We butchered the wrong pig”. – Winston Churchill (The Second World War – Bern, 1960).

As a side note, we need to step back before WW2 and recall Marine Major General Smedley Butler. In 1933, Wall Street bankers and financiers had bankrolled the successful coups by both Hitler and Mussolini. Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was financing Hitler right up to the day war was declared with Germany. And they decided that a fascist dictatorship in the United States based on the one on Italy would be far better for their business interests than Roosevelt’s “New Deal” which threatened massive wealth re-distribution to recapitalise the working and middle class of America. So the Wall Street tycoons recruited General Butler to lead the overthrow of the US Government and install a “Secretary of General Affairs” who would be answerable to Wall Street and not the people, would crush social unrest and shut down all labour unions.

General Butler pretended to go along with the scheme but then exposed the plot to Congress. Congress, then as now in the pocket of the Wall Street bankers, refused to act. When Roosevelt learned of the planned coup he demanded the arrest of the plotters, but the plotters simply reminded Roosevelt that if any one of them were sent to prison, their friends on Wall Street would deliberately collapse the still-fragile economy and blame Roosevelt for it. Roosevelt was thus unable to act until the start of WW2, at which time he prosecuted many of the plotters under the Trading With The Enemy Act. The Congressional minutes into the coup were finally released in 1967 and became the inspiration for the movie, “Seven Days in May” but with the true financial villains erased from the script.

“I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of our country’s most agile military force — the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from second lieutenant to Major General. During that period I spent more of my time being a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected that I was just a part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all members of the military profession I never had an original thought until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of the higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service. Thus I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-12. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. I was rewarded with honours, medals and promotion. Looking back on it, I feel I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three city districts. I operated on three continents”. — General Smedley Butler, former US Marine Corps Commandant,1935

As President, John F. Kennedy understood the predatory nature of private central banking, he understood why Andrew Jackson fought so hard to end the Second Bank of the United States. So Kennedy wrote and signed Executive Order 11110 which ordered the US Treasury to issue a new public currency, the United States Note.

Kennedy’s United States Notes were not borrowed form the Federal Reserve but created by the US Government and backed by the silver stockpiles held by the US Government. It represented a return to the system of economics on which the United States had been founded, and this was perfectly legal for Kennedy to do. All told, some four and a half billion dollars went into public circulation, eroding interest payments to the Federal Reserve and loosening their control over the nation. Five months later John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas Texas, and the United States Notes pulled from circulation and destroyed (except for samples held by collectors). John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named as part of the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain that the banking dimensions behind the assassination were concealed from the public.

As we enter the eleventh year of what future history will most certainly describe as World War Three, we need to examine the financial dimensions behind the wars.

Towards the end of World War Two, when it became obvious that the allies were going to win and dictate the post war environment, the major world economic powers met at Bretton Woods, a luxury resort in New Hampshire in July 1944, and hammered out the Bretton Woods agreement for international finance. The British Pound lost its position as the global trade and reserve currency and its place was taken by the US dollar (part of the price demanded by Roosevelt in exchange for the US entry into the war). Without the economic advantages of being the world’s central currency, Britain was forced to nationalise the Bank of England in 1946. The Bretton Woods agreement, was ratified in 1945, and in addition to making the US dollar the global reserve and trade currency, obliged the signatory nations to tie their currencies to the dollar. The nations which ratified Bretton Woods did so on two conditions. The first was that the Federal Reserve would refrain from over-printing the dollar as a means to loot real products and produce from other nations in exchange for ink and paper; basically an imperial tax. That assurance was backed up by the second requirement, which was that the US dollar would always be convertible to gold at $35 per ounce.

Of course, the Federal Reserve, being a private bank and not answerable to the US Government, did start overprinting paper dollars, and much of the perceived prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s was the result of foreign nations’ obligations to accept the paper notes as being worth gold at the rate of $35 an ounce. Then in 1970, France looked at the huge pile of paper notes sitting in their vaults, for which real French products like wine and cheese had been traded, and notified the United States government that they would exercise their option under Bretton Woods to return the paper notes for gold at the $35 per ounce exchange rate. Of course, the United States had nowhere near the gold to redeem the paper notes, so on August 15th, 1971, Richard Nixon “temporarily” suspended the gold convertibility of the US Federal Reserve Notes.

This “Nixon shock” effectively ended Bretton Woods and many global currencies started to disengage from the US dollar. Worse still, since the United States had collateralised their loans with the nation’s gold reserves, it quickly became apparent that the US Government did not in fact have enough gold to cover the outstanding debts. Foreign nations began to get very nervous about their loans to the US and understandably were reluctant to lend any additional money to the United States without some form of collateral. So Richard Nixon started the environmental movement, with the EPA and its various programs such as “wilderness zones”, Road-less areas”, Heritage rivers”, “Wetlands”, all of which took vast areas of public lands and made them off limits to the American people who were technically the owners of those lands. But Nixon had little concern for the environment and the real purpose of this land grab under the guise of the environment was to pledge those pristine lands and their vast mineral resources as collateral on the national debt. The plethora of different programs was simply to conceal the true scale of how much American land was being pledged to foreign lenders as collateral on the government’s debts; eventually almost 25% of the nation itself.

With open lands for collateral already in short supply, the US Government embarked on a new program to shore up sagging international demand for the dollar. The United States approached the world’s oil producing nations, mostly in the Middle East, and offered them a deal. In exchange for only selling their oil for dollars, the United States would guarantee the military safety of those oil-rich nations. The oil rich nations would agree to spend and invest their US paper dollars inside the United States, in particular in US Treasury Bonds, redeemable through future generations of US taxpayers. The concept was labelled the “petrodollar”. In effect, the US, no longer able to back the dollar with gold, was now backing it with oil. Other peoples’ oil, and the necessity to keep control over those oil nations in order to prop up the dollar has shaped America’s foreign policy in the region ever since.

But as America’s manufacturing and agriculture has declined, the oil producing nations faced a dilemma. Those piles of US Federal Reserve notes were not able to purchase much from the United States because the United States had little (other than real estate) which anyone wanted to buy. Europe’s cars and aircraft were superior and less costly, while experiments with GMO food crops led to nations refusing to buy US food exports. Israel’s constant belligerence against its neighbours caused them to wonder if the US could actually keep their end of the petrodollar arrangement. Oil-producing nations started to talk of selling their oil for whatever currency the purchasers chose to use. Iraq, already hostile to the United States following Desert Storm, demanded the right to sell their oil for Euros in 2000 and in 2002, the United Nations agreed to allow it under the “Oil for food” program instituted following Desert Storm. One year later the United States re-invaded Iraq, lynched Saddam Hussein, and placed Iraq’s oil back on the world market only for US dollars.

Following 9-11, the clear US policy shift away from being an impartial broker of peace in the Middle East to one of unquestioned support for Israel’s aggressions, only further eroded confidence in the Petrodollar deal and even more oil-producing nations started openly talking of oil trade for other global currencies.

Over in Libya, Muammar Gaddafi had instituted a state-owned central bank and a value-based trade currency, the Gold Dinar. Gaddafi announced that Libya’s oil was for sale, but only for the Gold Dinar. Other African nations, seeing the rise of the Gold Dinar and the Euro, even as the US dollar continued its inflation-driven decline, flocked to the new Libyan currency for trade. This move had the potential to seriously undermine the global hegemony of the dollar. French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly went so far as to call Libya a “threat” to the financial security of the world.

So, the United States invaded Libya, brutally murdered Gaddafi (the object lesson of Saddam’s lynching not being enough of a message, apparently), imposed a private central bank, and returned Libya’s oil output to dollars only. The gold that was to have been made into the Gold Dinars is, as of last report, unaccounted for.

According to General Wesley Clark, the master plan for the “dollarification” of the world’s oil nations included seven targets, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran (Venezuela, which dared to sell their oil to China for the Yuan, is a late addition). What is notable about the original seven nations originally targeted by the US is that none of them are members of the Bank for International Settlements, the private central bankers private central bank, located in Switzerland. This meant that these nations were deciding for themselves how to run their nations’ economies, rather than submit to the international private banks.

Now the gun sights of the bankers are on Iran, which dares to have a government central bank and sell their oil for whatever currency they choose. The war agenda is, as always, to force Iran’s oil to be sold only for dollars and to force them to accept a privately owned central bank.

The German government recently asked for the return of some of their gold bullion from the Bank of France and the New York Federal Reserve. France has said it will take 5 years to return Germany’s gold. The United States has said they will need 8 years to return Germany’s gold. This suggests strongly that the Bank of France and the NY Federal Reserve have used the deposited gold for other purposes, and they are scrambling to find new gold to cover the shortfall and prevent a gold run. So it is inevitable that suddenly France invades Mali, ostensibly to combat Al Qaeda, with the US joining in. Mali just happens to be one of the world’s largest gold producers with gold accounting for 80% of Mali exports. War for the bankers does not get more obvious than that!

Americans have been raised by a public school system and media that constantly assures them that the reasons for all these wars and assassinations are many and varied. The US claims to bring democracy to the conquered lands (they haven’t; the usual result of a US overthrow is the imposition of a dictatorship, such as the 1953 CIA overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected government of Mohammad Mosaddegh and the imposition of the Shah, or the 1973 CIA overthrow of Chile’s democratically elected government of President Salvador Allende, and the imposition of Agusto Pinochet), or to save a people from a cruel oppressor, revenge for 9-11, or that tired worn-out catch all excuse for invasion: “weapons of mass destruction”. Assassinations are always passed off as “crazed lone nuts” to obscure the real agenda.

The real agenda is simple. It is enslavement of the people by the creation of a false sense of obligation. That obligation is false because the Private Central Banking system, by design, always creates more debt than money with which to pay that debt. Private Central Banking is not science, it is a religion; a set of arbitrary rules created to benefit the priesthood, meaning the owners of the Private Central Bank. The fraud persists, with often lethal results, because the people are tricked into believing that this is the way life is supposed to be and no alternative exists or should be dreamt of. The same was true of two earlier systems of enslavement, ‘Rule by Divine Right’ and ‘Slavery’, both of which are systems designed to trick people into obedience, and both of which are now recognised by modern civilization as illegitimate. Now we are entering a time in human history where we will recognise that ‘rule by debt’, or rule by Private Central Bankers issuing the public currency as a loan at interest, is equally illegitimate. It only works as long as people allow themselves to believe that this is the way life is supposed to be.

But understand this above all else, Private Central Banks do not exist to serve the people, the community, or the nation. Private Central Banks exist to serve their owners, to make them rich beyond the dreams of Midas and all for the cost of ink, paper, and the right bribe to the right official.

Behind all these wars, all these assassinations, the hundred million horrible deaths from all the wars lies a single policy of dictatorship. The private central bankers allow rulers to rule only on the condition that the people of a nation remain enslaved to the private central banks. Failing that, any ruler will be killed, and their nation invaded by those other nations which are already enslaved to private central banks.

The so-called “clash of civilizations” we read about on the corporate media is really a war between banking systems, with the private central bankers forcing themselves on to the rest of the world, no matter how many millions must die for it. Indeed the constant hatemongering against Muslims lies in a simple fact. Like the ancient Christians (prior to the Knights Templar’s private banking system), Muslims forbid usury (the lending of money at interest), and that is the reason why the American government and media insist that Muslims must be killed or converted. They refuse to submit to currencies issued at interest. They refuse to be debt slaves. So off to war American children must go, to spill their blood for the gold of the money-junkies. We barely survived the last two world wars. In the nuclear/bio weapon age, are the private central bankers willing to risk incinerating the whole planet just to feed their greed? Apparently so.

Flag waving and propaganda aside, all modern wars are wars by and for the private bankers, fought and bled for by third parties unaware of the true reason why they are expected to be killed and crippled. The process is quite simple. As soon as the Private Central Bank issues its currency as a loan at interest, the public is forced deeper and deeper into debt. When the people are reluctant to borrow any more, that is when the Keynesian economists demand the government borrow more to keep the pyramid scheme working. When both the people and government refuse to borrow any more, that is when wars are started, to plunge everyone even deeper into debt to pay for the war, then after the war to borrow more to rebuild. When the war is over, the people have about the same as they did before the war, except the graveyards are far larger and everyone is in debt to the private bankers for the next century. This is why Brown Brothers Harriman in New York was funding the rise of Adolf Hitler.

As long as Private Central Banks are allowed to exist, inevitably, as night follows day, there will be poverty, hopelessness, and millions of deaths in endless World Wars, until the Earth itself is sacrificed in flames to Mammon. The path to true peace on Earth lies in the abolishment of all private central banking everywhere, and a return to the state-issued value-based currencies that allow nations and people to become prosperous.

Michael Rivero

Summary   Before you were born, the bankers operated a scam intended to rob all members of the general public.   They removed all forms of money and replaced it with worthless notes which read “I promise to pay the bearer …” (with another worthless bank note).   They then managed to do away with the government and replace it with a group of commercial companies which they own.   They cunningly named these companies so that they look like a government.   They took over the printing of the worthless bank notes with their private company called “The Bank of England” which is meant to sound like a government organisation (although it most definitely isn’t).

The next step in their cunning plan, was to get their company which sounds like the government, to ask their other company “The Bank of England” to print them lots of (worthless) money and to charge interest on that money, over and above the face “value” of the currency.   This excess interest amount is called the “National Debt” in order to fool ordinary people into believing that their country somehow owes somebody large amounts of money.   Firstly, there is really nothing owed at all.   Secondly, there IS no money.   Thirdly, the country does not owe anything, and in the unlikely event that there were a genuine debt, then it has nothing to do with ordinary people as it is just a notional debt incurred by one commercial company to another commercial company (owned by the same people).   This supposed debt has been boosted over the years to a ridiculous level which could never, ever be paid off, and you will no doubt be glad to learn that all income tax is now paid to the owners of these commercial companies.   Isn’t it great to be paying vast sums of money to a commercial company which has never done anything for you and which holds you in utter contempt because you haven’t discovered their scam and continue to pay lots of ridiculous taxes, fees and charges, none of which you need to pay at all.   Combined, these charges amount to about 80% of a person’s earned income – do you enjoy living on one fifth of what you actually earn?

To strengthen their scam, they have invented a language of lies called “legal terminology” or “Legalese” where they have changed the meanings of ordinary English words in order to abuse and rob ordinary members of the public.   They have set up a company called “The Law Society” to train up unscrupulous people in their methods of lies and deception.   Their commercial company which pretends to be the government, keeps inventing new “statutes” which they pretend are laws (which they most definitely are not) and they keep telling everybody that they “must obey these laws”, and they have subverted policeman and policewomen and convinced them that they have to enforce these statutes.   The primary aim of these statutes is to take banknotes, goods and property from members of the public who have not yet discovered that it is a scam being run against them.   Many police officers are probably themselves ignorant of the fact that statutes are purely optional and no human is actually bound by them.

Just to clarify the situation, breaches of The Law are dealt with in a genuine court with a jury. All other matters, such as taxation, bank loans, parking restrictions, speed limits, and the like, are dealt with in a fake “court” which is a commercial company and part of a violent protection racket style scam which is wholly unlawful, but enforced by violence, threats and intimidation using bailiffs and police to protect the bailiffs from being attacked.

What you decide to do is entirely up to yourself.   You can continue to give away most of your income to fund people who want to harm you, or you can decide to step outside this corrupt system, and stop paying these people.   All humans are born equal, so there is nobody who has the right to order you around, unless you agree to give them that right.   The choice is yours.

An Overview of the Historical Con Job

If this has all been a lot of new information for you, then it might be useful to have a ‘thumbnail’ sketch of the outrageous confidence trick which is being played on you. So, here it is for your local area, and the same situation is found in almost every other area as well.

It all started before most people were born. It started with two brothers deciding to run a scam which would make them the richest people in the world and rig things so that everybody else worked for them without being aware of that fact. Even though they are literally brothers, in order to distinguish between them we will call them Mr Government and Mr Banker because that is what they needed to become in order to run this scam.

Mr Government set up a very clever system of interlocking commercial companies, choosing names for them which made them look like official government bodies, while in reality, they are just ordinary companies like any high-street shop. In order to strengthen the illusion, Mr Government hires people to work for him and gives them names like “Minister” or “Member of Parliament” or some other meaningless working title. He employs most of them to sit around and argue with each other, and from time to time, he swaps them around by asking members of the public to vote for who will be his employees for the next few years.

This is actually very clever, because it makes members of the public believe that their voting makes a difference, while Mr Government knows that it doesn’t as he sets company policy, and he makes all of the decisions, and he really couldn’t care less who happen to be his employees at any given moment.

Meanwhile, his brother Mr Banker has set up two commercial companies of his own. One he calls “The Bank of England” or some other suitable name for his particular location (and yes, there are actually more than two brothers in this family). The other company, he calls “The Mint”. He owns both and so decides exactly what each will do.

The action starts and Mr Government needs money with which to pay his employees, so he asks his brother Mr Banker to provide some. This is where the fun part starts. Our trusty Mr Banker “invents” the money and pretends that he has plenty although he actually has none at all. He “lends” a large amount, say, £1,000,000 to his brother Mr Government. This costs him nothing as it doesn’t exist, and it is just the first step in the scam.

His brother Mr Government now says that he has a “National Debt” of £1,200,000 which will increase by 20% (one fifth) every year if it is not paid off completely. His cunning plan of calling it a “National Debt” makes people think that ‘their country’ owes somebody something. The reality is that nobody owes anybody anything. Good, isn’t it? Very clever ! Without using anything of any value, the brothers have persuaded people that (a) they have a government (which they don’t) and (b) that their country has borrowed money for essential services and so their country is in debt to some kindly lender (which it isn’t). Very slick – these brothers aren’t stupid !

Next, Mr Government “pays” members of his staff with pieces of paper called ‘cheques’ and he sends them to his brother Mr Banker, to get those pieces of paper exchanged for ‘money’. But, Mr Banker does not have any money, so instead, he gets his company “The Mint” to print other pieces of paper called ‘currency’ and he gives these out in exchange for his brother’s cheques, swapping pieces of paper for other pieces of paper.

What is the value of these pieces of paper? The cost of the paper, ink and printing.

At this point, what have the brothers gained? Well, they have got a large number of people working for them, doing whatever they say, and it is costing them nothing.

But, that is just the first step. Now, Mr Government takes back 80% of what he ‘paid’ to his employees in the form of taxation. After all, the country is in debt and so Mr Government has to take money from everybody in order to repay the country’s debt – hasn’t he? Why does everybody have to pay? Because his employees say so. They invent “statutes” and all kinds of charges designed to move money from ordinary people into the pockets of Mr Government, who promptly pays most of it to his brother Mr Banker as the repayment of borrowing (nothing) and interest on the amount borrowed.

Where does the tax money paid by ordinary people come from? It is given to them to compensate them for the time and effort which they put in when working. This is real money, backed by the goods and services provided by the people who do the work. This is something of real value, and yet 80% of those valuable assets are taken from them by Mr Government. Why do people let this happen? Because they think that they have no choice and will be put in prison if they don’t. What they do not understand is that paying tax is optional and they don’t have to if they don’t want to.

Mr Banker is doing very well out of this. His brother is paying him lots of real money in exchange for the fake money which he invented. So, he decides to expand his business and do exactly the same thing to as many people as he can.

He offers to lend people money (which he will ‘invent’ and conjure up out of nothing) in order to allow them to buy whatever they want. We will skip the strawman here and just focus on the actual transaction offered by Mr Banker.

A house purchaser comes to Mr Banker, looking for a loan of £100,000. This is a deal on which Mr Banker can’t lose no matter what happens, so he will approve the deal unless he has some very, very good reason for not doing so. After all, it’s not going to cost him anything and he will be paid with real money gained through real work done by real people. The deal is for 17% interest per year for 25 years. If the deal runs for the full 25 years, then the borrower may well pay back as much as £433,557 according to a professional mortgage calculator result. That is, you pay back four times what you borrowed, even though what you were given was fake money and what you pay back is real work-backed money.

But, as Mr Government takes 80% of what you earn before you get to pay the mortgage, you need to earn £2,167,785 in that 25 year period as Mr Government will take £1,734,228 of it away from you in direct and hidden taxes. And to add insult to injury, Mr Government will give a large chunk of that £1,734,228 and give it to his brother Mr Banker in supposed payment of the (fake) “National Debt”. So, the house purchaser pays several times the borrowed amount, using his real money.

It gets worse. Mr Banker and Mr Government make sure that not enough currency is issued for people to be physically capable of paying the interest on their loans as there just isn’t enough currency in the entire economy for that to be possible. This is another cunning ploy. The people who earn most will not have a problem, but most people will have great difficulty and will have very little left after paying their mortgage. The slightest financial problem, such as losing a job, can put the average person in a position where they can’t pay the amount demanded. When that happens, and it HAS to happen in a substantial number of cases, then Mr Banker tries to take the property, using some of his brother’s “statutes” (which are NOT law) to justify his theft. He may even manage to send in bailiffs ahead of seizing the property, and seize many of the house purchaser’s personal possessions as well.

What the house purchaser needs to remember is that the original “loan” was fake and that Mr Banker never put up anything of value, the purchaser was never told the real amount which he would have to repay, a genuine contract was never drawn up, and in reality, it is not the human borrower which is being asked for the repayment.

Want to know what Mr Banker thinks of any borrower?

For evil to triumph, all that is necessary

is for good men to do nothing

For example:

The Petro Dollar

Perhaps you should consider the following video at which states:

Why did the United States attack Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen? Why are US operatives helping to de-stabilise Syria? And why is the United States government so intent in taking down Iran, in spite of the fact that Iran has not attacked any country since 1798?

And, what’s next? What are we headed for? When you look at the current trajectory that we are on, it doesn’t make any sense at all if you evaluate it on what we are taught in school. And it doesn’t make any sense if you base your world view on the propaganda that the mainstream media tries to pass off as news. But it makes perfect sense once you know the real motives of the powers that be. In order to understand those motives, we first have to take a look at history:

In 1945, Britain, with agreement, established the dollar as the world’s Reserve Currency, which meant that international commodities were priced in dollars. The agreement, which gave the United States a distinct financial advantage was made under the condition that those dollars would remain redeemable for gold at a consistent rate of $35 per ounce.

The United States promised not to print very much money but this was on the honour system because the Federal reserve refused to allow any audit or supervision of it’s printing presses.

In the years leading up to 1970, expenditures in the Vietnam War made it clear to many countries that the US was printing far more money than it had in gold, and in response, they began to ask for their gold back. This, of course, set off a rapid decline in the value of the dollar. The situation climaxed in 1971, when France attempted to withdraw it’s gold and Nixon refused. On 15th August, he made the following announcement:

This was obviously not a temporary suspension as he claimed, but rather a permanent default, and for the rest of the world who had entrusted the United States with their gold, it was outright theft. In 1973, President Nixon asked King Faisal of Saudi Arabia to accept only US dollars in payment for oil, and to invest any excess profits in

US Treasury Bonds, Notes and Bills. In return, Nixon offered military protection for Saudi oil fields. The same offer was extended to each of the key oil-producing countries, and by 1975, every member of OPEC had agreed to only sell their oil in US dollars.

The act of moving the dollar off gold and tying it to foreign oil, instantly forced every oil-importing country in the world to maintain a constant supply of Federal Reserve paper, and in order to get that paper, they would have to send real physical goods to America. This, was the birth of the Petro Dollar. Paper went out, everything America needed came in, and the United States got very, very rich as a result. It was the largest financial con in recorded history.

The Arms Race of the Cold War was a game of poker. Military Expenditures were the chips, and the US had an endless supply of chips. With the Petro Dollar under it’s belt, it was able to raise the stakes higher and higher, outspending every other country on the planet, until eventually, US military expenditure surpassed that of all of the other nations in the world combined – the Soviet Union never had a chance.

The collapse of the communist bloc in 1991, removed the last counterbalance to American military might. The United States was now an undisputed Super-power with no rival. Many hoped that this would mark the start of a new era of peace and stability. Unfortunately, there were those in high places who had other ideas. Within that same year, the US invaded Iraq in the first Gulf War, and after crushing the Iraqi military, and destroying their infrastructure, including water-purification plants and hospitals, crippling sanctions were imposed which prevented that infrastructure from being rebuilt.

Theses sanctions which were initiated by Bush Senior, and sustained throughout the entire Clinton administration, lasted for over a decade and were estimated to have killed over five hundred thousand children. The Clinton administration was fully aware of these figures.

A TV interviewer speaking to Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State for Clinton, asked: “We have heard that half a million children have died, I mean, that’s more children that died than in Hiroshima, and, and is the price worth it?”. To which Madeleine Albright replied: “I think that this is a very hard choice. We think that the price is worth it”.

Miss Albright, what exactly was worth killing 500,000 kids for? In November of 2000, Iraq began selling it’s oil exclusively in Euros. This was a direct attack on the dollar and on US financial dominance, and it wasn’t going to be tolerated. In response, the US government with the assistance of the mainstream media, began to build up a mass propaganda campaign claiming that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use them. In 2003, the US invaded and once they had control of the country, oil sales were immediately switched back to dollars. This is particularly noticeable as switching back to the dollar meant a 15% to 20% loss in revenue due to the Euro’s higher value. It doesn’t make any sense at all unless you take the Petro Dollar into account.

On 2nd March 2007, US General Wesley Clark said: “So I came back to see him a few weeks later and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said: ‘Are we still going to war with Iraq?’ and he said ‘Oh it’s worse than that’. He said as he reached over on his desk and picked up a piece of paper and he said ‘I just got this down from upstairs (meaning from the Secretary of Defence’s Office) today, this is a memo which describes how we are going to take out seven countries in five years, starting off with Iraq and Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran”.

Let’s take a look at the events of the past decade and see if you see a pattern. In Libya, Gadaffi was in a process of organising a block of African countries to create a gold-based currency called the “Dinar” which they intended to use to replace the dollar in that region. US and NATO forces helped to destabilise and topple the government in 2011 and after taking control of the region, US armed rebels executed Gadaffi in cold blood and immediately set up the Libyan Central Bank. Iran has been actively campaigning to pull oil sales off the dollar for some time now, and it has recently secured agreements to trade it’s oil in exchange for gold. In response, the US government with mainstream media assistance has been attempting to build international support for military strikes on the pretext of preventing Iran from building a nuclear weapon. In the mean time they established sanctions which they openly admit are aimed at causing a collapse of the Iranian economy.

Syria is Iran’s closest ally and they are bound by mutual defence agreements. The country is currently in the process of being destabilised with covert assistance from NATO and although Russia and China have warned the United States not to get involved, the White House has made statements in the past month indicating that they are considering military intervention. It should be clear that military intervention in Syria and Iran isn’t being considered – it is a foregone conclusion. Just as it was in Iraq and Libya, the US is actively working to create the context which gives them the diplomatic cover to do what they have already planned. The motive for these invasions and covert actions becomes clear when we look at them in their full context and ‘connect the dots’. Those who control the United States understand that if even a few countries begin to sell their oil in another currency, it will set off a chain reaction and the dollar will collapse. They understand that there is absolutely nothing else holding up the value of the dollar at this point and so does the rest of the world. But instead of accepting the fact that the dollar is nearing the end of it’s lifespan, the powers that be have made a calculated gambit. They have decided to use the brute force of the US military to crush each and every resistant State in the Middle East and Africa.

That in itself would be bad enough, but what you need to understand is that this is not going to end with Iran. China and Russia stated publicly and in no uncertain terms that they will not tolerate an attack on Iran or Syria. Iran is one of their key allies, one of the last independent oil-producers in the region, and they understand that if Iran falls, then they will have no way to escape the dollar without going to war. And yet, the United States is pushing forward in spite of the warnings. What we are witnessing here is a trajectory which leads straight to the unthinkable. It is a trajectory which was mapped out years ago in full awareness of the human consequences. But who was it that put us on this course? What kind of psychopath is willing to intentionally set off a global conflict which will lead to millions of deaths, just to protect the value of a paper currency? It obviously isn’t the President. The decision to invade Syria, Libya and Iran was made long before Obama had risen to the national spotlight, and yet, he is carrying out his duties just like the puppets who preceded him. So who is it that pulls the strings?

Often, the best answers to questions like this are found by asking another question “Cui Bono?” – “Who Benefits?” Obviously, those who have the power to print the dollar out of thin air have the most to lose if the dollar were to fall, and since 1913, that power has been held by the Federal Reserve. The Federal reserve is a private entity owned by a conglomerate of the most powerful banks in the world and the men who control those banks are the ones who pull those strings. To them, this is just a game. Your life, and the lives of those you love are just pawns on their chessboard. And like a spoiled four-year-old who tips the board on to the floor when he starts to lose, the powers that be are willing to start World War Three to keep control of the global financial system.

Remember that when these wars extend and accelerate. Remember that when your son, or your neighbour’s son comes back in a flag-draped coffin. Remember that when they point the finger at the new ‘bogeymen’ because the madmen who are running this show, will take this as far as you allow them to.

So, how much time do we have left? It’s a question which I hear constantly. But it is the wrong question. Asking how much time we have left is a passive posture. It is the attitude of a prisoner who is waiting to be taken out to a ditch and shot in the back of the head.

What are our chances? Can we change course? Also, the wrong question. The odds don’t matter any more. If you understand what we are facing, then you have a moral responsibility to do everything in your power to alter the course we are on, regardless of the odds. It is only when you stop basing your involvement on the chances of your success, that success actually becomes possible. To strip the ill-begotten power from the financial elites and bring these criminal cartels to justice, will require nothing less than a revolution. The government is not going to save us. The government is completely infiltrated and corrupt to the core. Looking to them for a solution at this point is utterly naive.

There are three stages of revolution and they are sequential. Stage One is already underway Stage One is the ideological resistance. In this stage we have to actively work to wake up as many people as possible about what is happening and the direction we are headed. All revolutions originate from a shift in the mind-set of the population and no other meaningful resistance is possible without it. Success in this stage of the game can be measured by the contagion of ideas. When idea reaches critical mass, it begins to spread on its own and seeps into all levels of society. In order to achieve that contagion, we need more people in this fight. We need more people speaking up, making videos, writing articles, getting this information on to the national and international stage, and we especially need to reach the police and the military.

Stage Two is civil disobedience, also known as Non-violent Resistance. In this Stage, you put your money where your mouth is, or more accurately, you withhold your money and your obedience from the government and you do everything in your power to bring the gears of the State to a halt. Practiced in mass, this method alone is often enough to bring a regime to it’s knees. However, if it fails at this stage, Stage Three is inevitable.

Stage Three is direct physical resistance. Direct physical resistance is the last resort and it should be avoided and delayed as long as possible and only invoked when all other options have been thoroughly exhausted. There are those who ‘talk tough’ and claim that they will resist when the time comes, but what they fail to realise is that if you are inactive during the first two Stages and save your efforts for the last resistance, then you will fail.

When the Nazis were moving from door to door, dragging people out of their homes in Germany, that was the time to fight back physically, but due to the lack of ideological resistance and civil disobedience leading up to that moment, even an armed uprising would have likely failed at that point. An armed uprising can only succeed if the people have established an attitude of active resistance. And active resistance is only possible after their minds have broken free from the mainstream propaganda. If you want to fight back, then it’s now or never – you’re not going to get another chance, and the stakes are far higher than they were in Nazi Germany.

Links for further information:

December 2016 How accurate is American mainstream news media?.     ePub format.

July 4th 2016 If the Independence Day chant is “USA is Number One” then that is correct:

The USA IS number 1 in prison population and 22% of Americans have a prison record.

The USA IS number 1 in obesity.

The USA IS number 1 in child abuse death rate (many being in state-approved foster homes).

The USA IS number 1 in hours spent watching TV (28 hours per week).

The USA IS number 1 in teen pregnancies.

The USA IS number 1 in prescription drug use and yet are not in the top 10 healthiests countries.

The USA IS number 1 in government debt, credit card debt, mortgage debt and student loan debt.

The USA IS number 1 in reported crime.

The USA IS number 1 for the most arbitrary, immoral and evil laws with more than 3000 types of federal criminal offences.

The USA IS number 1 in cop violence as cops kill more in one month that UK did between 1900 and 1999, more than 70 times any other first world nation and 58 times more than “terrorists” and 302 times more citizens killed than in China (USA has a country ranking in freedom of 46th with 45 other countries better).

January 2016 Arizona State Senator John Kavanagh introduced Senate Bill 1054, which would make it effectively illegal to film police.

January 2016 KrisAnn Hall, a Constitutional Attorney, states clearly how the Federal Government of the USA is acting illegally, unconstitutionally, and unlawfully – passing laws which are totally invalid and acting in violation of the American Constitution.

December 2015 George Orwell’s 1984 horror story is being implemented right now in China, and soon in America here.

September 2015 Anna von Reitz of Alaska expains the preseant situation is considerable detail on Paul Stramer’s blog. You can download all of the articles as a single pdf here. March 2015 – Full Disclosure by Hon. Paul T. Hellyer explains the 9/11 attack, the erosion of human rights, the dishonesty of the world’s financial system, the fact that there is a hidden government inside the American government, one which is more powerful than the elected President, and much more.

June 2016 People of the UK vote against the bankers.

June 2015 People of the UK Issue Indictments for Crimes against Humanity.

May 2015 The Internation Tribunal for Natural Justice is being set up.     Additional information   here  and   here.

December 2014 This video shows the current situation with regard to crimes and atrocities being carried out by the opposition. English pdf version: here.

December 2014 This video shows that Spain has already become a police state with no basic human rights remaining. Worse still, Britain is shown to be following rapidly with unlawful arrest, paedophile abuse ignored and an effective dictatorship being imposed by a very few people who are answerable to nobody.

August 2014 Herbert Dorsey reports the facts on what happened with the shoot down of Malaysian Flight MH17 and why it was done.

March 2014 The Bank of England admits that ‘money’ lent by them is just invented and has no actual value. The big question is ‘why are they admitting that now?’.

Rule By Secrecy – The Hidden History by Jim Marrs . This is a most remarkable and detailed account, naming names, stating events and revealing motives for most of history – a really spectacular work !!   pdf format     ePub format     HTML format

Karl Lentz shows how to use the Queen’s Bench in London to deal with cases where you are ‘the defendant’ and how to deal with child custody cases and win every time.

OUTLAWS-in-JUSTICE USA Common Law officials, Anthony Williams, Hep Guinn, and others advancing a national organisation to reestablish Common Law and Constitutional Law as the primary “law of the land” and “due process.” Additional comments

October 2013 The Irish people join together to charge the banks with their unlawful and fraudulent behaviour and to look for redress. The first case against the first bank is against the Bank of Ireland.

October 2013 World Bank whistleblower Karen Hudes gives details of aborted nuclear false-flag attack on Americans and the steady imposition of the Rule of Law deposing the evil cabal which has caused such massive destruction for decades. Part 2.   Also   and   Additional audio broadcast.

2013 action Banks, corporations and governments foreclosed by lawful action against them.

Catholic Church charged with murder, 22 September 2013.

Civil Law background information on the whole world situation, updated as new events take place and the pdf (16 Mb) recommended on that web site.

Seven Financial Conspiracies which have Enslaved the American People the facts presented in a straightforward way.

The Fix The World documentary An outline of current action being taken.   an alternative source

The latest 2013 attack on world population The most recent attempts to kill people such as yourself on a long-term basis.

Why Water, Milk & Salt Fluoridation Is Making Our Children Infertile, Feeble-Minded & Ill The facts about nation-wide poisoning.

March 2013: The Fall of the Vatican The Fall of the Vatican, the Queen and the System – video details.

Ireland’s Response: How Eire has responded to bank foreclosures, opposing house reposessions.   Relevant Responses

How To Thrive A clear and comprehensive explanation of the present situation and what YOU can do about it (very highly recommended).

Mortgages are Fake A recent video demonstration that mortgages are fake and fraudulent.

Australian Fakes A video demonstrating that Australia has no lawful Courts, Police, Customs, Parliament, etc. from

Important information from Michael Tellinger Clear insights into the present situation, including why you personally are reading this.

It’s an Illusion video lecture by John Harris

Get Out of Debt Free sample letters for dealing with ‘debt’ issues

Veronica Chapman Veronica Chapman’s book which is packed with essential UK information

The British Constitution Group seven video lectures John Harris’ website ‘The People’s United Community’

Raymond StClair web site with interesting videos

Freeman On The Land web site with a large amount of specific information

‘Think Free’ a top video presentation by Robert-Arthur Menard of Canada

Mary Croft’s eBook “How I Clobbered Every Bureaucratic Cash-Confiscatory Agency Known To Man” web site with video presentations Australian web site with wide-ranging links

‘Hijacking Humanity’ a great video presentation by Paul Verge of Canada

Mary Croft part 1 of 11 video interview about her learning experiences

Audio interview 143 Mb download file of an audio interview

Michael Badnarik explanation of the American Constitution

Commerce Game Exposed the present situation explained with emphasis on America

TaxFreedom dealing with US taxes

Freedom Reigns dealing with US debts, charges, etc.

Money As Debt video on how (American) banks create money out of nothing

The Money Masters a VERY long factual video explaining how we got where we are today

World control video explaining in depth, how and why we have the present situation

The Application of Commercial Law the ins and outs of the systems of law

The Historical Background of the Lies how things developed in England and America   This is an important web site with a good deal of relevant information

Video explaining how we and our children are being progressively poisoned.

Liens Website explaining a very powerful tool in defending yourself against unlawful attack: the ‘lien’ . A pdf copy of this information: pdf Cop

Robert Menard Part 1 Video lecture by Robert menard of Canada who is very knowledgeable.

Robert Menard Part 2

Robert Menard Part 3

Robert Menard Part 4

Robert Menard Part 5

Robert Menard Part 6

Robert Menard Part 7

Robert Menard Part 8

Robert Menard Part 9

Individualism   A 150-page document explaining your present position and what you can do about it.

Video (2012)   Irish house repossession stopped by the Constitution.

Victoria Grant   A 12-year old girl explains how banks rob ordinary people.

Da Costa   A letter laying out very clearly, the corruption of the legal system in Canada at the present time..

40 Outrageous Facts Which Most People Don’t Know A clear statement of the present situation along with supporting references for you to check out.

People’s Awareness Coalition The real situation explained in detail, especially for the people of America.

Government murders Presentation of a tiny percentage of the real facts about UK and world government.

Download this web site as a pdf document

One of the major attacks which are mounted against you is to con you out of money. Much of this is “government tax” on fuels which are burnt to provide energy – energy for transport, energy for heating, cooling, lighting, cooking, washing, drying, communications, entertainment, … A major effort has been put into attempting to prevent you from finding out the simple fact that we are all surrounded by limitless energy and more importantly, preventing us from finding out how to tap into and use that energy. Tight control has been kept on educational establishments, publishing and mainstream news services. Patents have been suppressed, inventors harassed, intimidated and forced into silence by any available means.

The reality is that energy can be pulled from the air, using an aerial, and Hermann Plauson produced systems which provided more than 100 kilowatts of electrical energy and which needed no input whatsoever. There is nothing magic about this, as the energy comes from the ionosphere which the Sun charges up continuously, so sorry folks, no magic, just practical engineering.

Energy can be pulled from the ground as the Earth is a vast reservoir of energy. Energy can be taken from gravity by various methods, including just nudging weights sideways as they fall, powering a large wheel which turns a generator.

Energy can be drawn from changes in inertia, as just spinning a flywheel which drives a generator, allows that generator to power both the flywheel and other items of household equipment.

Ordinary, unmodified “petrol” generators can provide kilowatts of electrical power by splitting water into it’s component gasses and then using those to power the generator. Here, the generator both splits the water and powers the additional equipment.

It is possible to build a simple motor/generator which produces far more electrical power than is needed to make it run. Robert Adams of New Zealand demonstrated this with quite small models which had a minimum of eight times more output power than input power, while more advanced models have outputs hundreds of times greater than the input power.

We are told (either tongue in cheek or based on complete ignorance) that permanent magnets can’t do any useful “work”. Dietmar Hohl has shown that anybody can build a simple rotor drum which is made to spin using just permanent magnets.

We are told that no electronics-driven transformer can output more than is used to drive it. Thane Heins has demonstrated that this is just not true, while by adding a permanent magnet to the transformer, Lawrence Tseung has shown that with just a simple iron frame, much more power can be drawn from the output than is needed to operate the frame.

The supposed limits taught by ‘educational’ establishments are based on electric transfer methods in transformers running at low speeds, such as 50 or 60 cycles per second. However, if the transfer is made to be magnetic rather than electrical, and the cycle frequency exceeds 20,000 cycles per second and especially if the voltage is raised to a much higher level, then the output power from a simple, motionless device can be kilowatts more than the input power.

There are many, many ways to provide electrical power where no fuel is burnt, and where you do not have to pay for whatever energy you happen to draw from the system. There is no need for you to do any of this, but it is important that you understand that it can be done, and there is actually no need whatsoever for you to be charged for every watt of electrical energy which you choose to use. Please download and read the eBook below. It is free and above all else, please understand fully that this technology has been suppressed for personal gain for more than a hundred years now.

Free-energy information

Or copy and post in your browser


Historical Chronology The Original Thirteenth Article of Amendment To The Constitution For The United States


Site Navigation To Research Articles For In-Depth Study

HOME Legislative History And Ratification Of The 13th Amendment
Press Release Legislative Extracts Pertaining To The 13th Amendment
Chronology Rebuttal to Arguments Against The 13 Amendment
Glossary VA1819 State Department Copy Images
State Data Official Publications State Ratifications
Research Links Private Publications The TONA Research Committee
Study Links Biographies of Persons Associated With the 13th Amendment History
How A Bill Becomes A Law In Virginia The Virginia General Assembly
Pocket Glossary of Legislative Terms
The CONSTITUTION For The United States, Its Sources and Application

Historic Events


June 21
The United States Constitution is ratified with New Hampshire becoming the ninth state to ratify. Article I, Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution contain provisions that clearly prohibit the federal government and the states from granting titles:

No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign State.

No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex postfacto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

However, no penalty for violating the Article is specified.


March 4 – September 25
The U.S. House of Representatives compiles a list of possible Constitutional Amendments, some of which will ultimately become the Bill of Rights. The House proposes seventeen of many offered; the Senate reduces the list to twelve. During this process Senator Tristram Dalton (Mass.) proposes an Amendment seeking to prohibit and provide a penalty for any American accepting a “title of nobility” (RG 46 Records of the U.S. Senate). Although it isn’t passed, this is the first time a “title of nobility” amendment is proposed.


April 30, 1789
George Washington is inaugurated and begins his term as the first President of the United States. He is a successful planter, surveyor, soldier and militia commander, member of the Virginia House of Burgesses, Virginia Delegate to the 2nd Continental Congress, Commander-in-Chief of the Continental Army during the War for Independence and was Chairman of the Constitutional Convention. Washington was also the first President of the Society of Cincinnati, in which membership was to be hereditary and carried a Title of Nobility. The Society’s main purpose was to influence public affairs.



December 7
William Branch Giles takes office in the House of Representatives.



March 4
John Adams begins his term as President of the United States. A Harvard educated attorney, he has served as Massachusetts delegate to the 1st Continental Congress, a diplomat in France and Holland during the Revolutionary War, Minister to the Court of St. James, and Vice President under George Washington.



The first case decided by the U. S. Supreme Court involving the ratification of a constitutional amendment is Hollingsworth v. Virginia, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 378 (1798). A challenge is made to the ratification of the Eleventh Amendment and it is contended that this amendment is void for the reason that the President had not approved the amendment. The Court, in one of the shortest decisions ever made, rules against this argument. Justice Salmon Chase explains in the written decision that the President is not involved in the amendment process.



December 14
George Washington dies in Virginia.



March 4
Thomas Jefferson begins his term as President of the United States. A planter from Virginia, he is trained in law, has served in the Virginia House of Burgesses, Delegate to the 1st Continental Congress, drafter of the Declaration of Independence, Governor of Virginia, Minister to France, Secretary of State under George Washington and Vice President of the United States under John Adams.



Senator William Branch Giles of Virginia arrives to serve in the U.S. Senate.



March 4
James Madison begins his term as President of the United States. Educated at Princeton, he helped frame the Virginia Constitution in 1776, and had served as a Delegate to the Continental Congress and the Virginia Convention of 1788, author of The Federalist, Virginia Assemblyman, “Father” of the Constitution, framer of the Bill of Rights, and Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson.



January 18
The 17 states in the union on this date include: Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Vermont, and Virginia.

Senator Phillip Reed of Maryland proposes a “title of nobility” Amendment (History of Congress, Proceedings of the Senate, p. 529-530). The first version of the Titles Of Nobility Amendment (or TONA) is read to the Senate.

“If any citizen of the United States, shall accept of any title of nobility, from any king, prince or foreign state, such citizen shall thence forth be incapable of holding any office of honor or profit, under the United States.”


January 29
A revised version of the proposed amendment is read to the Senate. The proposed amendment revokes the citizenship of those who violate the prohibition, and renders them ineligible to hold public office.

“If any citizen of the United States, shall accept of any title of nobility, or of any other title of distinction from any emperor, king prince, potentate, or foreign state, or shall hold the same by descent, or shall intermarry with any descendent of any emperor, king or prince, or with any person of the blood royal, such citizen shall thenceforth, be incapable of exercising or enjoying any of the rights and immunities of a free citizen of the United States, or of the individual states ; and shall also be incapable of holding any office of honor, profit or trust under them, or either of them.”


February 13
The TONA (Titles of Nobility Amendment) is recommitted to a select committee consisting of Senators Phillip Reed (Md.), William Branch Giles (Va.), Michael Leib (Pa.), William H. Crawford (Ga.) and Timothy Pickering (Ma.), for further consideration.


February 15
An amended version of the TONA is reported to the Senate which includes the phrase “title of distinction,” but this language is too cumbersome in construction even for these flowery times. The phrase is stricken.

“No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States : and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign state. And if any citizen of the United States shall accept of any title of nobility or of any other title of distinction, above or below that of nobility, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign state, or shall hold the same by descent, such citizen shall henceforth be incapable of exercising or enjoying any of the rights and immunities of a free citizen of the United States, or of the individual states; and shall also be incapable of holding any office of profit or trust, under them, or either of them.”


March 5
Thomas Jefferson writes in a letter to Governor Langdon of New Hampshire and referring to the European governments states, “The question whether a measure is moral, is never asked; whether it will nourish the avarice of their merchants, or the piratical spirit of their navy, or produce any other effect which may strengthen them [the aristocrats] in their places.”


April 11
The committee again reports an amended proposal of the TONA to the Senate.

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim or hold any title of nobility or honor derived from any emperor, king, prince or other foreign power, such person shall thenceforth cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them or either of them.”


April 26
A motion to delay voting on the proposed amendment is defeated, 8 to 20 by the vote. The


April 27
On motion the Senate votes to pass the 13th Amendment proposal by a vote of 26 to 1.

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

The resolution was so engrossed and read a third time, and the President of the Senate reported it to the house accordingly. [Journal of the Senate]


May 1
With considerable support both from Federalists in New York and Massachusetts, and Democratic-Republicans in the south, the TONA is approved by a vote of 87- 3 in the House. Eighteen of the 21 members from Virginia vote for it. Seventeen of the 18 members from Pennsylvania vote for it, while those from New York number 7 for it, 6 absent or not voting, and 1 against. The final proposed amendment reads:

“If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”

The Resolution is signed by J.B. Varnum, Speaker of the House, John Gaillard, President of the Senate pro tempore, and certified by Sam A. Otis, Secretary of the Senate, and is sent to the states for ratification. Ratification will now require passage by 13 (three fourths) of the 17 states in the Union.


December 25
Maryland ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 1st of 13 states required. Cover letter and Resolution addressed to James Monroe as Secretary of State, cover letter and Resolution transmittal to Edward Lloyd, Esquire, Governor of Maryland. Resolution signed by Clerk of the House, Clerk of the Senate, certified by a Clerk of the Court of Appeals.MD



January 31
Kentucky ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 2nd of 13 states required.

Ohio unanimously ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 3rd of 13 states required. On that same day, the Resolution is Signed by the Speaker of the Ohio House, Speaker of the Ohio Senate, and certified by the Secretary of State of Ohio, addressed to the President of the Senate of the United States.OH


February 2
Delaware ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 4th of 13 states required. The resolution is signed by the Clerk of the House, but not delivered to the U.S. government.DE

The Virginia House of Delegates approves of the TONA and enrolls the 13th Amendment as a pending bill, and sends notice to the Senate.


February 4
An election is scheduled in the Virginia House of Delegates to replace William Munford, as he has been elected Clerk of the House. An election to fill the governorship vacated by James Monroe is scheduled for December 5.

The Senate receives the House of Delegates’ 2/2/1811 notice.


February 6
Pennsylvania ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 5th of 13 states required.


February 9
Kentucky notifies Congress it has ratified the 13th Amendment. Cover letter to The Speaker of the U.S. Senate, signed by Ch. Scott, Governor of Kentucky. Accompanying the letter is a resolution dated January 31, 1811, requesting the Governor to communicate the ratification to The Senate and House of the United States, and to the Governor of each of the states, certified by the Secretary of the State of Kentucky. KY

February 11
In the U.S. Senate, Secretary of the Senate Sam A. Otis delivers a letter acknowledging receipt of the Ohio Resolution delivered to President Monroe.

Postmarked and certified by the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania this day, a cover letter of transmittal and Resolution of ratification by the state of Pennsylvania, addressed to President James Madison from Governor Snyder. PA


February 13
New Jersey ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 6th of 13 states required.


February 14
On the 3rd reading proposing ratification of the 13th Amendment, the Virginia Senate disagrees on the 13th Amendment ratification resolution. According to the Rules and Orders of the Senate, the matter may not be heard again in the same session “except where it may be judged proper” after conferring with the House of Delegates.


February 18
A letter of transmittal is dated this day from Governor Bloomfield of New Jersey, addressed to Robert Smith Esq., Secretary Department of State. Enclosed is the Resolution of Ratification by New Jersey. It is certified and receipted by James Linn, Secretary of the State of New Jersey, and certified again and sealed by Joseph Bloomfield, Governor of New Jersey. There is no notation that Secretary of State Smith has read the resolution to the Congress.NJ


February 20
In the Senate, Secretary of the Senate Sam A. Otis acknowledges and certifies receipt of the Resolution of Kentucky from the President of the United States.


February 28
Certified by the Secretary of State of Pennsylvania the previous day, a cover letter of transmittal and Resolution of ratification by the state of Pennsylvania, addressed to the United States Speaker of the Senate George Clinton from Governor Snyder.


March 3
Senator Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, a former Secretary of War (1775, 1802-1803), and former Secretary of State (1795-1800) leaves office.


March 28
Dated March 13, postmarked March 15, receipted March 28 by Robert Smith Esquire Sec of State, a cover letter transmitting ratified copy of the 13th Amendment from George Clinton of Pennsylvania, writing from New York. The letter carries the text “The enclosed Copy…was forwarded to me at this place after I had left the Senate, and I now take the liberty of transmitting it to you to be deposited in the Office of the Department of State which if my recollection serves me is the usual course…” There is no record of the United States Secretary of State announcing the ratification to Congress.


October 24
Vermont ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 7th of 13 states required. The ratifying Resolution states it has been passed by the Senate and House of Vermont, and directs the Governor to send the Resolution to the “President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House of Representatives of the United States, and to each of our Senators, and Representatives in Congress, and to each of the Governors of the several States in the union. The resolution is certified by a secretary, and by the Secretary of State of Vermont.


November 10
Governor Galusha of Vermont sends a letter of transmittal and Resolution of the State of Vermont to the President of the United States. The Resolution is not announced in Congress.VT


November 21
Tennessee ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 8th of 13 states required. The Resolution also mentions several other proposed amendments – failing the Massachusetts amendment to prohibit embargoes, failing the Virginia amendment to remove Senators by congressional vote, failing the Pennsylvania amendment to create a tribunal of judges over and above the Supreme Court. The Resolution directs the Governor to transmit the resolution to “the executives of the several states, and also to each of our senators and representatives in Congress.” The Resolution is signed by the Tennessee Speaker of the House, Speaker of the Senate, and attested by the House Clerk and Senate Clerk.


November 22
Georgia ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 9th of 13 states required. The resolution is passed unanimously by the General Assembly, and the Governor is requested to transmit copies to “the President of the senate and Speaker of the House of representatives of the United States, and to each of our Senators and representives in Congress, and to each of the Governors of the several States.” The Resolution is signed by the President of the Georgia Senate, certified by the Secretary of the Senate, signed by the Speaker of the House, certified by the Clerk, approved by the Governor, and certified by the Secretary of State.


November 26
In an Extract from the journals of the Senate of South Carolina, the proposed 13th Amendment is referred to a committee including Col. May, Mr. Du Bose, and Mr. Reid.


November 29
A report is made by the committee of the Senate of South Carolina recommending the adoption of the amendatory article and recommending it be sent to the State Senate. The report was agreed to by the Senate, and ordered to be sent to the House of Representatives of that state.


December 2
Lieutenant Governor George William Smith of Virginia notifies the General Assembly that New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Kentucky have all ratified the 13th Amendment. He further announces that Governor James Monroe is now the Secretary of State of the United States.


December 3
The Journals of both the House of Delegates and Senate report receiving Lt. Gov. Smith’s letters.


December 6
George William Smith is elected Governor of Virginia to replace Monroe.


December 9
The Virginia House of Delegates hears a petition to print a new edition of the revised codes of the state.


December 19
The Resolution of Vermont is noted by the Secretary of State as “Read”.VT


December 20
Governor George William Smith notifies the General Assembly of Virginia that Maryland, Pennsylvania and Tennessee have ratified the 13th Amendment.


December 21
The House of Delegates Journal reports receiving Gov. Smith’s letter.


December 23
North Carolina ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 10th of 13 states required. The resolution is signed by the Speaker of the Senate, Speaker of the House, and certified by the Secretary of State.


December 24
Governor Blount of Tennessee sends a cover letter dated November 27 and transmittal of the Tennessee Resolution to James Monroe, Secretary of State. The Resolution is noted with “12th Cong. 1st Sess.” dated December 24 and noted as “Read.” by Monroe.TN

The House of Representatives of South Carolina, having taken up the Select Committee report of November 28, 1811 regarding a recommendation to ratify the 13th Amendment, postpones the matter without coming to any final decision.


Benjamin Watkins Leigh, an attorney, is elected to the Virginia State Legislature.



January 2
Governor George William Smith of Virginia dies, having been in office less than 30 days.


January 4
James Barbour is elected Governor of Virginia to replace Smith.

Cover letters and copies of the Georgia Resolution are sent from the Governor to the President of the U.S. Senate and to Secretary of State James Monroe.


January 17
Cover letters to James Madison Esq and The Hon Jesse Franklin are sent with certified copies of the North Carolina Resolution from Governor William Hawkins.


January 21
Gov. Barbour sends letters to both houses of the the General Assembly informing them that North Carolina has ratified the 13th Amendment..


January 22
Letter of transmittal and authenticated act from North Carolina are noted by the Secretary of State as “12 Cong. 1 Sess.” and also noted as “Read.”NC


January 23

The House of Delegates Journal reports receiving Gov. Barbour’s 1/21/1812 letter.


January 24
Governor Barbour of Virginia sends supporting documents to the House regarding North Carolina’s ratification of the 13th Amendment.

The Senate Journal reports receiving Gov. Barbour’s 1/21/1812 letter.


February 6
Gov. Barbour sends letters to both houses of the General Assembly informing them that Georgia has ratified the TONA.


February 7
The Virginia House of delegates sends a bill to the Virginia Senate to approve the republishing of the existing ‘Revised Code of the Law of this Commonwealth’ [an edition prior to the 1819 Revised Code]. Andrew Stevenson, William Munford and William Hay, Jr. supervised the effort. Samuel Pleasants, Jr. was the printer. It was enacted because there were insufficient editions available to officers of the Commonwealth.

The House of Delegates Journal reports receiving Gov. Barbour’s 2/6/1812 letter.


February 10
Secretary of the Senate Sam A. Otis notes in a cover letter to the Resolution of the Senate that the Georgia Resolution and Resolutions of other states which have ratified be sent to the Secretary of State. There is no notification to the House of Representatives or President noted by Otis or Monroe.


February 12
Governor Barbour sends documentation regarding Georgia’s ratification of the 13th Amendment to the Virginia House.

The Virginia Senate votes to revise the Codes of the State of Virginia.

The Senate Journal reports receiving Gov. Barbour’s 2/06/1812 letter.


February 27
Massachusetts ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 11th of 13 states required.


March 12
New York fails ratification of the 13th Amendment.


April 30
Louisiana becomes the 18th state in the Union, but is not consulted on the pending constitutional amendment.


June 12

The War of 1812 begins.


December 9
New Hampshire ratifies the 13th Amendment, the 12th of 13 states required. The resolution is signed by the Speaker, President, approved by the Governor, and certified by the Secretary. The Resolution directs the Governor to transmit copies to “the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representaives in Congress, and to each of the Governors of the several States.”


December 12
Cover letter and Resolution of New Hampshire are sent to “The Hon William H. Crawford Esq, President of the Senate of the United States”.


December 21
An order of the Senate of the U.S., attested by Sam A. Otis, Secretary, directing him to forward the letter from the Governor and Resolution of New Hampshire to the Secretary of the Department of State. There is no note that the Resolution was read back to the House by the Secretary.



February 6
William Waller Hening is authorized by the Virginia Legislature to publish The Statutes at Large of the State of Virginia. The FULL title is: The Statutes at Large ; Being a Collection of All the Laws of Virginia from the First Session of the Legislature, In the Year 1619.


March 4
Former Senator Timothy Pickering returns to office, this time as a Representative for Massachusetts.


March 23
Senator Crawford of Georgia leaves office, becomes the U.S. Minister to France.


April 22
Connecticut Secretary of State John Cotton Smith writes to Secretary of State James Monroe that the legislature has received the Amendment, but has made no decision and will reconvene early in May, at which time the letter from Adams will be laid before them.


May 8
Governor Tompkins of New York notifies Secretary of State James Monroe that ratification of the 13th Amendment has failed. The State Senate directs the Clerk of the Senate on April 3 to respond on this to the Governor’s letter of April 1. There is no note in Monroe’s file that the rejection is ever read in the Congress. NY


May 13
Connecticut fails ratification of the 13th Amendment. The Governor is requested to transmit copies to The Secretary of State of the United States, President of the Senate, and Speaker of the House. The Resolution is signed by the Secretary of State of Connecticut. One copy is certified on May 29, and another on August 12.


The Governor of South Carolina sends a message to the House of Representatives enclosing New Hampshire’s Resolution approving the 13th amendment, and reminding them that no decision had been made on it in South Carolina’s House. A Committee, with Benjamin Huger as Chairman, was appointed to examine the proceedings of the preceding legislature. Both the Select Committee report of November 28, 1811, and the Resolution from the U.S. Congress were ordered to lie on the table, and no further action was taken. The Committee examining the previous proceedings recommends that that out of respect for Congress and the other states, the amendment should be disposed of in the current session, and further that it should be rejected. The committee explains that it feels Congress is already empowered to refuse permission to individuals to accept presents from foreign powers and has done so, and that the new amendment might later lead to negative consequences presently unforeseen. This report was ordered to be considered on the following Thursday, but nothing was done again.


Benjamin Watkins Leigh leaves the Virginia State Legislature.



January 26
The Virginia House of Delegates receives word of a new constitutional amendment proposed by Tennessee.


February 14
Senator Lieb of Pennsylvania leaves office.


August 3
The Resolution of February 2, 1812 in the State of Delaware to ratify the 13th Amendment is certified again by the Clerk of the House of that state.


August 24
The British army sets fire to the public buildings of Washington and the Library of Congress, destroying many of the journals of the U.S. House of Representatives


August 29
The Resolution of February 2, 1812 in the State of Delaware to ratify the 13th Amendment is certified by the Secretary of State of Delaware, and transmitted to United States Secretary of State James Monroe. There is no record of Monroe informing Congress of such a receipt as he had done with Kentucky and Ohio, but the resolution is apparently found in his office later. DE


September 15
Rhode Island rejects the 13th Amendment.


September 21
The news of rejection by Rhode Island is sent by Governor Janes to Secretary of State James Monroe. The rejection is noted by Adams, but there is no notation that the rejection was read to Congress. RI


October 17
Governor Joseph Alston of South Carolina sends a letter to the Secretary of State of the United States enclosing copies of the proceedings of the state Senate, and informing him that in South Carolina, “the question of adoption or rejection, on the proposed amendment, has never been taken by this state.” The Secretary then notes receipt of the proceedings this date and marks the amendment as “Not finally acted upon”.SC


November 10
Wilson Cary Nicholas is elected Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia.


December 21
South Carolina tables the proposed 13th Amendment.


December 24

Treaty of Ghent is signed,
officially ending the War of 1812.


December 26
The Virginia House receives a resolution on an amendment from Pennsylvania which would reduce the term of U.S. Senators from 6 years to 4 years.



January 2
Governor James Barbour of Virginia is elected to the United States Senate.


January 8
The Battle Of New Orleans, the last important action on land, concludes war in the field, the British retreating to their shipping. Action continued at sea, the Constitution capturing the Cyane and the Levant off the island of Madeira in February, and in March the American brig Hornet captured the British brig Penguin off the coast of Brazil.


March 3
Senator Giles of Virginia leaves office.


December 5
Governor Nicholas of Virginia sends a letter to the House of Delegates regarding proceedings in several states on a series of newly proposed constitutional amendments.


December 6
Supporting documents for Virginia Governor Nicholas’ letter of December 5 are read in the House and ordered to lie on the table.


December 7
Thomas Ritchie is voted Printer to the Commonwealth of Virginia for 1 year.


Congress awards a contract to print the collected federal laws to Philadelphia publisher Bioren & Duane. In the introduction there is a caveat that the proposed 13th Amendment (the TONA) was, at the time of printing, not yet adopted into the Constitution but it could accumulate the requisite number of ratifications any day. This is noted about 60 pages removed from the text of the proposal itself, which is simply captioned 13th Amendment and immediately follows the 12th Amendment. The two are separated from the main text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in this printing. At this time, 12 of the 13 necessary states have already ratified the 13th Amendment.



February 16
Virginia House rejects 7 new constitutional amendments which have been proposed by other states. The original 13th Amendment is not included in the vote. Governor Nicholas orders word of the vote sent to the U.S. Congress members from Virginia, and to the governors of every state.


November 12
Thomas Ritchie, official Printer to the Commonwealth of Virginia, is ordered henceforth to send 4 copies of the House Journals to every county, 1 copy to every county clerk, and 1 copy to every court in the state. Ritchie is given a non-voting seat in the House, in order to take detailed notes of the Debates.


December 11
Indiana becomes the 19th state, but is not consulted regarding the pending amendment.


Secretary of War William H. Crawford becomes Secretary of the Treasury, serving under both Presidents Madison and Monroe.



February 15
Authorized by an Act of the Virginia Legislature, the complete revision of the State’s laws are entrusted to five of Virginia’s most respected lawyers and legal scholars: Judge William Brockenbrough of the Virginia general and circuit courts, Benjamin Watkins Leigh – attorney and prominent Virginia legislator, Judge Robert White of the Superior Court of Law, District of Virginia, Justice Spencer Roane and Justice John Coalter of the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals.


March 3
Timothy Pickering, Representative of Massachusetts, leaves office for the last time.


March 4
James Monroe begins his term as President of the United States. An attorney from Virginia, he has served in the Revolutionary War, studied law under the careful hand of Jefferson, Senator from Virginia in 1790 and Minister to France in 1794. He chooses John Quincy Adams as his Secretary of State.


March 19
Senator Phillip Reed, who proposed the 13th Amendment, returns to Congress to serve again.


December 10
Mississippi becomes the 20th state. Prior to that, it had been a territory since 1798. The new state is not consulted on the pending 13th Amendment.


December 31
U.S. House of Representatives accepts the resolve of Representative Edwards of North Carolina that President Monroe inquire into the ratification status of the 13th Amendment. [See Resolve] Congress further resolves, on the suggestion of Representative Johnson from Kentucky, to print the present laws to all the states and territories, but in no more than 6 newspapers. [See Resolve]



January 2
President Monroe requests that Secretary of State Adams ask the governors of Virginia, South Carolina, and Connecticut as to the status of the 13th Amendment in their respective States. The four new States (Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, and Illinois) that were added to the Union between 1810 and 1818 are not included in Monroe’s order.


January 7
A Circular letter from the journal of John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State, is sent to the Governors of the three States from which information had not been received. The recently added States of Louisiana, Indiana and Mississippi and Illinois are not mentioned.


January 22
Connecticut Secretary of State Thomas Day sends copies of the Connecticut failure resolution to Secretary of State John Quincy Adams. There is no note in Adams’ records as to whether the original Resolution was ever received, though he now has a copy of it. Adams notes the failure, but does not note whether the result is read to Congress. CT


January 28
Mr. Johnson, of the Virginia Senate oversight committee to review enrolled bills, reports to the Senate on the progress, due diligence and consideration, and judicious course to be followed in the revision of the laws of Virginia. [See Report]


February 3
Secretary of State John Quincy Adams sends a two page report to the U.S. House of Representatives. Adams states that 12 States have ratified Article XIII, three States have rejected it, and he has no information from South Carolina and Virginia. Adams was only concerned with the seventeen states who had participated in the initial process under Article V of the Constitution. He does not report with regard to Louisiana, Illinois, Indiana or Mississippi, and clearly, does not consider them a part of the process.


February 4
Pursuant to a Resolution of the House, James Monroe makes inquiries of ratification of the 13th Amendment by South Carolina and Virginia. “…I transmit to the house a detailed report from the secretary of state, which contains all the information that has been received upon that subject.” (CIS U.S. Serial Set Index – Misc. 446 (15-1) ASP038)]


February 6
President Monroe reports to the House that the Secretary of State Adams has written to the governors of Virginia, Connecticut, and South Carolina to tell them that the proposed Amendment has been ratified by twelve States and rejected by two (New York and Rhode Island), and has asked the governors to notify him of their legislature’s position. (House Document No. 76) [House Journal]


February 27
A letter is sent from President Monroe to the House of Representatives concerning South Carolina’s failure to ratify the 13th Amendment. [House Journal]


February 28
Secretary of State Adams reports the rejection of the Amendment by South Carolina (House Doc. No. 129). (It had not been rejected, but tabled with no action taken.)


March 21
A letter from John Quincy Adams, Secretary of State to Charles Buck, states in part, “Upon a return from the Executive of Virginia, for which application has been made by this Dept. it will be known with precision what is the fate of the proposed amendment, and no time will be lost in communicating it to you.”


March 24
Pennsylvania publishes the 13th Amendment in the Digest of the Laws of Pennsylvania. [Image 1], [Image 2]


Missouri publishes the 13th Amendment in the Digest of the Laws of Missouri Territory. [Image 1], [Image 2]


April 20
The Fifteenth Congress passes an act [Chapter LXXX] to provide for the publication of the laws of the United States, requiring the Secretary of State to publish notification, with his certificate, that any amendment which heretofore has been, or hereafter may be, proposed to the constitution of the United States, has been adopted, according to the provisions of the constitution and that the amendment has become valid as a part of the constitution of the United States. The notification is to specify the states which have adopted the amendment.


April 25
The Niles Register, a Baltimore newspaper published by H. Niles of Baltimore, carries an article forwarded by the National Intelligencer. Congress being out of session at that time, Mr. Niles took the opportunity to review much of the congressional business that had taken place prior to the publication date. An article appears stating that, while everyone believed the 13th Amendment had been duly ratified, and although Congress had already printed an edition of the Constitution which included the amendment, South Carolina had failed to ratify, and therefore the amendment was not law after all. No mention is made of Virginia.


December 3
Illinois becomes the 21st state, but is not consulted regarding the pending 13th amendment.


Congress contracts a Philadelphia printer to make pocket editions of the US Constitution. This printer includes the original 13th Amendment. The House passes a resolution asking President Monroe to report back if the TONA has actually been adopted. Monroe passes the project over to his Sec. of State, John Quincy Adams.



January 2
Thomas Ritchie is elected by both houses of the legislature as Printer to the Commonwealth of Virginia. It is reported that the revision of the laws is proceeding rapidly.


March 3
Senator Phillip Reed of Maryland leaves office for the second time.


March 6
Magill brings a bill on the Revised Laws of Virginia before the legislature.


March 10
The Virginia legislature passes Act No. 280 (Virginia archives of Richmond, “misc.” file, p. 299 for micro-film):
“Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say; the Constitution of the United States and the amendments thereto. …” VA Act 280


March 12
The Richmond Enquirer, published by Thomas Ritchie, official Printer to the Commonwealth, announces that for the first time, the complete laws of the State of Virginia are available as a compact publication in 2 volumes, edited by B. W. Leigh. The State has ordered 4,000 volumes for the use of its officers, judges and magistrates at a cost of $6 each.

The 13th Amendment’s official date of ratification, March 12, 1819, the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code: 10 copies are designated for the executive branch of Virginia, 5 copies for the Clerk of the general assembly, and 4 copies for the Secretary of State of the United States; 1 copy each for Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and President James Monroe; 1 copy each for the U.S. Senate, House, and Library of Congress, and 1 copy for every judge in the courts of Virginia. [Ch.XVIII] [Image]


Ohio publishes the 13th Amendment. It also appears in a private printing in North Carolina. [NC Image 1], [NC Image 2]


Secretary of State John Quincy Adams reports twice to Congress during the year that not quite enough states have ratified the proposal to accomplish its adoption.



February 24
Virginia’s General Assembly passes an act [Ch. XVIII] requiring the governor to transmit four copies of several different editions of Virginia’s laws, for the year 1792 and specific later years, including the session laws for both 1818 and 1819; i.e., the two volume set of Virginia’s 1819 Revised Code to the U.S. State Department.   Thus, the Federal Government receives formal notification from Virginia that it had ratified the Titles of Nobility Amendment. [At least one of these two volume sets sent to the State Department, and notated as received 29 August 1821, is still in the possession of the Library of Congress. VA1819 Images]


Sufficient copies of the Revised Code have been printed to make it available for public sale, and it is advertised as such in a Richmond newspaper. Research conducted on this subject indicates that at least six or seven other Virginia newspapers also carry advertisements for the new Code.


March 15
Maine becomes the 23rd state. Until then, it had been the District of Maine, attached to Massachusetts.



August 10
Missouri becomes the 24th state. Prior to that, it was a territory called the Missouri Country.


Connecticut, having previously refused to ratify the amendment, publishes the 13th Amendment in the Statute Laws. [CN Image 1], [ CN Image 2]
North Carolina also publishes the 13th. [NC Image 1], [NC Image 2]


Thomas Jefferson, framer of the Constitution, writes to Judge Spencer Roane, editor of the Virginia Statutes in a continuing correspondence, “Time indeed changes manners and notions, and so far we must expect institutions to bend to them. But time produces also corruption of principles, and against this it is the duty of good citizens to be ever on the watch, and if the gangrene is to prevail at last, let the day be kept off as long as possible.”



March 19
Senator Phillip Reed of Maryland takes office for the third time since proposing the 13th amendment.


April 22
Governor Thomas Randolph of Virginia sends a letter to Governor John Adair of Kentucky recommending Benjamin Watkins Leigh as advisor for the revision of the Statute Law of Kentucky. Leigh subsequently becomes advisor to the editors of the revision.


Kentucky and Rhode Island (which state had previously rejected the amendment) publish the new Amendment.
[KY Image 1], [KY Image 2], [RI Image 1], [RI Image 2]



March 3
Senator Reed leaves office for the 3rd and final time before his death.

Massachusetts, Mississipi, Illinois, and the Territory of Florida publish the 13th Amendment. [MA Image 1], [MA Image 2], [MS Image 1], [MS Image 2], [IL Image 1], [IL Image 2], [FL Image 1], [FL Image 2]



The TONA appears in the State Law books of Mississippi. No protest at being left out of the ratification process is noted. [MS Image 1], [MS Image 2]


Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Connecticut publish the 13th Amendment. [OH Image 1], [OH Image 2], [PA Image 1], [PA Image 2], [IN Image 1], [IN Image 2], [CN Image 1], [CN Image 2]


Secretary of the Treasury William Crawford of Georgia runs for President.


Dec 24, 1824
Major Trueman Cross, Deputy Quarter-Master-General of the Army, requests authorization from Secretary of War John C. Calhoun to compile and publish the “Military Laws of the United States to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United States” See Request for Authorization

Dec 30, 1824
John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War under President James Monroe, approves the publication of “Military Laws of the United States to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United States” — See Authorization Approval and 1825 publication notation.



January 13
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America Volume 14, Page 86 of 336 (Thursday, January 13, 1825.)

Mr. Holmes, of Maine, submitted the following motion for consideration: Resolved, That the Committee on the Library be instructed to furnish to each of the standing committees a full set of the laws of the United States, suitably marked and lettered, to designate the committee to whom each set belongs; the same to be deposited in the Library during the recess of Congress.

Mr. Chandler submitted the following motions for consideration: Resolved, That the Secretary of War be directed to cause to be made, and laid before the Senate, as soon as may be, an abstract of the rules and regulations for the field exercise and manoeuvres of the infantry, and the general regulations for the army which is observed and practiced upon by the army of the United States, in such a manner as shall be best adapted to the use of the militia of the United States. See Dec 24. 1824

January 17
Journal of the Senate of the United States of America Volume 14, Page 92 of 336 (Monday, January 17, 1825)

The Senate proceeded to consider the motions of the 13th instant, directing the Secretary of War to lay before the Senate an abstract of the rules and regulations of the army, and a report of the divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies of militia; and agreed thereto. See 1825 publication notation.

March 4
John Quincy Adams begins his term as President of the United States. Son of former President John Adams, he personally witnessed the Battle of Bunker Hill. Educated at Harvard as an attorney, he served as secretary to his father in Europe, Minister to Holland, member of the Berlin Legation, then the U.S. Senate in 1802, Minister to Russia in 1808, and in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1830. He also served as Secretary of State to James Monroe.


William Munford, joint editor of the Revised Virginia Codes (Statutes at Large) dies.


Missouri, Maine, Louisiana and the Territory of Florida publish the 13th Amendment. [MO Image 1], [MO Image 2], [ME Image 1], [ME Image 2], [LA Image 1], [LA Image 2], [FL Image 1], [FL Image 2]


Maine orders 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment to be printed for use in the schools


The “Military Laws of the United States to which is prefixed the Constitution of the United States”, authorized by Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, is published. It contains the 13th Amendment in its proper place.[Frontis Page], [Request for Authorization], [Authorization by JCC], [Image of Page 14, Amendments 1 – VI], [Image of Page 15, Amendments VI – XII], [Image of XII(Cont) and XIII]

Of note also, the 2nd Amendment is properly presented as ratified and as shown in all presentations until after the time of the Civil War and Reconstruction, without the extra commas after the words “Militia” and “Arms” The only source properly presented today is that for the United States Senate on the United States Government Printing Office site at

[Image of Page 14, Article II]



July 4, 1826
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson both die on this day, the Fiftieth Anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence.



Michigan and Illinois publish the 13th Amendment. [MI Image 1], [MI Image 2], [IL Image 1], [IL Image 2],



North Carolina publishes the 13th Amendment.


William Waller Hening, official compiler and editor of the Virginia Statutes at Large dies.



January 29

Timothy Pickering, former Secretary of War, Secretary of State, Senator and Representative for Massachusetts dies.


March 4
Andrew Jackson begins his term as President of the United States. An attorney from Tennessee, he was the first Representive from Tennessee in Congress, later served in the Senate, and was a Major General in the War of 1812.


November 2
Phillip Reed, who proposed the TONA Amendment to Congress in 1810, dies. He had served from March of 1806 to March of 1813, again from March 4 of 1817 to March 3 of 1819, and then again from March 19 of 1822 to March 3 of 1823.


November 26
Bushrod Washington, joint author of the general index to the Virginian law authorities (1790-1819), nephew and heir of George Washington, member of the Virginia state legislature (1787), and Justice of the United States Supreme Court since 1798 dies.


The following “note” appears on p. 23, Vol. 1 of the “New York Revised Statutes”:
“In the edition of the ‘Laws of the U.S,’ before referred to, there is an amendment printed as Article 13, prohibiting citizens from accepting titles of nobility or honor, or presents, offices, &c. from foreign nations. But, by a message of the president of the United States of the 4th of February, 1818, in answer to a resolution of the house of representatives, it appears that this amendment had been ratified only by 12 states, and therefore had not been adopted. See vol. iv of the printed papers of the 1st session of the 15th Congress, No. 76.”


Benjamin Watkins Leigh, former Virginia state legislator and revisor of the 1819 Virginia Codes, serves as a delegate at the Virginia Constitutional Convention. Also beginning this year, he serves as Official Reporter of the Virginia State Court of Appeals.



December 4
Governor Giles of Virginia dies.



Maine, Indiana, and Ohio again publish the 13th Amendment. [ME Image 1], [ME Image 2], [IN Image 1], [IN Image 2], [OH Image 1], [OH Image 2]


July 4, 1831
James Monroe dies in New York, NY, rejoining both Jefferson and Adams on this significant day in history.



Ohio and the Northwest Territories, and Michigan, Illinois, publish the 13th Amendment. [OH Image 1], [OH Image 2], [MI Image 1], [MI Image 2], [IL Image 1], [IL Image 2]


Justice Joseph Story of the U.S. Supreme Court publishes “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States”, which shows only the first twelve amendments as adopted. The document is heavily relied upon by judges and attorneys everywhere.



September 15
Former Senator, Secretary of War, Secretary of the Treasury, and presidential candidate William H. Crawford of Georgia dies.



Ohio, Missouri and Connecticut publish the 13th Amendment. [MO Image 1], [MO Image 2], [CN Image 1], [CN Image 2],


Benjamin Watkins Leigh, editor and revisor of the 1819 Virginia codes, is elected Senator for Virginia.



June 28, 1836
James Madison dies at Montpelier, Virginia.


Senator Benjamin Watkins Leigh of Virginia leaves office.



March 4
Martin Van Buren becomes President. A trained attorney, he serves as Senator from New York in 1821, Secretary of State in 1827, Vice President in 1832.


Florida again publishes the 13th Amendment. [FL Image 1], [FL Image 2]



Indiana again publishes the 13th amendment. [IN Image 1], [IN Image 2]



Missisppi, Illinois, Connecticut, and the Territory of Iowa publish the 13th Amendment. [MS Image 1], [MS Image 2], [IL Image 1], [IL Image 2], [CN Image 1], [CN Image 2], [IA Image 1], [IA Image 2]



Daniel Call, joint editor of the general index to the Virginia Law Authorities (1790-1819) dies.


Missouri publishes the 13th Amendment. [MO Image 1], [MO Image 2]



March 4
William Henry Harrison becomes President. A Virginia planter, he serves in the Army from 1791 to 1798, when he becomes Secretary of the Northwest Territory, and its delegate to Congress. He later serves as Governor of the Indiana Territory from 1801 to 1811, and as a General in the War of 1812.


April 4
President Harrison dies after just 30 days in office. John Tyler becomes president. Tyler is an attorney from Virginia, and a strict constitutionalist. He has served in the Virginia House of Delegates 3 times – from 1811-1816, 1823-25, and from 1839-1840. He has also served in the House of Representaives from 1817 to 1821, as Governor of Virginia twice, in the U.S. Senate, and, of course, as Vice President.


Missouri again publishes the 13th Amendment. [MO Image 1], [MO Image 2]



Iowa Territory publishes the 13th Amendment. [IA Image 1], [IA Image 2]



March 3
Congress contracts an official collection of federal laws, this time with Little & Brown of Boston, called “The United States Statutes at Large”. The edition shows that only 12 amendments had been adopted. No current member of the House of Representives from Virginia was serving in that state’s government at the time of ratification of the original 13th Amendment.


March 4
James Polk becomes President. An attorney from North Carolina, Polk has served in the Tennessee Legislature, and in the House of Representatives. He served as Speaker of the House 1835-1839, then became Governor of Tennessee.


June 8
Andrew Jackson dies at the Hermitage in Nashville, Tennessee.


September 10
Justice Joseph Story, whose own books have been published by Little and Brown, and upon whom they have relied for reference, dies, never having altered his belief that the 13th Amendment had not been ratified.


Missouri publishes the 13th Amendment again. [MO Image 1], [MO Image 2]


Judge John Coalter, revisor of the Virginia Codes of 1819, died.



Ohio again publishes the 13th Amendment.


February 23
John Quincy Adams dies in Washington, D.C.



February 2
Former Senator Benjamin Watkins Leigh, dies. He was Editor of the 1819 Virginia Codes (Statutes at Large), Delegate to the Virginia Constitutional Convention of 1829 and 1830, and Official Reporter of the Virginia State Court of Appeals until 1841.


March 4
Zachary Taylor becomes President of the United States. Taylor, from Kentucky, is a career soldier, veteran of the Mexican War, and a resident of Louisiana with large holdings in Mississippi. Though a staunch anti-secessionist, his only son later becomes a Confederate General.


June 15
President James Polk dies.


Virginia revises the 1819 ‘Civil Code of Virginia’ (which had contained the 13th Amendment for 30 years). At this time one of the Code’s Revisers (a lawyer named ‘Patton’) writes to the current Secretary of the Navy, William Ballard Preston, asking if this amendment had been ratified or appeared by mistake. Preston, a Virginia native, was the son of former Virginia Governor James Patton Preston, nephew of John Floyd, also a Virginia Governor, and cousin to John Buchanan Floyd – yet another Virginia Governor. If this weren’t enough, William Ballard Preston had himself been twice a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, a member of the Virginia Senate, and a Virginia member of the House of Representatives. If he did not have an answer to the query, he was certainly in a position to find out. No record of his reply is known.



July 9
President Taylor dies, and Millard Fillmore becomes President of the United States. An attorney from New York, he has served in various state offices, then in the House of Representatives. He became Comptroller of New York, but left the post to become Vice President of the United States in 1848.



March 4
Franklin Pierce becomes President of the United States. An attorney from New Hampshire, he has served in that state’s legislature. He is also a Mexican War veteran who has served both as Representative and Senator for his state in the 1830’s.



The 13th Amendment is included with the Kansas Territorial Statutes. [KS Image 1], [KS Image 2]


Louisiana and Nebraska Territory publish the 13th Amendment.
[LA Image 1], [LA Image 2], [NE Image 1], [NE Image 2]



Nebraska Territory publishes the 13th Amendment again.
[NE Image 1], [NE Image 2]



March 4
James Buchanan becomes President of the United States. Trained in law, he serves 5 times in the House as Representative from Pennylvania. He further serves as Minister to Russia, Senator from Pennsylvania for 10 years, Secretary of State under Polk, and Minister to Great Britain.


Nebraska Territory again publishes the 13th Amendment.
[NE Image 1], [NE Image 2]



Nebraska Territory again publishes the 13th Amendment.
[NE Image 1], [NE Image 2]



Nebraska Territory publishes the 13th Amendment again.
[NE Image 1], [NE Image 2]



The Southern States are threatening to secede from the union over the long standing issue of tariffs.

Abraham Lincoln is elected President, James Buchanan still serving.


December 3
President Buchanan asks Congress for an “explanatory amendment” designed to convince the southern states not to secede. President-elect Abraham Lincoln approves. Congress approves the Joint Resolution, and it signed by the Speaker of The House William Pennington, Vice President of the United states and President of the Senate John C. Breckenridge, and later approved by President Buchanan, certified by the Clerk of the House.


December 20
South Carolina secedes from the union, the first to do so. The Secession Convention of South Carolina voted unanimously in favor of leaving the union at 1:07 PM on December 20th, 1860. The declarations were signed later that evening starting at 6:00 PM. (All of the subsequent secession votes took place after that time or in early 1861)


Nebraska Territory publishes the 13th Amendment again.
[NE Image 1], [NE Image 2]



January 9
Mississippi secedes from the union.


January 10
Florida secedes from the union.


January 11
Alabama secedes from the union.


January 19
Georgia secedes from the union.


January 26
Louisiana secedes from the union.


January 29
Kansas is admitted to the Union as a Free State


February 1
Texas secedes from the union.


February 4
A Peace Convention, sponsored by the Virginia State Legislature, convenes in Washington, D.C. to try for peace. Though invited, no seceded states officially attend. The Convention is a failure.


February 4
Delegates from South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas meet in Montgomery, Alabama to write the Confederate States of America Constitution.


February 28
The proposed “explanatory amendment” often referred to as the “Corwin amendment” is passed by the House, regarding permanent protection of slavery in those States where it then existed. It was silent on the subject of servitude in the Territories. It is also called the 13th Amendment. No protest is made that the number was already used. The seceded states, of course, take no interest.


March 2
The proposed “explanatory amendment” is sent to the states for ratification. The resolution is “approved” and signed by President James Buchanan.


March 4
Abraham Lincoln takes office as President of the United States.


April 12

War Between the States
begins at Fort Sumter.


April 17
Virginia secedes.


May 6
Arkansas secedes.


May 20
North Carolina secedes.


June 8
Tennessee secedes.


Kansas, the Nebraska Territory and the Colorado Territory publish the original 13th Amendment.
[KS Image 1], [KS Image 2], [NE Image 1], [NE Image 2], [CO Image 1], [CO Image 2]



March 22
Illinois ratifies the new “Corwin” Amendment, referring to it as Article 13. However, Illinois’ ratification was irregular in that it was conducted by a ratifying convention rather than by the legislature.


November 16
William Ballard Preston, former Virginia Delegate and Senator, U.S. Representative and Secretary of the Navy dies – as a Confederate Senator.


The Colorado, Dakota and Nebraska Territories, and Kansas, publish the original 13th Amendment [TCO Image 1], [TCO Image 2], [TD Image 1], [TD Image 2], [TNE Image 1], [TNE Image 2], [KS Image 1], [KS Image 2]


Former Presidents Martin Van Buren and John Tyler both die, Tyler as a Confederate citizen holding office in the Confederate government.



The Territory of Dakota publishes the original 13th Amendment. [TD Image 1], [TD Image 2]



December 5
Congress passes another Resolve to Amend, this one outlawing slavery and removing states’ rights from the Constitution. This proposed amendment is signed by the Speaker of the House, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate H. Hamlin, and also later signed as “approved” by Abraham Lincoln on February 1, 1865, then certified by J.W. Forney as Secretary. [Image]


The Territory of Colorado publishes the original 13th Amendment.
[TCO Image 1], [TCO Image 2], [TCO Image 3]



January 13
The amendment of 1864 passes Congress. No protest is made regarding the errant numbering as Article XIII, and the proposal is passed in the absence of 11 former southern states.


February 1
The newest “13th” Anti-Slavery Amendment is sent to the states for ratification. The resolution is signed as “approved” by President Lincoln.


Colorado Territory publishes the original 13th Amendment.
[TCO Image 1], [TCO Image 2]


April 9
General Robert E. Lee surrenders at Appomattox.


April 14

Abraham Lincoln is assassinated

Abraham Lincoln is mortally wounded on April 14th, 1865, while William Seward turns away an attack on his person in his own home; a suspected attacker is turned away from the residence of Vice President Andrew Johnson.


April 15
Lincoln dies early in the day of April 15th, and Andrew Johnson becomes President of the United States.

No adequate explanation for the poor security surrounding Abraham Lincoln is ever provided to a grieving American public.


May 4
General Dick Taylor surrenders to General Canby all the remaining rebel forces east of the Mississippi and all hostilities of the war cease, except for outlaw bands.


December 6
Congress reconvenes. 10 of 11 former Confederate states have governments functioning under federal direction. None of the 11 states were represented in Congress when the new Amendment was proposed in February. However, 8 of those states ratify the “new” 13th Amendment as part of the preconditions for recognition as states of the United States again. This provides the necessary three-fourths of the states, and the “new” 13th Amendment is ratified, replacing and effectively erasing the original 13th Amendment which outlaws titles of nobility, honors, and emoluments from foreign powers.


December 18
Secretary of State William Seward announces ratification of the “new” 13th Amendment, which loudly prohibits slavery (and quietly surrenders States’ Rights to the federal government).



April 2
A Proclamation is issued by President Andrew Johnson that all of the States formerly considered to be in rebellion have returned to a condition of normalcy, including their ratification of an “amendment abolishing slavery.” In that official proclamation he does not refer to it by any number.


The Territory of Colorado again publishes the original 13th Amendment, with the anti-slavery amendment shown as the 14th Amendment. [TCO Image 1, [TCO Image 2]



March 1
Nebraska gains statehood and is admitted to the union


The Territory of Colorado again publishes the original 13th Amendment in two editions, one edition translating the laws of Colorado into Spanish
[TCO Image 1, [TCO Image 2], [TCO Spanish Image 1, [TCO Spanish Image 2]


The Dakota Territory again publishes the original 13th Amendment, showing the anti-slavery amendment as the 14th.
[TDA Image 1, [TDA Image 2]



The State of Kansas and the Territory of Colorado again publish the original 13th Amendment. In both the Kansas and the Colorado Territory publications the original 13th Amendment, despite the fact that another amendment called the 13th had been ratified, includes both the original 13th Amendment in its proper place and the newer “Anti-Slavery” Amendment on the same page as the 14th Amendment. [Kansas 1868 Title Page, 13 & 14] [Colorado 1868 Title Page, 13, 14]


James Buchanan dies.



Franklin Pierce dies.



The Wyoming Territory again publishes the original 13th Amendment, showing the anti-slavery amendment as the 14th.
[TWY Image 1, [TWY Image 2]



September 1
Nebraska, having gained Statehood in 1867, again publishes the original 13th Amendment with the issuance of the General Statutes of the State of Nebraska, compiled from the 1866 revised statutes of the Territory, the various session laws since enacted, including the acts passed at the ninth and tenth sessions of the legislature in 1873. The Anti-Slavery amendment is shown as Article XIV. [NE Image 1, [NE Image 2]



Wyoming Territory publishes the original 13th Amendment, the last known publication which contains it. The “new” anti-slavery amendment is shown as the 14th, the current 14th is not shown, but the current 15th is in its proper order.
[TWY Image 1, [TWY Image 2]



In the Government Publication, “Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the year 1896 — in Two Volumes, Vol. II.”, is an essay titled “The Proposed Amendments To The Constitution Of The United States Of America During The First Century Of Its History”, by Herman V. Ames, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, [entered into the record of the House of Representatives for the 54th Congress, 2d Session., HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES., Doc. No. 353, Part 2]. One of the amendments discussed by Ames was Article XIII. On page 329, Ames reports on the status of the ratification (1818) by twelve states, rejection by four, and that there is no record from Virginia. Ames, like Monroe, Adams and all the other political people of the time, concludes that only the original participants in the debates (17 States) were accountable to determine if there was a proper ratification or not. No mention is made of Louisiana, Indiana, Mississippi, or any other state that joined the Union after 1810.



William Torrence of the State Library staff in Virginia removes the original vouchers of the public printers from the auditor’s storage rooms.



For the first time, a time limit is imposed for ratification of a constitutional amendment. Section 3 of the 18th Amendment states that: “This Article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified … within seven years from the date of submission, to the States by Congress.” The time limit affects only this particular amendment, but the habit of time limits is adopted for future amendments.


Published by Dr. Earl G. Swem, Librarian, College of William and Mary, “A Bibliography of Virginia” is issued in two parts, under the heading “Bulletin Virginia State Library”. Part II reads: “Containing the Titles of the Printed Official Documents of the Commonwealth, 1776-1916.” The compilation is executed by William Torrence of the State Library Staff, but Dr. Swem adds considerable cachet to the publication with this statement, quoted as is, from the Introduction: “It would have been impossible to clear up the uncertainty about many items printed from 1776 to 1820, if the original vouchers of the public printers had not been found. These vouchers were among the manuscripts which the compiler of this volume removed from the auditor’s storage rooms in 1913.”



In a habeas corpus petition concerning a man convicted under the National Prohibition Act. In Ex parte Dillon, 262 F. 563 (N.D. Cal. 1920), the court holds that the amendment became effective upon ratification, and not on the date of the Secretary’s proclamation.


In United States ex rel Widenmann v. Colby, 265 F. 998 (1920), aff., 257 U.S. 619, 42 S.Ct. 169 (1921), In a case concerning the proclamation made by the U. S. Secretary of State that an amendment (the 18th) had been ratified, the court holds that the Secretary of State was merely performing a ministerial act in making such proclamation and that an amendment becomes a part of the U. S. Constitution when ratified by the requisite number of states, and not when the Secretary’s proclamation is made.



In Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368, 41 S. Ct. 510 (1921) the court again holds that amendments are effective upon the date of ratification, not the date of announcement of ratification.



In Dyer v. Blair, 390 F. Supp. 1291 (N.D. Ill. 1975), concerning whether the Illinois legislature had adopted the Equal Rights Amendment. The conflict revolved around an Illinois constitutional provision which required a three-fifths vote of both houses to ratify a federal amendment. Rules in both houses required the same vote. The court held that legislative houses could set their own rules for adoption of an amendment. Since both houses had adopted the amendment resolution only by a majority, the court held that the Illinois legislature had not ratified the E.R.A. (i.e., the ratification only had to be consistent with the legislature’s own rules on the subject)



David Dodge and Tom Dunn discover an 1825 Maine edition the U.S. Constitution containing the original 13th Amendment which no longer appears in the Constitution. [ME Image 1], [ME Image 2]



December 23
TONA Committee of Correspondence Researcher Suzanne Nevling discovers compelling evidence of Virginia’s ratification of the 13th Amendment at the University of California at Davis and subsequently discovers the State Department Copy in the Library of Congress of the Revised Code of the Laws of Virginia which was sent to the State Department as notification of the Ratification of the 13th Titles of Nobility and Honor Article of Amendment to the Constitution For The United States.


State Language on Jury Nullification


Olddogs Comments!

Americans have only one choice at this point in history, and that is to lay down all other activities and concentrate on the real history of America. Then, stand up and demand their freedom be reinstated by the peoples choice of honest governance. Surely not even the most ignorant person would want to be under the control of a group of Bankers who care about nothing but their profits and ability to force their desires on an entire Nation.

This is assuming there is a majority left who can still think!

Fully Informed Jury Association

Post Office Box 5570   Helena, MT 59604-5570   1-800-TEL-JURY


 Citizens Must Claim Rights: Founders Gave Juries the Right to Determine Law

Spotlight March 20, 2000

Some say jury nullification is the most practical way to stop the juggernaut police state.

By Tom Stahl

The “Washington Post published a front page story entitled, “In Jury Rooms, a Form of Civil Protest Grows,” last year. According to the Post article, jurors are not always following judges’ instructions to the letter.

The article recounted that sometimes in jury trials, when those facts which the judge chooses to allow into evidence indicate that the defendant broke the law, jurors look at the facts quite differently from the way the judge instructed them to. The jurors do not say, “On the basis of these facts the defendant is guilty.’’

Instead, the jurors say, “On the basis of these facts the law is wrong,” and they vote to acquit. Or, they may vote to acquit because they believe that the law is being unjustly applied, or because some government conduct in the case has been so egregious that they cannot reward it with a conviction.

In short, a passion for justice invades the jury room. The jurors begin judging the law and the government, as well as the facts, and they render their verdict according to conscience. This is called jury nullification.

Dr. Jack Kevorkian, recently convicted, was acquitted several times in the past, despite his admission of the government’s facts, of assisting the suicide of terminally ill patients who wanted to die. Those

acquittals were probably due to jury nullification. And Kevorkian might have been acquitted again if the trial judge had allowed him to present his evidence, testimony of the deceased’s relatives, to the jury. A corollary of jury nullification is greater latitude for the jury to hear all of the evidence.

The Post took a dim view of this and suggested that jury nullification is an aberration, a kind of unintended and unwanted side-effect of our constitutional system of letting juries decide cases.  But  the Post couldn’t be more wrong. Far from being an unintended side-effect, jury nullification is explicitly authorized in the constitutions of 24 states.


The constitutions of Maryland, Indiana, Oregon, and Georgia currently have provisions guaranteeing the right of jurors to “judge” or “determine” the law in “all criminal cases.”

Article 23 of Maryland’s Constitution states:

In the trial of all criminal cases, the Jury shall be the Judges of Law, as well as of fact, except that the Court may pass upon the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction. The right of trial by Jury of all issues of fact in civil proceedings in the several Courts of Law in this State, where the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of five thousand dollars, shall be inviolably preserved.

Art. 1, Sec. 19, of Indiana’s Constitution says:

In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts. Oregon’s Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 16, states:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted, but all penalties shall be proportioned to the offense. In all criminal cases whatever, the jury shall have the right to determine the law, and the facts under the direction of the Court as to the law, and the right of new trial, as in civil cases.

Art. 1, Sec. 1 of Georgia’s Constitution says:

The right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate, except that the court shall render judgment without the verdict of a jury in all civil cases where no issuable defense is filed and where a jury is not demanded

in writing by either party. In criminal cases, the defendant shall have a public and speedy trial by an impartial jury; and the jury shall be judges of the law and the facts.

These constitutional jury nullification provisions endure despite decades of hostile  judicial interpretation.


Twenty other states currently include jury nullification provisions in their constitutions under their sections on freedom of speech, specifically with respect to libel cases. These provisions, listed below, typically state:

…. in all indictments for libel, the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts under the direction of the court.

But New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin omit the phrase “under the direction of the court.” South Carolina states:

In all indictments or prosecutions for libel, the truth of the alleged libel may be given in evidence, and the jury shall be the judges of the law and facts.

Alabama (Article I, Sec. 12); Colorado (Article II, Sec. 10); Connecticut (Article First, Sec. 6); Delaware (Article I, Sec. 5); Kentucky (Bill of Rights, Sec. 9); Maine (Article I, Sec, 4); Mississippi (Article 3, Sec. 13); Missouri (Article I, Sec. 8); Montana (Article II, Sec. 7); New Jersey (Article I, Sec. 6); New York (Article I, Sec. 8); North Dakota (Article I, Sec. 4); Pennsylvania (Article I, Sec. 7); South Carolina (Article I, Sec. 16); South Dakota (Article VI, Sec. 5); Tennessee (Article I, Sec. 19); Texas (Article 1, Sec. 8); Utah (Article I, Sec. 15); Wisconsin (Article I, Sec. 3); Wyoming (Article 1, Sec. 20).

Delaware, Kentucky, North Dakota, Pennsylvania and Texas add the phrase“as in other cases.” Tennessee

adds the phrase “as in other criminal cases.”

These phrases suggest that the jury has a right to determine the law in more than just libel cases. The Tennessee Constitution, Art. I, Sec. 19, says:

. . . and in all indictments for libel, the jury shall have a right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other criminal cases.

The phrase“under the direction of the court,’’ omitted by five states, provides for the trial judge to give directions, like road directions which the jury may or may not choose to follow, to assist the jury in its deliberations.

Our forefathers did not intend by this phrase for the trial judge to infringe in any way upon the sole discretion of the jury in rendering its verdict. Although later courts have held otherwise, the Tennessee Supreme Court in Nelson v. State, 2 Swan 482 (1852), described the proper roles of the judge and jury as follows: The judge is a witness who testifies as to what the law is, and the jury is free to accept or reject his testimony like any other.

The Maine Constitution affirms these roles in its section on libel:

… and in all indictments for libels, the jury, after having received the direction of the court, shall have a right to determine, at their discretion, the law and the fact.

In addition, 40 state constitutions, like the Washington state Constitution in Article I, Section 1, declare that “All political power is inherent in the people,” or words to similar effect.

And 34 state constitutions expound on the principle of all political power being inherent in the people  by saying that “the people … have at all times … a right to alter, reform, or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper,” or words to similar effect.

 For example, the Pennsylvania Constitution declares that:

All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety and happiness. For the advancement of these ends they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper.

If the people have all power, and have at all times a right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think proper, then they certainly have the right of jury nullification, which is tantamount to altering or reforming their government when they come together on juries to decide cases.

A single nullification verdict against a particular law may or may not alter or reform the government, but thousands of such verdicts certainly do. Witness the decisive role of jury nullification in establishing freedom of speech and press in the American Colonies, defeating the Fugitive Slave Act and ending alcohol prohibition.

Of special note is the right of revolution in the New Hampshire Constitution:

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

If the people have the ultimate right of revolution to protect their liberties, then they certainly also have the lesser included and more gentle right of jury nullification to protect their liberties.

It should also be noted that New Hampshire declares an unalienable “Right of Conscience”:

Among the natural rights, some are, in their very nature unalienable, because no equivalent can be given or received for them. Of this kind are the Rights of Conscience.

If the right of conscience is unalienable, then it can not be taken away from people when they enter the courthouse door to serve on juries. The people have an inherent and unalienable right to vote their conscience when rendering jury verdicts.

There is no doubt that jury nullification was one of the rights and powers that the people were exercising in 1791 when the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution was adopted. As legal historian Lawrence Friedman has written:

In American legal theory, jury-power was enormous, and subject to few controls. There was a maxim of law that the jury was judge both of law and of fact in criminal cases. This idea was particularly strong in the first Revolutionary generation when memories of royal injustice were fresh in the people’s minds.

Jury nullification is therefore one of the“ rights . . . retained by the people” in the Ninth Amendment.

And it is one of the “powers . . .  reserved . . .  to the people” in the Tenth   Amendment.

 Jury nullification is decentralization of political power. It is the people’s most important veto in our constitutional system. The jury vote is the only time the people ever vote on the application of a real law in real life. All other votes are for hypothetical’s.

Tom Stahl is a former FIJA Board member and practicing attorney from Waterville, Washington



The Illusion of Freedom The Police State Is Alive and Well


10-25-2016-10-17-10-amBy John W. Whitehead
February 21, 2017

“What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could understand it, it could not be released because of national security… This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter.”—Historian Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free: The Germans, 1933-45

Brace yourself.

There is something being concocted in the dens of power, far beyond the public eye, and it doesn’t bode well for the future of this country.

Anytime you have an entire nation so mesmerized by the antics of the political ruling class that they are oblivious to all else, you’d better beware. Anytime you have a government that operates in the shadows, speaks in a language of force, and rules by fiat, you’d better beware. And anytime you have a government so far removed from its people as to ensure that they are never seen, heard or heeded by those elected to represent them, you’d better beware.

The world has been down this road before.

As historian Milton Mayer recounts in his seminal book on Hitler’s rise to power, They Thought They Were Free, “Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people‑—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies’, without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us.”

We are at our most vulnerable right now.

The gravest threat facing us as a nation is not extremism—delivered by way of sovereign citizens or radicalized Muslims—but despotism, exercised by a ruling class whose only allegiance is to power and money.

Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

America is burning, and all most Americans can do is switch the channel, tune out what they don’t want to hear, and tune into their own personal echo chambers.

We’re in a national state of denial.

Yet no amount of escapism can shield us from the harsh reality that the danger in our midst is posed by an entrenched government bureaucracy that has no regard for the Constitution, Congress, the courts or the citizenry.

If the team colors have changed from blue to red, that’s just cosmetic.

The playbook remains the same. The leopard has not changed its spots.

Scrape off the surface layers and you will find that the American police state is alive and well and continuing to wreak havoc on the rights of the American people.

“We the people” are no longer living the American Dream.

We’re living the American Lie.

Indeed, Americans have been lied to so sincerely, so incessantly, and for so long by politicians of all stripes—who lie compulsively and without any seeming remorse—that they’ve almost come to prefer the lies trotted out by those in government over less-palatable truths.

The American people have become compulsive believers.

As Nick Cohen writes for The Guardian, “Compulsive liars shouldn’t frighten you. They can harm no one, if no one listens to them. Compulsive believers, on the other hand: they should terrify you. Believers are the liars’ enablers. Their votes give the demagogue his power. Their trust turns the charlatan into the president. Their credulity ensures that the propaganda of half-calculating and half-mad fanatics has the power to change the world.”

While telling the truth “in a time of universal deceit is,” as George Orwell concluded, “a revolutionary act,” believing the truth—and being able to distinguish the truth from a lie—is also a revolutionary act.

Here’s a truth few Americans want to acknowledge: nothing has changed (at least, not for the better) since Barack Obama passed the reins of the police state to Donald Trump.

The police state is still winning. We the people are still losing.

In fact, the American police state has continued to advance at the same costly, intrusive, privacy-sapping, Constitution-defying, relentless pace under President Trump as it did under President Obama.

Police haven’t stopped disregarding the rights of citizens. Having been given the green light to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip, shoot and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts, America’s law enforcement officials are no longer mere servants of the people entrusted with keeping the peace. Indeed, they continue to keep the masses corralled, under control, and treated like suspects and enemies rather than citizens.

SWAT teams haven’t stopped crashing through doors and terrorizing families. Nationwide, SWAT teams continue to be employed to address an astonishingly trivial array of criminal activities or mere community nuisances including angry dogs, domestic disputes, improper paperwork filed by an orchid farmer, and misdemeanor marijuana possession. With more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year on unsuspecting Americans for relatively routine police matters and federal agencies laying claim to their own law enforcement divisions, the incidence of botched raids and related casualties continue to rise.

The Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security haven’t stopped militarizing and federalizing local police. Police forces continue to be transformed into heavily armed extensions of the military, complete with jackboots, helmets, shields, batons, pepper-spray, stun guns, assault rifles, body armor, miniature tanks and weaponized drones. In training police to look and act like the military and use the weapons and tactics of war against American citizens, the government continues to turn the United States into a battlefield.

Schools haven’t stopped treating young people like hard-core prisoners. School districts continue to team up with law enforcement to create a “schoolhouse to jailhouse track” by imposing a “double dose” of punishment for childish infractions: suspension or expulsion from school, accompanied by an arrest by the police and a trip to juvenile court. In this way, the paradigm of abject compliance to the state continues to be taught by example in the schools, through school lockdowns where police and drug-sniffing dogs enter the classroom, and zero tolerance policies that punish all offenses equally and result in young people being expelled for childish behavior.

For-profit private prisons haven’t stopped locking up Americans and immigrants alike at taxpayer expense. States continue to outsource prison management to private corporations out to make a profit at taxpayer expense. And how do you make a profit in the prison industry? Have the legislatures pass laws that impose harsh penalties for the slightest noncompliance in order keep the prison cells full and corporate investors happy.

Censorship hasn’t stopped. First Amendment activities continue to be pummeled, punched, kicked, choked, chained and generally gagged all across the country. The reasons for such censorship vary widely from political correctness, safety concerns and bullying to national security and hate crimes but the end result remained the same: the complete eradication of what Benjamin Franklin referred to as the “principal pillar of a free government.”

The courts haven’t stopped marching in lockstep with the police state. The courts continue to be dominated by technicians and statists who are deferential to authority, whether government or business. Indeed, the Supreme Court’s decisions in recent years have most often been characterized by an abject deference to government authority, military and corporate interests. They have run the gamut from suppressing free speech activities and justifying suspicionless strip searches to warrantless home invasions and conferring constitutional rights on corporations, while denying them to citizens.

Government bureaucrats haven’t stopped turning American citizens into criminals. The average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to an overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal, while reinforcing the power of the police state and its corporate allies.

The surveillance state hasn’t stopped spying on Americans’ communications, transactions or movements. On any given day, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether it’s your local police, a fusion center, the National Security Agency or one of the government’s many corporate partners, is still monitoring and tracking you.

The TSA hasn’t stopped groping or ogling travelers. Under the pretext of protecting the nation’s infrastructure (roads, mass transit systems, water and power supplies, telecommunications systems and so on) against criminal or terrorist attacks, TSA task forces (comprised of federal air marshals, surface transportation security inspectors, transportation security officers, behavior detection officers and explosive detection canine teams) continue to do random security sweeps of nexuses of transportation, including ports, railway and bus stations, airports, ferries and subways, as well as political conventions, baseball games and music concerts. Sweep tactics include the use of x-ray technology, pat-downs and drug-sniffing dogs, among other things.

Congress hasn’t stopped enacting draconian laws such as the USA Patriot Act and the NDAA. These laws—which completely circumvent the rule of law and the constitutional rights of American citizens, continue to re-orient our legal landscape in such a way as to ensure that martial law, rather than the rule of law, our U.S. Constitution, becomes the map by which we navigate life in the United States.

The Department of Homeland Security hasn’t stopped being a “wasteful, growing, fear-mongering beast.” Is the DHS capable of plotting and planning to turn the national guard into a federalized, immigration police force? No doubt about it. Remember, this is the agency that is notorious for militarizing the police and SWAT teams; spying on activists, dissidents and veterans; stockpiling ammunition; distributing license plate readers; contracting to build detention camps; tracking cell-phones with Stingray devices; carrying out military drills and lockdowns in American cities; using the TSA as an advance guard; conducting virtual strip searches with full-body scanners; carrying out soft target checkpoints; directing government workers to spy on Americans; conducting widespread spying networks using fusion centers; carrying out Constitution-free border control searches; funding city-wide surveillance cameras; and utilizing drones and other spybots.

The military industrial complex hasn’t stopped profiting from endless wars abroad. America’s expanding military empire continues to bleed the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour). The Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety. Yet what most Americans fail to recognize is that these ongoing wars have little to do with keeping the country safe and everything to do with enriching the military industrial complex at taxpayer expense.

The Deep State’s shadow government hasn’t stopped calling the shots behind the scenes. Comprised of unelected government bureaucrats, corporations, contractors, paper-pushers, and button-pushers who are actually calling the shots behind the scenes, this government within a government continues to be the real reason “we the people” have no real control over our so-called representatives. It’s every facet of a government that is no longer friendly to freedom and is working overtime to trample the Constitution underfoot and render the citizenry powerless in the face of the government’s power grabs, corruption and abusive tactics.

And the American people haven’t stopped acting like gullible sheep. In fact, many Americans have been so carried away by their blind rank-and-file partisan devotion to their respective political gods that they have lost sight of the one thing that has remained constant in recent years: our freedoms are steadily declining.

Here’s the problem as I see it: “we the people” have become so trusting, so gullible, so easily distracted, so out-of-touch and so sure that our government will always do the right thing by us that we have ignored the warning signs all around us.

In so doing, we have failed to recognize such warning signs as potential red flags to use as opportunities to ask questions, demand answers, and hold our government officials accountable to respecting our rights and abiding by the rule of law.

Unfortunately, once a free people allows the government to make inroads into their freedoms, or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny. And it doesn’t really matter whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican at the helm, because the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, this is what happens when you ignore the warning signs.

This is what happens when you fail to take alarm at the first experiment on your liberties.

This is what happens when you fail to challenge injustice and government overreach until the prison doors clang shut behind you.

In the American police state that now surrounds us, there are no longer such things as innocence, due process, or justice—at least, not in the way we once knew them. We are all potentially guilty, all potential criminals, all suspects waiting to be accused of a crime.

So you can try to persuade yourself that you are free, that you still live in a country that values freedom, and that it is not too late to make America great again, but to anyone who has been paying attention to America’s decline over the past 50 years, it will be just another lie.

The German people chose to ignore the truth and believe the lie.

They were not oblivious to the horrors taking place around them. As historian Robert Gellately points out, “[A]nyone in Nazi Germany who wanted to find out about the Gestapo, the concentration camps, and the campaigns of discrimination and persecutions need only read the newspapers.”

The warning signs were definitely there, blinking incessantly like large neon signs.

“Still,” Gellately writes, “the vast majority voted in favor of Nazism, and in spite of what they could read in the press and hear by word of mouth about the secret police, the concentration camps, official anti-Semitism, and so on. . . . [T]here is no getting away from the fact that at that moment, ‘the vast majority of the German people backed him.’”

Half a century later, the wife of a prominent German historian, neither of whom were members of the Nazi party, opined: “[O]n the whole, everyone felt well. . . . And there were certainly eighty percent who lived productively and positively throughout the time. . . . We also had good years. We had wonderful years.”

In other words, as long as their creature comforts remained undiminished, as long as their bank accounts remained flush, as long as they weren’t being discriminated against, persecuted, starved, beaten, shot, stripped, jailed and turned into slave labor, life was good.

This is how tyranny rises and freedom falls.

As Primo Levi, a Holocaust survivor observed, “Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions.”

Freedom demands responsibility.

Freedom demands that people stop sleep-walking through life, stop cocooning themselves in political fantasies, and stop distracting themselves with escapist entertainment.

Freedom demands that we stop thinking as Democrats and Republicans and start thinking like human beings, or at the very least, Americans.

Freedom demands that we not remain silent in the face of evil or wrongdoing but actively stand against injustice.

Freedom demands that we treat others as we would have them treat us. That is the law of reciprocity, also referred to as the Golden Rule, and it is found in nearly every world religion, including Judaism and Christianity.

In other words, if you don’t want to be locked up in a prison cell or a detention camp—if you don’t want to be discriminated against because of the color of your race, religion, politics or anything else that sets you apart from the rest—if you don’t want your loved ones shot at, strip searched, tasered, beaten and treated like slaves—if you don’t want to have to be constantly on guard against government eyes watching what you do, where you go and what you say—if you don’t want to be tortured, waterboarded or forced to perform degrading acts—if you don’t want your children to grow up in a world without freedom—then don’t allow these evils to be inflicted on anyone else, no matter how tempting the reason or how fervently you believe in your cause.

As German theologian and anti-Nazi dissident Dietrich Bonhoeffer observed, “We are not to simply bandage the wounds of victims beneath the wheels of injustice, we are to drive a spoke into the wheel itself.”

Olddogs Comments!

C’mon John, the people already know about this crap, but what they don’t know is how it really happened. Sooner or later if you really want to help the people, you will bone up on: You Know Something is Wrong When….. An American Affidavit of Probable Cause by Anna Maria Riezinger and Paul Alan Snover

 Surely you do not think that our scumbags in office would take any risks, so they must somehow be protected!!!! RIGHT?

Take this to the bank folks, we are owned and governed by the International Investment Banking Cartel, and the scumbags in office are just stupid enough to not believe the Banker will turn on them when they have served their purpose.

 The preservation of earth’s natural assets for their children is the name of the game. In this game, we are the pawns. And when the pawns wake up, the shit will hit the fan.



Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. His new book Battlefield America: The War on the American People (SelectBooks, 2015) is available online at Whitehead can be contacted at

Publication Guidelines / Reprint Permission

John W. Whitehead’s weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact to obtain reprint permission.



TISA Ready to Take the Place of TPP



By Daily Bell Staff

TISA’s Worse Than TPP—Kiss Internet privacy and national sovereignty goodbye  – National Economics

We got rid of TPP and now they’re bringing it back with TISA. In some ways it’s even worse that TPP.

TPP was killed because Congress wasn’t going to go along with it and US President Donald Trump withdrew the country from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) as soon as he got into office.

But now we’re finding out that it lives on through the Trade In Services Agreement (TISA). TISA has actually been around for a long time, some 21 rounds of negotiations since April 2013.

And while many things can be said about TISA, it was obviously designed as a back up to TPP. In fact one can speculate that TPP was actually expected to fail and TISA was developed to take its place.

What is TISA? It’s another version of corporate globalism that further deregulates banks, reduces Internet privacy and turns various kinds of manufacturing into services to make internationalization ever easier.

Not only is TISA similar to TPP, it’s a lot bigger, including the US, the European Union and numerous South American and Asian countries. It’s actually a good deal more inclusive than TPP.

Article 9 of TISA’s draft legislation makes sure nations cannot create separate, domestic rules for banks that are not their own. Small, local banks would thus be thrust into competition with overseas multinationals.

Additionally it demands that individual countries allow all sorts of financial products to be sold, including derivatives.

And, like TPP, it allows corporations to sue counties that have passed legislation that would adversely affect corporations. Just as with TPP, disputes would be handled by an as-yes-to-be-created international system.

This was perhaps the most disputed part of TPP, and here it is once more, coming right back again.

They call TISA free-trade, but just like TPP and other recent agreements it’s nothing but managed trade, designed to get corporate advantages.

TISA doesn’t seem to be going anywhere at the moment. The Trump administration claims it wants bilateral trade  talks, not multi-lateral ones. So perhaps it will be on the back burner for a while.

On the other hand, Trump can recreate TISA-TPP with bilateral agreements, so the danger is not over. The next globalist step is to make large corporations equal to nation states or even superior to them. That is what these agreements are supposed to accomplish.

People should be careful about what kind of bilateral agreements Trump wants to make. He already seems to have potentially endorsed a one-world currency in talks with China,

Certainly Trump is no libertarian. He’s not seeking to roll back anything in terms of increasing authoritarian structures, like Homeland Security, that have been erected in the last 20 years.

He seems fine with the structure as it is. He just wants to make sure he can use it for his own purposes.

It’s not clear where Trump is going with TISA. He may well let it die. But he could resurrect it bilaterally if he doesn’t have negative feelings about the larger corporate versus nation-state debate.

Trump may be comfortable giving corporations more power. We would not be, for  reasons stated many times before. Modern corporations are pumped up on the steroids of court decisions that have handed them their monstrous size.

Essentially what we have is a form of corporate fascism that is directly related to the vast structure of these corporate entities. Let them collapse to normal size rather than being inflated by intellectual property rights, corporate personhood, and various regulatory constructs, and we would be much more amenable to letting corporations do as they choose.

But then again, if corporations were merely normal sized, they wouldn’t be the chosen vehicle of the elites. That’s what this is all about really. The top banking elites have created modern corporations from government power, and now they want to extend their control.

Conclusion: They call these agreements “free trade” but the vehicles they use are developed by government not competition. They are supposed to represent the next stage of capitalism. But they are nothing of the sort.

Olddogs Comments!

I would bet my last dollar the procedure here is; the most financially affluent corporations are making a move to totally dominate their prospective fields of commerce, as competition is abhorrent to them.

I am also sure that there will eventually be only one world investment Corporation.



The Left Right Paradigm Is Back

By Chuck Baldwin 
February 16, 2017

Before the campaign and election of Donald Trump, the left-right paradigm was on life support. People were as sick of Republicans such as Jeb Bush as they were of Democrats such as Hillary Clinton. But the election of Donald Trump has resurrected the left-right paradigm BIG TIME.

Ever since Trump won the Republican nomination–and even more so since he won the general election–it seems we are right back to the old Republican vs. Democrat, left vs. right, liberal vs. conservative mentality that got us into this mess in the first place. It is to the point that major “patriot” radio talk show hosts are sounding more and more like Republican hacks such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. And so-called patriot websites seem to have lost their constitutional objectivity as well when it comes to Trump.

As a national radio talk show host and columnist, I went through this with G.W. Bush. And as Yogi Berra used to say, “It’s deja vu all over again.”  So, where exactly does that leave honest, objective truth-tellers? We catch it from all directions.

Just a few days ago, an ultra left-wing propaganda website did a hatchet job on yours truly and the good folks at Liberty Fellowship. A reporter (or should I say saboteur) snuck into one of our services and wrote up a hit piece that Joseph Goebbels (and the SPLC) would be proud of. At the same time, so-called conservative, patriot websites and columnists are attacking me with equal ferocity. What should that tell you? It should tell you that neither side is interested in truth; both sides only want to report that which furthers their own political agenda.

Truth is dead; objectivity is dead; honest journalism is dead. Truly, “fake news” is found on both ends of the political spectrum.

The fact is, Donald Trump has made and is making many decisions that should deeply concern constitutionalists, conservatives, and patriots. For all intents and purposes, the “law and order” agenda he is publicly promoting eviscerates the Fourth Amendment along with several others.

For example, Trump recently threatened to ruin the career of a Texas State Senator who dared to introduce legislation that would require a criminal conviction before law enforcement authorities can seize a person’s assets. The way the laws are written right now, the government can seize any citizen’s personal assets without having to charge the person with any illegal activity or wrongdoing. Mere suspicion is all that is necessary. Do Trump’s supporters really support THAT? If they do, they have no right to call themselves a “constitutionalist,” that’s for sure.

See the report:

Trump Casually Offers To ‘Destroy’ Texas Senator Who Dared To Suggest Law Amendment (VIDEO)

With President Trump’s public rhetoric promoting police “stop and frisk” laws and similar bullying tactics, 157 people have been killed by police officers in just the first six weeks of 2017. That is almost a 10% increase over 2016’s banner year of police killings at this point on the calendar. And we are not yet two months into the new year. Does this make you feel “patriotic”? Do you really think this is what it means to “drain the swamp”?

Over Barack Obama’s eight years in office, he appointed twenty-one members of the globalist CFR to his administration. In just the beginning stages of Trump’s administration, he has already appointed four individual CFR members (Elaine Chao, Robert Lighthizer, K.T. McFarland, Robert Wood Johnson IV). Then count the companies that are CFR affiliates and the appointees from these companies that Trump has selected, including Rex Tillerson and Robert Harward, and that adds 15 additional CFR globalists to his administration. So, in reality, Trump has already appointed 19 CFR globalists to his administration–and he is only a few weeks into his presidency. At this rate, Trump is on a pace to far exceed Obama’s CFR appointments. Is that what you call putting “America first”?

Donald Trump’s CIA chief, Michael Pompeo, wants no interference or prohibition upon the federal government’s collecting “metadata” information on the American people. He wants to ignore or eliminate the USA Freedom Act that limits such data collection and resume the government’s collection of personal data on the American citizenry unimpeded. In other words, Pompeo wants the federal government to have complete freedom to spy on every American citizen, no exceptions and no limitations. Does that sound pro-constitution and pro-freedom to you?

Speaking of Pompeo and the CIA, Trump’s CIA chief just awarded Saudi Arabia Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef the George Tenet award for his work in “fighting terrorism.” I kid you not. Look it up for yourself.

Without a doubt, Saudi Arabia is the biggest exporter of terrorism in the entire Middle East. The Saudi government’s fingerprints are all over Al Qaeda, ISIS, and even the 9/11 attacks here in the United States. And Trump gives the Saudi deputy premier and interior minister an “anti-terrorism” award? Are you kidding me?

And talk about conflict of interest: here are the Zionists that Donald Trump has appointed to his administration so far: Jared Kushner, David Friedman, Jason Greenblatt, Steven Mnuchin, Stephen Miller, Carl Icahn, Gary Cohn, Boris Epshteyn, David Shulkin, Reed Cordish, and Avrahm Berkowitz. Try to find that many people of virtually any other single persuasion that Trump has appointed. But appointing this many Zionists to his cabinet is not supposed to concern us?

And did I tell you that Trump’s choice for Secretary of the Interior, Montana’s Ryan Zinke, was one of the most liberal Republican State legislators in the entire State of Montana? Well, he was. Oh, and did I tell you that Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin, wants to INCREASE the size and scope of the Internal Revenue Service? Well, he does. And did I tell you that Trump’s choice for Labor Secretary, Andy Puzder, is a disciple of Jeb Bush and Eric Cantor and that he has made a living out of hiring cheap labor and immigrant employees and that he has promoted illegal immigration during his entire career? Well, he is and he has.

Plus, as we speak, the Trump administration is already making excuses as to why Obamacare won’t be able to be rescinded or replaced “any time soon.” And, of course, after saying that NAFTA needed to be shredded on the campaign trail, President Trump is now saying it needs to be reworked. But it’s uncertain at this point how or even if that will be accomplished. (Thankfully, Trump did put the whammy on TPP.) Oh, and the promise to put Hillary Clinton in jail: forget it. Trump has made it clear that the Clintons are “wonderful” people and that he has great “respect” for both of them.

And speaking of putting people in jail, you know that Donald Trump wants to put people who burn the American flag in jail for at least a year or take away their U.S. citizenship, right? What’s next? Will he propose shooting them?

Do I support burning the American flag? Absolutely not! I find it disgusting and revolting. Neither did I support those NFL players who refused to stand during our National Anthem during this past football season. I found those players to be equally repugnant. And the American viewing public had every right to register their displeasure of Kaepernick and Company by not watching NFL games–and a host of them did just that. But this is America. People have the right to protest, whether the rest of us find the protest disgusting or not. Freedom says, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll fight for your right to say it.” Apparently, Donald Trump doesn’t believe that. As a private citizen, that’s no big deal; but as President of the United States of America, that IS a very big deal.

By this time, people may have gotten an entirely wrong perception of what I’m saying. Believe it or not, I’m NOT anti-Trump. I actually concur with many things Trump has said and done so far (not the things mentioned above, of course). What I am is chagrined and saddened at the lack of principled objectivity being demonstrated by many so-called conservatives. The left has been guilty of this for years. And now with the election of Donald Trump, the right is proving itself equally guilty. That makes the right no better than the left–which takes us back to the beginning of how our country got in this shape to begin with. As writers and columnists, why can’t we stand foursquare on the principles of liberty and constitutional government, call a spade a spade, and just let the chips fall where they may? Is that really so hard to do? For many people, I guess it is.

It’s the same old story: people love me when I’m taking Democrats and liberals to task for the violation of freedom principles but hate me when I take Republicans and conservatives to task for the exact same things. And the truth is, at this point, Donald Trump is sending so many mixed signals it’s impossible to know exactly what he believes or what he intends to do. I’m not sure he even knows what he believes or what he intends to do. But that’s not the point. Our job as independent, honest, and objective columnists, writers, reporters, journalists, etc., is to remain loyal to the principles of truth, liberty,  and constitutional government–no matter who is in the White House or what party controls Congress. Anything less is just more unprincipled partisan politics. In other words, more SWAMP.

What seems clear is that whatever else Donald Trump has accomplished by this election–whether wittingly or unwittingly–he has definitely brought back the destructive and distracting left-right paradigm. But that’s not his fault–it’s ours.

© Chuck Baldwin


The Globalist Long Game – Redefine Liberty Activism As Evil “Populism”



By Brandon Smith

One of the most favored propaganda tactics of establishment elites and the useful idiots they employ in Marxist and cultural-Marxist circles is to relabel or redefine an opponent before they can solidly define themselves.  In other words, elites and Marxists will seek to “brand” you (just as corporations use branding) in the minds of the masses so that they can take away your ability to define yourself as anything else.

Think of it this way: Say you want to launch an organization called “Movement Blue,” and you and others have gone through great struggle to grow this organization from the ground up.  However, just as your movement is about to achieve widespread recognition, someone else comes along, someone with extensive capital and media influence, and they saturate every outlet with the narrative that your movement is actually more like “Movement Red,” and that Movement Red is a terrible, no-good, bad idea.  They do such a good job, in fact, that millions and millions of people start calling you “Movement Red” without even knowing why, and they begin to believe all the negative associations that this label entails.

Through the art of negative branding, your enemy has stolen your most precious asset — the ability to present yourself to the public as you really are.

Negative branding is a form of psychological inoculation.  It is designed to close people’s minds to particular ideas before they actually hear those ideas presented by a true proponent of the ideas.  But beyond that, negative branding can also be used to trick groups and movements into abandoning their original identity.

For example, the concept of economic freedom for individuals –the freedom from overt government interference or government favoritism for certain people over others, the freedom to compete with ideas and ingenuity to build a better business and a better product, the freedom to retain the fruits of one’s labor — used to be widely referred to as “free markets”, as defined by Adam Smith.  The very basis of free market philosophy was to remove obstruction and economic oppression from the common man in order to inspire a renaissance in innovation and prosperity.  The problem is, you rarely hear anyone but libertarians talk about traditional “free markets” anymore.

Though Karl Marx did not coin the term “capitalism,” he and his followers (and editors) are indeed guilty of the pejorative version now used.  It has always been Marxist propagandists who have sought to redefine the idea of “free markets” in a negative way, and the use of the term capitalism is how they did it.  They have been so effective in their efforts that today even some free market proponents instead refer to themselves as “capitalists.”

While “free markets” denote freedom of the common man to pursue a better life through productivity and intelligence and merit, “capitalism” denotes a monstrous and blind pursuit of wealth and power without moral regard.  One gives the impression of fairness, the other gives the impression of tyranny.

Is there even such an animal as “capitalism?”  I can’t really say.  What I do know is that the system we have today, a hybrid mutation of corporatism and socialism, is certainly NOT a free market system if we are to follow the true definition and the original intent.  Yet, whenever cultural and economic Marxists attack the notion of economic freedom, they use the system we have now as an example of the failures of “free market capitalism.”

This is the magic of negative branding, and it is used in every facet of social life and geopolitics.

Now, before I get into the term “populist,” I recognize that people opposed to my position will immediately spring into a tirade about how liberty and sovereignty champions brand those against our ideals “in the exact same way.”  This is not quite true, though.

When we refer to “globalists” in a negative manner, we are taking a pre-existing label, something that they often call themselves, and pointing out that their philosophy is flawed and highly destructive based on historical evidence and verifiable facts.  We are not seeking to redefine them as anything other than what they already are.  We are merely exposing to the public what they OPENLY promote and believe and then offer our side and our evidence as to why their beliefs are wrong.

This is not what they do to us.  Instead, globalists and their cronies prefer that the public does not get to hear our views directly from us.  They rarely, if ever, actually use our publications as a source for their attacks on our principles.  They would much rather tell the public what we are and what we believe before they are ever exposed to us.  This is why you will often find that many participants in protest groups at events held by anti-globalists like Ben Shapiro or Milo Yiannopoulos have never actually seen or heard a single speech by the men in question.  They have no idea what we really stand for.  In fact, they protest our speakers, groups and movements based on what they were told we stand for by other biased sources.

This brings us to “populism.”

There has been a deep and concerted propaganda campaign taking place against liberty activists, sovereignty champions, anti-globalists, anti-SJW groups, and conservatives in general.  I noticed this particular campaign accelerating at the beginning of 2016, and it was the primary reason why I chose to take a hard stance on my predictions for Brexit passage and a Trump election win.  The propaganda narrative could be summarized as follows:

Since early 2016 (according to globalists and the mainstream publications featuring their opinions), there has been a rising tide of nationalists and “populists” in western nations.  This sudden surge in “populism” is inexorably tied to the Brexit movement and the support for candidates like Donald Trump.  Populism will overrun the existing “stability” of globalism and cause severe economic crisis in numerous countries.  It finds its roots in the “less educated” portions of the population, as well as in older generations that think they have something to lose if globalism succeeds.  It is also driven by an “irrational fear” of economic change, global interdependence and multiculturalism.  Populists are predominantly naive and desperate for “strongmen” leaders to fight for them.  Some of them are motivated by self interest, while others are motivated by racism.

You can see these sentiments expressed bluntly in numerous mainstream media outlets.  The Guardian has no qualms about linking the Brexit to “racism” and populism, for example.  The Washington Post also has had no problem linking the Tea Party and Trump supporters to racism and populism as well.

Beyond the paper-thin accusations of racism, the general thrust of the negative branding is clear; if you are against globalism (or elitism) and its major tenets, then you are a “populist.”  This is reiterated in recent articles from Bloomberg and The Guardian.

But in such publications, the most egregious argument is the one that is not directly made.  The insinuation is that “populism” is not just defined by a fear of corruption through organized elitism, but that this fear is UNFOUNDED.  Meaning, anyone who argues against the mechanizations of globalists, for instance, is not only redefined as a “populist,” but he/she is also, essentially, ignorant or insane.  See how that works?

The populist label is often used to describe a political movement built on the cult of personality, a sycophantic love affair with a celebrity dictator that tends to have ulterior motives.  Thus, the philosophical underpinnings of that particular movement are further eroded because they don’t even know why they are doing what they are doing; they are only playing a foolish game of follow the leader.

So, to recap, according to the establishment and their “press,” conservatives and sovereignty activists are actually “populists.” Our concerns over uncontrolled immigration and open borders are not based on rationalism and historic evidence of social and economic instability as well as the highly evidenced threats of terrorism; they are based on “xenophobia.”

Our concerns over the increasing fiscal weakness generated by the economic interdependence of globalism and our lack of self reliance are not based on math and logic, but our “lack of understanding” on how interdependence makes everything better.

Our concerns over rampant organized elitism and the corruption this entails are not based on numerous concrete examples, not to mention exposed documentation and the words of elitists themselves; they are based on a “fantasy world” of “tinfoil hatters” who just make stuff up while consuming heaping helpings of “fake news”.

If this is the case, then I suppose I should fasten my own tinfoil hat tightly and note that this narrative is part of an ongoing long-game by globalists.  They are not attempting to achieve the demonization of conservatives and sovereignty advocates today or tomorrow.  This is about preparing the public for a near future, perhaps five to 10 years from now, after they have sufficiently sabotaged the global economy and scapegoated us for the crisis this will cause.

Not possible, you say?  By all means, read my article ‘The False Economic Recovery Narrative Will Die In 2017’ for further explanation.  If we are not careful, we will be redefined not just by establishment propaganda, but by a global calamity that will be gift wrapped with our name on it and tied around our collective necks.

In the meantime, how do we fight back against this disinformation campaign?

One factor that a “populist movement” generally does not have is the ability to remain self-critical.  Populism, at least according to the mainstream media, requires a mentality of mass blind faith in a cause that is misunderstood or a leader that is dishonest.  The liberty movement and conservative groups still have some members who are not afraid to point out when we are going astray in our logic or our actions.

We have not been silenced by our own peers, yet.  Given enough crisis, it is hard to say how people will react.  A major terrorist attack, an economic panic, a war; these kinds of rip-tides can inspire a lot of intolerance for contrary views.  We are not there at this point, and as long as members of our movement are able to retain a critical eye, we will never be “populists.”

Another method is to refrain from adopting the “branding” that the establishment tries to use against us.  Beware of anyone within our groups and organizations who begins referring to himself or us as “populists” as if this is a label of which we should be proud.

In the long run, people with ill intent will call us whatever they want to call us.  The real issue is, will those labels stick?  Will we help them to stick by losing our composure and acting the way the propagandists always said we would?

Negative branding is about burning a hole in the historical record, because memes last far longer than people.  In 100 years, how will we be remembered?  This is what the globalists value most — future impressions of today by generations not yet born.  Because wars are not just fought in one moment over one piece of ground or over one idea; they are fought in ALL moments, for days not yet passed, for the posterity of all ideas, even those not yet thought of.  If we do not fight back with this in mind, winning will be impossible.


Call me what ever you want, but the truth is, this Olddog is getting close to believing there is NO HOPE FOR FREEDOM FROM TYRANNY! I say this because of the lack of intellect in the majority, caused by the education and media industries. Young men with the intellect like Brandon Smith are far and few between, and all they care about is fun & games, sex, and income without work. You would have one hell of an incompetent army with them as soldiers. The globalist have masterfully divided and dumbed-down the last two generations.



It’s Your Copyright: Part 32



By Anna Von Reitz

The rats seize upon your given name while you are still a babe in your cradle, and they establish a false copyright on it, claiming that it is the name of a debtor to their corporation.  They then set up an ACCOUNT in your GIVEN NAME to service the debt.  Then throughout your life they have addressed claims against that NAME and they have hired the American Bar Association to operate their corporate tribunals as debt collection agencies under color of law, disguised as American public courts, to collect those debts.

That is the essence of the daily fleecing of America.

It is a little hard to wrap your head around the first go, so let’s examine it step by step and a bit deeper.

A baby— let’s give him the name “Paul Anthony Mitchell” is born in Hennepin County, Minnesota.

What should happen is that his name should be recorded as a land asset. He comes from the land and returns to the land —- “For dust thou art, and to dust returneth”.

This is a recording — not a “registration”.

A recording is a public record of an event or testimony or ownership interest in private property, etc., while a “registration” involves international commerce and involves giving up all or part of your ownership interest in the asset being registered.

Little Paul Anthony Mitchell is the “Holder in Due Course” of the name and estate.  His interest must be recorded by his parents or there is no public record in his favor.  Instead, the local federal franchise “state” doing business in this case as the “State of Minnesota” registers his name instead, and in so doing, makes him a “ward of the state”.

Once he is a “ward of the state” he becomes property belonging to the state corporation and not to his parents.  When he comes of age, if he does not correct this “presumed” political status, he remains a “ward of the state” for the rest of his life—-and the state “inherits” all the benefit of his name and estate. He remains a chattel property and dependent.

This de facto process of undisclosed enslavement has been used against virtually all Americans and this form of slavery has been continuously practiced by the “United States Government” since the 1860’s, first against black people and “rebels” and later against virtually everyone on this continent.

In promoting this practice the vermin responsible have violated both international law and the actual Constitution we are all owed at birth—-and, importantly, they have infringed upon your Common Law Copyright guaranteed by the Copyright Act of 1790.

The foreign federal franchise “State of Minnesota” has no natural right nor ability to use your given name.  You have not knowingly nor willingly consented to give your name to them for any such purposes as they propose.  So, what to do?

They have set up a collection account under the trademark “PAUL ANTHONY MITCHELL” or, more recently, “PAUL A. MITCHELL”—- these “marks” or “images” or “glossas” are not names; they only appear to be names.  They are actually trademarks that have also been created by the perpetrators of this vast fraud and crimes of personage.

And once again, they are infringing on your trademark as the natural Holder in Due Course of the given name.

How can any of this be legal?

Well, they gave you an insurance indemnity receipt guaranteed by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE that your property would not be harmed or lost.  That insurance indemnity receipt is known as a BIRTH CERTIFICATE.


So how to deal this situation?   Our research thus far indicates that you need to establish by Published Notice and Recording a Common Law Copyright on your own given Name.  This corrects the failure of your parents to do this for you.

You also need to collect at least one, preferably more, Statements of Witnesses, from credible people having first hand knowledge of you and your family, confirming that you are in fact the man or woman whose live birth occurred at such and such a time and place.  These statements must be sworn or affirmed from “without the United States” and further witnessed by a public notary.

Next, you must give Notice of Fiduciary Relationship (IRS Form 56) to the government officials responsible for the existence of YOUR NAME.

You return “HIM” via an authenticated Birth Certificate signed over to the Secretary of the Treasury “without recourse” for the benefit of “The United States of America — Minnesota State” and “surrender” the DEBTOR.

In this, you are acting as a Bounty Hunter serving the lawful government of your state.

HE is now imprisoned, legally “dead” and unable to cause any more problems. When the rats start issuing BIRTH CERTIFICATES in the “name of ” PAUL A. MITCHELL the same process has to be followed to put HIM out of his misery.

Of course, there will continue to be references made to HIM and ACCOUNTS set up in his NAME, but that is not your concern anymore, is it?  The bills addressed to HIM now go back to the Internal Revenue Service for payment and credit, and it is up to them to establish transparent and user friendly processes to expedite this.

This is not an easy or well-defined process.  In fact, it has been deliberately obscured by those profiting from our ignorance, however, the Internal Revenue Service is the organization responsible for providing you with enforcement and once the Internal Revenue Service has been given proper Notice of the circumstances and your actions to correct, they have proven more than capable and willing to go after the perpetrators of this scheme.

When it ceases to be profitable, it will end.

Many people feel qualms about “surrendering” the STRAWMAN back to the  Treasury, because they mistakenly feel an attachment to something that appears to be their own NAME.

In fact, all they are “giving up” is a debt they do not owe and all they are doing is shutting down the mechanisms by which their own copyright and trademarks are being infringed upon and enclosed by foreign and predatory interests. In the process, by returning “HIM” to the Treasury, they also pay off the so-called National Debt and help balance the accounts.

I have often observed that we are owed a National Credit equal to the National Debt— a credit that is not being applied. When you turn in the STRAWMAN and appoint the Treasury Secretary your Fiduciary, you enable him to offset and apply the credit that is owed.  This is turn reduces the National Debt by an equal amount, refunds the government of your actual state of the Union, and unblocks your own accounts.

Anti-intuitive as it seems, the Treasury Secretary and the Internal Revenue Service are supposed to be your best friends and the means of enforcing your lawful interests.

So if you are sick and tired of “business as usual” in these United States, it is more than past the hour when you must evaluate your actual position with respect to the federal corporations and determine whether you serve the government (that is, function as a “citizen”) or wish the government to serve you (that is, claim “state national” political status).

Realize that some people are obligated to function as citizens by their own choices—- federal civilian and military personnel are all citizens according to occupation, likewise elected officials serving the federal corporations and their state of state franchises.  African Americans were never granted state national status and have to instead claim “equal civil rights”.  Likewise, first generation immigrants, political asylum seekers, and people receiving federal welfare benefits are stuck claiming equal civil rights.

In this discussion it is important to note that despite recent federal efforts to “redefine” Social Security payments as “welfare benefits”—- this is not the understanding or representation that the Social Security Administration made at the time you signed up and you need merely object to any such interpretation and require the blackguards to prove that you are NOT retired from any and all federal employment.

In days to come, our political focus must shift away from such idiocies as transgender public bathrooms to forcing the rats to address the political standing of the American People and the debts owed to us.  There is at present no simple and easy and straight forward method for Americans to record and enforce their interests in their own names and estates.

The Internal Revenue Service is ready and willing to assist us, if and when we can demonstrate a substantial knowledge of the whole situation and a willingness on our parts to take the actions necessary to prosecute our claims.

In addition to reiterating and publishing and recording our Common Law Copyright and Trademark interests in our own given names and estates, in addition to re-establishing our true identity via witnesses, and returning the STRAWMAN to the Treasury,  we need to take these issues up with President Trump and the members of “Congress” responsible for the predatory practices of the federal corporations with respect to us—– the people  they are supposed to be serving.

It is more than past time for peace to be declared and for these dishonorable and criminal practices on the part of the federal corporations and their state of state franchises to cease.

See this article and over 400 others on Anna’s website here:



UNESCO Plan Train Students to Reject Truth and Accept a New Consensus

By Berit Kjos – 1998 (Now we see the results)

See also: Mandatory Training in Orwellian Thinking

 The Ominous “Success” of Re-Education  | Brainwashing in America

Spreading Islam through Public Schools

 The classroom discussion came to a close, and Ashley began to pack up her books. Her English class had studied Oedipus, the mythical king haunted by an oracle’s tragic prediction that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Moments before the bell rang, the California tenth-grader heard her teacher announce a writing assignment:

You’re going to consult an oracle. It will tell you that you’re going to kill your best friend. This is destined to happen, and there is absolutely no way out. You will commit this murder. What will you do before this event occurs? Describe how you felt leading up to it. How did you actually kill your best friend?1

Ashley felt eerie. What a strange assignment! Why would her English teacher tell her to imagine something so horrible. I don’t want to do this, she told herself. Long after she told her parents, the awful feelings continued to churn inside.

The next day, Ashley’s mother called the teacher and asked that her daughter be given an alternate assignment. “I can’t encourage my daughter to write a story about murdering her best friend,” she explained.

“Certainly Ashley knows the difference between fantasy and reality,” said Ms Sawyer with a touch of sarcasm.

“Of course, she does. But when you ask someone to imagine how they would go about murdering a friend, you could stir up nightmarish feelings….”

“I have been giving the same assignment for years,” answered Ms Sawyer. Then she added the standard argument parents across the country have learned to expect: “No one has ever complained about this before.”

“That’s a shame,” responded the mother. “It seems to me that parents should be appalled!”

“If I give Ashley a different assignment she will be made to feel foolish.”

“Are you saying that she will either get an F or be made to feel foolish? Is this a no win situation for her?”

The teacher didn’t answer, and Ashley’s mother felt troubled. What kind of education was this?

Moral Confusion

Emotional shock therapy has become standard fare in public schools from coast to coast. It produces cognitive dissonance — mental and moral confusion — especially in students trained to follow God’s guidelines. While classroom topics may range from homosexual or occult practices to euthanasia and suicide, they all challenge and stretch His moral boundaries. But why?

“[Our objective] will require a change in the prevailing culture–the attitudes, values, norms and accepted ways of doing things,”2 says Marc Tucker, the master-mind behind the school-to-work and “workforce development” program now being implemented in every state. Working with Hillary Clinton and other globalist leaders, he called for a paradigm shift–a total transformation in the way people think, believe, and perceive reality.

This new paradigm rules out traditional values and biblical truth, which are now considered hateful and intolerant. (See “Clinton’s War on Hate Bans Christian Values“) All religions must be pressed into the mold of the new global spirituality.3 Since globalist leaders tout this world religion as a means of building public awareness of our supposed planetary oneness, Biblical Christianity doesn’t fit. It is simply too “exclusive” and “judgmental.” President Bush summarized the goal in his 1991 announcement of America 2000, the Republican version of UNESCO’s worldwide education reform program:

Nations that stick to stale old notions and ideologies will falter and fail. So I’m here today to say, America will move forward…. New schools for a new world…. Our challenge amounts to nothing less than a revolution in American education.4

Immersing students in imaginary situations that clash with home-taught values confuses and distorts a student’s conscience. Each shocking story and group dialogue tends to weaken resistance to change. Biblical absolutes simply don’t fit the hypothetical stories that prompt children to question and replace home-taught values. Before long, God’s standard for right and wrong is turned upside-down, and unthinkable behavior begins to seem more normal than obedience to God.

But it takes more than a twisted conscience to produce compliant world citizens. New values must replace God’s timeless truths, and no strategy works better than the old dialectic (consensus) process explained by Georg Hegel, embraced by Marx and Lenin, and incorporated into American education during the eighties.

The Consensus Process

Matt Piecora, a fifth grader from the Seattle area, was told to complete the sentence, “If I could wish for three things, I would wish for…” Matt wrote “infinitely more wishes, to meet God, and for all my friends to be Christians.”

Since each student’s wishes would be posted on a wall for “open house”, they had to be just right. Matt’s didn’t pass. The teacher told him that his last wish could hurt people who didn’t share his beliefs. Matt didn’t want to hurt anyone, so he agreed to add “if they want to be.”5

Another sentence to be completed began, “If I could meet anyone, I would like to meet…” Matt wrote: “God because he is the one who made us!” The teacher told him to add “in my opinion.”

When Matt’s parents came to the school, they noticed the phrases that had been added to Matt’s sentences. “Why did you add this?” his mother asked.

“The teacher didn’t want me to hurt other people’s feelings,” he answered.

“But these are just your wishes…”

“I thought so, Mom.” Matt looked confused. Later, the teacher explained to Matt’s parents that she wanted “diversity” in her class and was looking out for her other students. But the excuse didn’t make sense. If the papers were supposed to “express the students’ diverse views,” why couldn’t Matt share his views? Didn’t his wishes fit? Or was Christianity the real problem?

“I try to instill God’s truths in my son,” said Matt’s father, “but it seems like the school wants to remove them.”

He is right. The old Judeo-Christian beliefs don’t fit the new beliefs and values designed for global unity. The planned oneness demands “new thinking, new strategies, new behavior, and new beliefs”6 that turn God’s Word and values upside-down. Directed group discussion is key to the transformation. Professor Benjamin Bloom, called “Father of Outcome-based Education,” summarized it well:

The purpose of education and the schools is to change the thoughts, feelings and actions of students.7

….a large part of what we call “good teaching” is the teacher’s ability to attain affective objectives through challenging the students’ fixed beliefs and getting them to discuss issues.8

Matt’s last comment was especially threatening to the teacher. His statement, “God made us”, is an absolute truth. It can’t be modified to please the group. Therefore it doesn’t fit the consensus process — the main psycho-social strategy of the new national-international education system designed to mold world citizens.9 It demands that all children participate in group discussions and agree to:

  • be open to new ideas
  • share personal feelings
  • set aside home-taught values that might offend the group
  • compromise in order to seek common ground and please the group.
  • respect all opinions, no matter how contrary to God’s guidelines
  • never argue or violate someone’s comfort zone

First tested in Soviet schools, this mind-changing process required students in the USSR, China and other Communist nations to “confess” their thoughts and feelings in their respective groups. Day after day, trained facilitator-teachers would guide these groups toward a pre-planned consensus. Opposite opinions or ideas — “thesis” and “antithesis” — were blended into ever-evolving higher “truths”.

Each new truth or “synthesis” would ideally reflect a blend of each participant’s feelings and opinions. In reality, the students were manipulated into compromising their values and accepting the politically correct Soviet understanding of the issue discussed. Worse yet, the children learned to trade individual thinking for a collective mindset. Since the concluding consensus would probably change with the next dialogue, the process immunized them against faith in any unchanging truth or fact.

This revolutionary training program was officially brought into our education system in 1985, when President Reagan and Soviet President Gorbachev signed the U.S. – U.S.S.R. Education Exchange Agreement. It put American technology into the hands of Communist strategists and, in return, gave us all the psycho-social strategies used in Communist nations to indoctrinate Soviet children with Communist ideology and to monitor compliance for the rest of their lives.

Today, American children from coast to coast learn reading, health, and science through group work and dialogue. Most subjects are “integrated” or blended together and discussed in a multicultural context. Thus, fourth graders in Iowa “learn” ecology, economy, and science by “real-life” immersion into Native American cultures. They role-play tribal life and idealize the religion modeled by imaginary shamans. Seeking common ground with the guidance of a trained facilitator-teacher, they share their beliefs, feelings, and “experiences” with each other.

They might agree that “there are many gods” or “many names for the same god” and compare the exaggerated spiritual thrills of shamanism with their own church experiences. Which religion would sound most exciting to the group?

The consensus would merely be a temporary answer in a world of “continual change” — one of many step in the ongoing evolution toward better understanding of truth — as defined by leaders who envision a uniform global workforce and management system operating through compliant groups everywhere.

Zero Tolerance for Unwanted Facts and Logic

The revolution… in curriculum is that we no longer are teaching facts to children”10 announced Dr. Shirley McCune in her keynote speech at the 1989 Governor’s Conference on Education.

Facts and absolute truth encourage people to think for themselves. But in tomorrow’s managed communities, individual thinking must yield to collective thinking. Factual knowledge must be purged, along with biblical truths that enable people to debate, argue, and resist manipulation.

Even math and science facts conflict with the new thinking. So, in the quest for “constant change”, students must learn “new new math” — math without math facts and computation — and fuzzy science based on feelings rather than the facts that would anchor a child’s mind to certain unchanging realities.

Students who disagree with the planned consensus may face ridicule and intimidation and be marked “uncooperative” or “at risk”. Many are assigned to more intense sensitivity training described by nice-sounding labels such as “conflict resolution” and “anger management”. Like “critical thinking” and other educational euphemisms, these labels all point to the dialectic process that molds compliance and shows little tolerance for biblical truth.

Christian children may feel anything but free to “express” their beliefs and feelings in such a setting. That’s part of the planned intimidation.

Follow God

To stand firm in a world that demands consensus, children need to:

  1. Know and memorize God’s Word. “Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind,” wrote Paul (Romans 12:2). If children don’t renew their minds with truth, they will be transformed by the world, not God.

Even Jesus was tempted to compromise truth and follow Satan’s seductive reasoning. In the wilderness, He demonstrated the way to victory: base every response on God’s unchanging truth. He answered, “It is written”, not “I think” or “I feel.” Wielding the sword of God’s Word, he cut through the deception and won the battle. (Luke 4 and Hebrews 4:12)

Memorization is key. Memorized truth and facts provide a mental anchor to the biblical world view needed to recognize and resist compromise.

  1. Recognize the nature of the spiritual battle. In the Soviet Union, the dialectic process was used to create compliant Communist workers, ready to serve the state. Today, the goal of the consensus process remains almost the same: to create compliant global citizens for the envisioned “sustainable communities.” (See Agenda 21 at our website <;)

Now as then, opposites (right and wrong, truth and lies, fact and fiction) must be challenged, merged, and redefined in order to crush resistance and establish the new unity, compliance, and readiness to flow with “continual change”.

The inspiration comes from Satan (1 John 5:19), who adapts his strategies to our changing times. At the dawn of history, he used twisted truths and seductive dialogue to challenge Eve’s understanding of God and His ways. Now he uses the same process in groups.

A crowd can easily be manipulated — especially when trained to despise absolute truth and contrary facts. (Proverbs 13:20, 2 Tim, Hebrews 13:9; 1 Timothy 6:20)

  1. Wear God’s armor. The strategic truths outlined in Ephesians 6:10-18 will expose and counter every deception. Study the Armor of God chart (found on the “Armor” page at our website or in chapter 4 of Brave New Schools). It lists key Scriptures and shows why the six parts of the armor will expose and counter all the main lies of New Age or earth-based religions.

Then teach your children to pray through the pieces of the armor. Simplify each part to fit their ages. Make sure they know the Scriptures behind their prayer so that their faith will be grounded in God’s Word, not their imagination.

  1. Count the cost ” because you are not of the world the world hates you,” said Jesus. “If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you.” (John 15:19-21)

If children refuse to conform to the world, it will reject them. Are your children willing to count God’s favor more precious than peer approval?

Whatever their level of understanding, they need to face the choice. “Choose this day whom you will serve.” (Joshua 24:15)

  1. Make a commitment to follow the Shepherd. Paul did, therefore he rejoiced: “I count all things loss that I may gain Christ and be found in Him. (Philippians 3:7-9) He had dedicated himself to God, and nothing could shake his resolve.

Children who to follow Jesus may lose friends, but they will gain the best prize of all: the boundless love, life, and protection of our sovereign King. He will provide all the wisdom and strength they need to walk with Him. Remember, “He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it.” (1 Thessalonians 5:24) In Him they are safe forever and ever!

Blessed are you when men hate you,
and when they exclude you, and revile you,
and cast out your name as evil,
for the Son of Man’s sake.
Rejoice in that day and leap for joy!
For indeed your reward is great in heaven.
(Luke 6:22-23)

1. This quote is written according to Ashley’s recall.
2. Marc Tucker, “How We Plan to Do It,” Proposal to the New American School Development Corporation: National Center for Education and the Economy, July 9, 1992.
3. See “The UN Plan for Your Mental Health” and “Trading U.S. Rights for UN Rules.”
4. Former President George Bush announcing America 2000, White House, April 18, 1991. America 2000: An Education Strategy (Washington: The U.S. Department of Education, 1991), 50, 51, 55.
5. Matt’s parents explained to me what happened and sent a copy of the completed form.
6. Lee Droegemueller, Commissioner of Education, “Assessment! Kansas Quality Performance Accreditation (QPA), Kansas State Board of Education, Topeka, KS, January 1992.
7. Benjamin Bloom, All Our Children Learning (New York: McGraw Hill,1981); 180.
8. David Krathwohl, Benjamin Bloom and Bertram Massia, Taxonomy of Educational Objectives, The Classification of Educational Goals, Handbook II: Affective Domain (McKay Publishers, 1956), 55.
9. For a summary of the main points of Goals 2000, read “Zero Tolerance for Non-Compliance.” For practical understanding of the whole program, read Brave New School.
10.Shirley Mc Cune, Senior Director, Mid-continent Educational Laboratory, speaking at the 1989 Governors’ Conference on Education. Transcribed from conference video

The above illustrations are excerpts from Brave New Schools, which provides a practical overview of the changing education system designed to mold global citizens for 21st Century communities. Most important, it shows how to equip our children with the facts and truths needed to follow God in a world that demands a new consensus.

Abolish the Dept. of Education
End the ED, Support H.R. 899 to Abolish the Dept. of Education

On February 7, 2017, Congressman Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) introduced H.R. 899, a bill to abolish the unconstitutional Department of Education (also known as the ED), which was originally organized by President Jimmy Carter when he signed the Department of Education Organization Act on October 17, 1979. Rep. Massie’s bill, which is only one sentence long, states, “The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2018.”

On the same day as President Trump’s nominee for Secretary of Education, Betsy DeVos, was confirmed by the Senate in a rare tie-breaking vote by Vice President Mike Pence, Massie accurately pointed out, “Neither Congress nor the President, through his appointees, has the constitutional authority to dictate how and what our children must learn.” Massie further stated:

Unelected bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. should not be in charge of our children’s intellectual and moral development. States and local communities are best positioned to shape curricula that meet the needs of their students. Schools should be accountable. Parents have the right to choose the most appropriate educational opportunity for their children, including home school, public school, or private school.

Among the bill’s original cosponsors, Congressman Walter Jones (R-N.C.) said of the bill, “For years, I have advocated returning education policy to where it belongs – the state and local level.” Jones added, “D.C. bureaucrats cannot begin to understand the needs of schools and its students on an individual basis. It is time that we get the feds out of the classroom, and terminate the Department of Education.”

In addition to Jones, the other original cosponsors of Massie’s bill include Congressmen Justin Amash (R-Mich.), Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.), Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), Jody Hice (R-Ga.), Walter Jones (R-N.C.), and Raúl Labrador (R-Idaho).

Also in support of the bill, former Congressman Ron Paul (R-Texas) stated on Facebook, “I’ve long supported getting rid of the unconstitutional Department of Education. Republicans going back to Ronald Reagan have talked about abolishing it, but it never amounted to anything more than talk.”

Both as a candidate and early on in his presidency, Reagan advocated for abolishing the Department of Education. On September 24, 1981 in his Address to the Nation on the Program for Economic Recovery, President Reagan proposed getting rid of the Department of Education. “By eliminating the Department of Education less than 2 years after it was created, we cannot only reduce the budget but ensure that local needs and preferences, rather than the wishes of Washington, determine the education of our children,” Reagan said.

However, by the time he left office after two-full presidential terms on January 20, 1989, the Department of Education had grown even larger and continued to expand under subsequent purportedly “conservative” Republican presidents, most notably President George W. Bush and his disastrous “No Child Left Behind” program.

Of Massie’s bill, Paul further stated on Facebook, “We desperately need to release the creative energy of teachers at the local level.”

Although Massie’s bill does not specifically address what would happen to the many unconstitutional federal laws related to education, federal student loans, and other various federal aid programs to public schools that have been passed either prior to or since the Department of Education was created, the bill is certainly an encouraging first step in the right direction toward removing the federal government from education.

If passed and signed by President Trump, Massie’s bill would accomplish what President Reagan originally promised, and more importantly it would begin returning control of education back to parents and local communities.

Please send a prewritten, editable message to your representative and senators and ask your representative to cosponsor H.R. 899, a bill to abolish the unconstitutional Department of Education, in the House and ask your senators to introduce and cosponsor a companion bill in the Senate. Let them know that you want to remove the federal government from education and return control of education back to parents and local communities by abolishing the unconstitutional Department of Education.

Phone calls can also be very effective, and of course the most effective way to educate your state legislators is by making personal visits to their offices. Click here for contact information.






Last Chapter
by The Informer & James Montgomery

What Mr. Montgomery is trying to convey in this, his final writing on this subject, is that of laying the foundation for how this country operates today. Not that you can go into a court and present these arguments today, you can’t.. If you don’t know the power structures beginnings then you are doomed forever to repeat the same mistakes as those that preceded you in their quest to seek justice. To truly win in the situation there must be a concerted effort by at least 70 percent of the people to overturn the present state of affairs. That will not happen because of the ignorance of the masses that are so easily led by those in power. The people have truly forsaken the true Sovereign, namely the Lord Almighty. Without going into the so-called “religion” aspect, let me just pose some questions.

Did not the Lord Almighty create the land? Yes. Did the Pope create the land? No!

Did the King create the land? No!

Did any other man create the land? No! Did any group of men called State create the land? No!

Now that I have answered the questions for you then here are some that you are to answer. Then, who is the real owner of the land? Did not the creator of the land bestow it upon all men and their heirs to be stewards of the land, granting to no one man or group of men, absolute dominion over any land? When man dies who does the land escheat to?

For those not familiar with that term escheat, it means who does the land go back to when all men die? Your answers can only show that no Pope, King, Man himself, or group of men called State can ever claim they own the land and charge another man a fee to live on that land. Mr. Montgomery is showing you the progression from a certain period of time that certain mere mortal men have decided that they were granted certain rights above all other men in claiming dominion over all land. The pecking Order starting from the top in controlling land are;

  1. The Pope

    2. The Kings of all lands, but we are talking specifically England here.

    3. Knights

    4. Lord Proprietors of the King in America

    5. Royal Governors of the King, in America

    6. Administrative officers of the corporate colonies of America

    7. Freeholders/Freemen of granted property in America.

    8. The officers of the newly constituted States of America which, gave way to the;

    9. Officers of the United States which now reverses 8 and 9 due to the States joining Union.

    10. The County officers which are the corporate instrumentalities of the State.

    11. Simple man, meaning you, reading this.

You, number 11, are so far removed from the land that the Lord Almighty gave to all men, that essentially you have no claim but as a squatter on someone else’s land and have no control whatsoever in saying you have the right to not pay taxes for the use of the Pope’s land.

But the Pope is the figure head of a corporation called the Vatican consisting of men forming a “religion,” WHICH THE LORD ALMIGHTY NEVER CREATED A “RELIGION,” claiming complete dominion over all land in the world. When the Pope dies another of these men is chosen as the new Pope. There is one little quirk that needs to be mentioned. That is, a group of men exist that has control of even the Vatican, therefore every chain holder on down to number 11 on the list is controlled. That group of men are called Bankers. The Pope and the King, in 1213, on to a period just past 1218, lost a lot of money fighting each other and drew on a group of men, one in particular, that loaned to each side money. When neither could pay the loans back and defaulted, the moneylender foreclosed. He foreclosed in agreement by not taking all the property, except for England, as is done today on foreclosures; but, an arrangement was made that satisfied the so called “holy trinity” that is espoused by Mr. Montgomery below. That “Holy Trinity” is mentioned in the Treaty of 1783.

Of whom do you think the Holy Trinity consists? So the list above from 1 to 11 needs another entity. I did not put him in so I could make it clear who it is in order of claim to the land you live on as a tenant. Now number one has been replaced by the Banker and everyone has shifted down a notch.

Hello number twelve, how do you like your position on the list? Well, if you people reject allegiance to the True Lord and cling to another and pledge allegiance to another then you deserve to pay those that allow you, through privilege, to live on their land. You gave up that RIGHT to live on land of the True Land Owner without even a fee, except to abide by His Laws, and not that of mere mortal man such as yourself. Until you understand this and what Mr. Montgomery has tried telling you in his previous articles and I have in my books and articles on the net, you will continue to be nothing but a slave to the system that perpetrated a fraud on you and your family tree for centuries.

No, you cannot attack unless the numbers are sufficient. Yes, the below is true despite what any one says to degrade Mr. Montgomery’s research of many years. These people that degrade have either an ignorance level so high that no amount of education will correct it or they are in league with a higher number on the pecking order that wants to keep the status quo. These men are the only ones that the Lord Almighty wished woe upon in the Bible for “hiding the key of knowledge,” in Luke and Matthew. You can look at it this way as relates to present day. The Banker remains in complete control. I don’t mean your local banker, but those that control all banks in America and the world. They operate with straw men many deep so as to keep the people ignorant as to what is going on. Look at the list above to see how many straw men exist. Mr. Montgomery mentions the pope once below. He is trying to keep it a little simpler because the straw man of the Vatican/Pope, The Crown, is easier to understand for most people.

This is the same operation that many people get into by creating so many corporations that you never know just who is the controlling man. You may see this on government stories where the detective says he traced back through a tree of corporations and got lost in the many branches and could not find who really owns the contraband. I will vouch that Mr. Montgomery is a very thorough researcher and has nothing to gain from the dissemination of the information below, with the exception to get people to wake up to the truth instead of constantly, for decades, chasing the elusive wizard of OZ with all his smoke and mirrors.

I have read Mr. Montgomery’s article  below and it confirms what I have also found. As I said, the power brokers control every lawyer and judge, who are also lawyers, in this if not all other judges in the world, because without them the fraud could not be carried out. Have you ever heard of an honest trial where justice is dispensed to the American man or woman who runs afoul of “the System,” even when he is innocent? Where do you think all the money the private IRS collects goes? Maybe to the credit of the Straw man # 9 above? Credit to whom? Just follow the ladder back up to the top, and remember the original numbers have all dropped one notch down to make room for whom?

The Informer


This book represents 10 years of my life, whether you agree with my findings or not; know tthat my purpose for doing thi research and writing this book, is out of love for my County, and the desire to serve my Lord Jesus Christ; with the hope of seeing the greatest Nation on the face of the Earth once again serve the God of Abraham. I’ve learned over the years, that My Lord’s grace IS sufficient, and His Love passes any comprehension or understanding I thought I had, we are not forsaken. So those of you that have become discouraged, don’t, read the last chapter of our Lord’s letter, we WIN. In the days ahead there will no doubt be temptation to yield to discouragement and despair, just keep your purpose true and your eyes on Jesus, as with Peter, reach out, take our Lord’s hand, walk above the storm around you.

My thanks to the Informer and his years of dedication and historical research; helping American’s see through the fog of deception, and his unmatched technical work and research in the field of law and taxes, and for making his books available to the public. The books we have published on this subject are in no way the totality of the historical and legal documents concerning the reality of our freedom, or rather, the lack thereof. I challenge anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, with a desire to know the truth, continue the search with us. It’s your freedom, with knowledge as its key; never allow yourself to become complacent with the status quo, always try to increase your knowledge, because Knowledge Is Freedom.

James Franklin Montgomery




Last Chapter


Many of you are aware that the laws of this nation and it’s states, were made to be in compliance and submission to the laws of England, only modified by state and federal law. You will see in this last Chapter state statutes from just a few of the original colonies, that this is the case. Are these what are called ancient statutes? Yes. However, since the king’s Corporation is alive and well as are his heirs, so is his Trust and the law used to create and govern it. The law that governs his Trust can only be amended, no law could be enacted contrary to the king’s will and cestui que trust, the main corporate sole where office is always found, the Crown. The king’s practice of granting lands in this country to those loyal to him continues, along with their land grants being protected by state ancient statutes which are still on the books. We are governed by the king’s nobles just as in times of old England, self proclaimed nobles, and corporate trusts. They rule this country and the world. The huge corporations have been granted power and liberty not known by the common man. The nobles, real and the created, occupy their possessions as fiduciaries and trustees of the king’s grants; only if they remain loyal to the system, their privilege and life style are their reward.

You will see that the Church of England was granted lands in this country and their lands are protected by corporate privilege, through trusts and fee simple title. As I have stated before, the king receives the gain for his business venture here in the United States, as he does with all his corporations. A portion of the fines and taxes we pay today go right back to the sovereign, the king of England, and his heirs and/or successors as I pointed out in previous chapters of, “The United States Is Still A British Colony”. After reading the facts contained in this chapter, you will find my conclusion, which is based on my 10 years of researching this subject, through acquiring and culmination of historical facts which I have shared with you in this Book.

The Nexus

“ALL that Territory or Tract of ground, situate, lying, and being within our Dominions in America,….(listed known boundaries)…. AND moreover, all Veins, Mines, and Quarries, as well discovered as not discovered, of Gold, Silver, Gems, and precious Stones, and all other, whatsoever be it, of Stones, Metals, or any other thing whatsoever found or to be found within the Country, Isles, Limits aforesaid;” The Carolina Charter, 1663

“SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion due to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same; and Saving also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our Subjects of the English Nation which are now Planted within the Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;…” The Carolina Charter, 1663

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

The below statute contains a wealth of information, it is just another example of who owns the land in this country. The first thing I want you to see is, Corporation is large case C, proper noun, referring to the main Corporation, the United States Corporation, also made clear by the end of the first sentence. Notice also, that even the Corporation (the United States government) doesn’t claim Allodial title, because that office found is with the king, the government has only been vested with fee simple title through the Corporate Charters of the Crown, as amended by the 1783 Treaty of Peace and resulting 1787 Constitution. The king can only pass Allodial title to his heirs, no one else. This is why the highest title the government can pass is fee simple.

Also, notice that the Corporation can divest any and all occupiers of the land of any title or deed they may hold, transfer the land to the Corporation, in which it holds the land in fee simple title, and the title previously held by individuals or State has its title quieted (divested) and office found, then reversion back to the Corporation.

Now if you will recall, the information I found concerning an act George Washington enacted, contained in emails attached as the addendum to the third chapter to this book, wherein Washington extended the jurisdiction and control of the District of Columbia. He created District States that overlaid the States, since it is such a relevant subject and part of this book, I include it after the below statute, so you can better understand the statute below.

16 USC Sec. 831x



Sec. 831x. Condemnation proceedings; institution by Corporation; venue


“The Corporation may cause proceedings to be instituted for the acquisition by condemnation of any lands, easements, or rights-of-way which, in the opinion of the Corporation, are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter. The proceedings shall be instituted in the United States district court for the district in which the land, easement, right-of-way, or other interest, or any part thereof, is located, and such court shall have full jurisdiction to divest the complete title to the property sought to be acquired out of all persons or claimants and vest the same in the United States in fee simple, and to enter a decree quieting the title thereto in the United States of America.”

Also, see below: 40A-2 sec. 3 “Eminent domain”, N.C. statute.

Before we move on to the action taken by George Washington, you need to understand that the legal term fee simple is now a metaphor, just as the legal term United States. It is given lip service today in relation to the common man, and has another meaning when used in relation to the Crown or the main sub Corporation, the United States, with its seat being the District of Columbia. When dealing with land ownership you have to use the definition at law that governs the Crown, not the metaphors created later by his barristers, to con the common man into believing he/she has allodial, or fee simple title to the land. All that is necessary to know the condition you own your land. If you think have allodial, fee simple title, or fee tail title, is ask yourself one question. Is there a tax imposed on the land you claim to own? If a tax is or can be levied, you DO NOT own the land, because if you fail to pay the tax, the land is reclaimed by the Corporation, by alienation, and reversion.

Also, under the institutional law of the Crown, that came with the conquest of Britain by William the Conqueror, you could not be charged a tax on the land if you had fee simple title, it could not be diminished in any way. The fee was payment by the king for the sworn loyalty of the lords and knights to fight for the king, in his wars of Conquest, later changed to a monetary fee, to pay soldiers to fight in the wars. King Edward I began the redefining of the legal term fee simple.

“Tenthly, He made that great Alteration in Estates from what they were formerly, by Statute Westminster 2. cap. 1. Whereby Estates of Fee-Simple, conditional at Common Law, were turn’d into Estates-Tail, not removable from the Issue by the ordinary Methods of Alienation; and upon this Statute, and for the Qualifications hereof, are the Superstructures built of 4 H. 7. cap. 32, 32 H. 8. and 33 H. 8.” The History of the Common Law of England by Matthew Hale 1713

Those living on your land under fee tail or a lessor title, via deed to the land would pay the king’s tax. As a metaphor, as applied today, you can be charged a tax when you are told you have fee simple title if you are a common man. The Corporation’s holdings are not taxed depending on the Corporate Charter granted by the government, or if you have a trust that contains fee simple title, with tax protection, you could be protected legally, but you still don’t own the land, when the life of the trust expires, or is mis handled by the trustees, it reverts back to the corporate sole, through alienation and office found, or by confiscation due to delinquent tax obligations. So any fee simple title you may have comes by legal right, not sovereign grant. This is the difference between the tenants on the land and the Corporation. Again if you are talking about the Corporation or any of its holdings, its fee simple title is not taxed, and is by sovereign grant from the king, enhanced by Conquest, as his successor and trustee over his holdings.

George Washington’s thought on Independence from the king was echoed by many of our fore fathers.

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

Now to the Act of Washington, and for those of you who have not seen this, the Act that made the reclaiming and managing of the kings Corporation possible, and made possible the end run of the 1787 Constitution.


Fall 1997

“How was this accomplished, 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, consist of the State of South Carolina
and the district of Georgia, to and 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….”

“First of all, the Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the federal government could use the militias to crush the tax protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington’s order. Since the Judicial Districts already existed, why did they recreate them? If the District States were already created, would it not be redundant to create them again? Washington said he was dividing the United States into District States. He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE STATES, not creating districts in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you would not DIVIDE THEM, because the states were already divided. How can you DIVIDE, SEPARATE the states, 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, neither you nor I cannot change this, unless you or I were elected President, and declared this power un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or me to protect Public policy. Around and Around it goes. Again this power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction,

insular capacity: 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 legislate by 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.

My email on the District States

“These courts, then, are not constitutional courts in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the united States. The jurisdiction with which they are invested is not a part of that judicial power which is conferred in the third article of the Constitution, but is conferred by Congress in the execution of those general powers which that body possesses over the territories of the United States.” Harvard Law Review, Our New Possessions. page 481.

See also; Propeller Genessee Chief et al. v. Fitzhugh et al. 12

How. 443 (U.S. 1851) Jackson v. Magnolia, 20 How. 296 315,

342 (U.S. 1852) DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), Hooven &

Allison & Co. vs Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)

Below you will see how Lincoln codified the war powers, the nexus was the District States Washington created. I won’t go into the subject of the Conquest after the Civil War, since it is far easier to understand, I invite you to read and study the documents in Part III to learn about this subject. However, I offer the below codification of Military Occupation, Conquest and International codification of Martial law, you can download the whole general order 100.

Martial Law – Military jurisdiction – Military necessity –


“Article 1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any 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.}”




Our fore fathers were first and foremost administrators for the king and his holdings, so as to keep their grants and fee simple titles, to their own land holdings in America and Britain. Prior to the Revolutionary War, 1783 Treaty and the 1787 Constitution, there was a plan to organize a central government, still subject to the king, still collecting taxes for the king.  The only difference between the government we have and the government you read about below is your perception, with word and technical changes. The 1787 Constitution was a well thought out document, but the document below was its predecessor, the similarities are obvious. What you will read below, along with the other documents provided in this book, describe exactly what we have today. Notice the two paragraphs provided below, in the first a central government is to be set up, with each colony to retain its own constitution. In the second paragraph you see that, a President-General is to be elected to run the central government for the king. What do we have now? President-Commander-in-Chief. Also, he is appointed and supported by the Crown.

How does any President get elected? The system is setup so that only someone supported by the large corporations of this country can seriously run for President, or be elected, because of their financial support. Without this support, you cannot be President, no matter what the public wants. So the public, only has Crown approved men, they can select from, to vote for, that way no matter who wins the Crown’s interest is protected. The public is told what to think about the different men the corporations have chosen to represent them, so they think they are making informed choices. Nothing could be further from the truth, they are electing a man, no matter the party, that will protect the Crown’s interest, not the public’s. You may wish to continue to deny reality, but you can’t separate the wet from water, nor our government from Britain.

The 1754 Albany Plan of Union

“It is proposed that humble application be made for an act of Parliament of Great Britain, by virtue of which one general government may be formed in America, including all the said colonies, within and under which government each colony may retain its present constitution, except in the particulars wherein a change may be directed by the said act, as hereafter follows.

That the said general government be administered by a President-General, to be appointed and supported by the crown; and a Grand Council, to be chosen by the representatives of the people of the several Colonies met in their respective assemblies….” The 1754 Albany Plan of Union

The king’s corporations are alive and well, lands they hold in fee simple can be parceled out to whom they will, with the lands returning to the king when the grant/trust/license expires. The king made grants to his colonies and lords, they became corporations under the United States Corporate Charter, the lords make grants to other select men via corporate charters, or by grants of Trusts or license to smaller corporations and individuals. Any time a corporation dies and no office is found, it’s lands revert back to the granter of the corporation, and so on back up the line, this is the reason for the inheritance tax, and why it will never be repealed. I refer you to an earlier chapter I wrote called, “How Long Can A Corporation Live”. Also, check out a paper the Informer and I jointly wrote on the subject of rent roll and reversion and corporation sole, “Friends, Enemies And Die Hard Doubters”, and you would be well advised to read the Informer’s book, “The New History Of America”, and his other publications. Before you read the ancient statutes, you must understand the legal term fee simple.


“63. 1. Origin of feuds- The constitution of feuds had its original from the military policy of the northern or Celtic nations, the Goths, the Huns, the Franks, the Vandals, and the Lombards, who all migrating from the same officina gentium (the storehouse of nations), as Crag very justly entitles it, poured themselves in vast quantities into all the regions of Europe, at the declension of the Roman empire. It was brought by them from their own countries, and continued in their respective colonies as the most likely means to secure their new acquisitions: and to that end, large districts or parcels of land were allotted by the conquering general to superior officers of the army, and by them dealt out again in smaller parcels or allotments to the inferior officers and most deserving soldiers. These allotments were called feoda, feuds, fiefs, or fees; which last appellation in the northern languages signifies a conditional stipend or reward. Rewards or stipends they evidently were; and the condition annexed to them was, that the possessor should do service faithfully, both at home and in the wars, to him by whom they were given; for which purpose he took the juramentum fidelitatis, or oath of fealty: and in case of the breach of this condition and oath, by not performing the stipulated service, or by deserting the lord in battle, the lands were again to revert to him who granted them.” 2 Blackstone’s Commentaries, page 45

“Feud: An inheritable right to the use and occupation of lands, held on condition of rendering services to the lord or proprietor, who himself retains the property in the lands,”

Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Edition p.748 (1968).

“Thus, the people had land they occupied, devised, inherited, alienated, or disposed of as they saw fit, so long as they remained in favor with the King.” F. L. Ganshof, Feudalism, p. 113 (1964).

“The largest estate in the land known to the law and implying absolute dominion over the land; an estate of inheritance clear of any condition, limitation, or restriction, to particular heirs. 28 Am J2d Est 10. An estate of lawful inheritance or pure inheritance, “fee” standing for inheritance and “simple” for pure or lawful. A legal or equitable estate in land constituting the largest estate and implying absolute dominion, although possibly subject to executory limitations or conditions subsequent. Hay’s Estate v Commissioner (CA5) 181 F2d 169, 39 ALR 2d 453; Ford v Unity Church Society, 120 Mo 498, 25 SW 394.”

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, Third Edition, 1969

Are taxes to be paid by common man holding fee simple title? Yes, according to the way fee simple is defined today. Today fee simple has been reduced in status to fee tail for common man, he is to pay all land taxes, also he must abide by all restrictions placed on the land by federal, State and local governments, nor can he use the land in any activity contrary to the Public Policy. The difference is the U.S. Corporation just as the knight was granted land for fee, in service of the king by grant. Common man receives their fee from the Corporation in tail, a lessor title, today fee simple and fee tail are synonymous, depending on your status. I would have placed the quote here from the Ohio Bar Association on fee simple, but they restrict its use, however below is their web site so you can look for yourself.

“This holding of lands under another was called a tenure, and was not limited to the relation of the first or paramount lord and vassal, but extended to those to whom such vassal, within the rules of feudal [2] law, may have parted out his own feud to his own vassals, whereby he became the mesne lord between his vassals and his own or lord paramount. Those who held directly to the king were called his “tenants in … chief.

” I E. Washburn, Treatise on The American Law of Real Property, Ch. 11, Section 58, P. 42 (6th Ed. 1902), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

Maybe with the below quote you will also understand the meaning and significance behind the pyramid on our dollar, with the all seeing eye at the top of the pyramid.

“The fiefs were built in the same manner as a pyramid, with the King, the true owner of the land, being at the top, and from the bottom up there existed a system of small to medium sized to large to large sized estates on which the persons directly beneath one estate owed homage to the lord of that estate as well as to the King.” Id. at 114, Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“At the lowest level of this pyramid through at least the 14th and 15th centuries existed to serfs or villains, the class of people that had no rights and were recognized as nothing more than real property.” F.Goodwin, Treatise on The Law of Real Property, Ch. 1, p. 10 (1905), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“Under this type of fief a certain portion of the grain harvested each year would immediately be turned over to the lord above that particular fief even before the shares from the lower lords and then serfs of the fief would be distributed. A more interesting type of fief for purposes of this memorandum [3] was the money fief. In most cases, the source of money was not specified, and the payment was simply made from the fief holder’s treasury, but the fief might also consist of a fixed revenue to be paid from a definite source in annual payments in order for the tenant owner of the fief to be able to remain on the property.” Gilsebert of Mons, Chronique, cc. 69 and 1 15, pp. 109, 175 (ed. Vanderkindere), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“142. (1) Fee-simple estates–Tenant in fee simple (or, as he is frequently styled, tenant in fee) is he that hath lands, tenements, or hereditaments, to hold to him and his heirs forever; generally, absolutely, and simply; without mentioning what heirs, but referring that to his own pleasure, or to the dispostition of the law. The true meaning of the word “fee” (feodum) is the same with that of feud or fief, and in its original sense it is taken in contradistinction to allodium; which latter the writers on this subject define to be every man’s own land, which he possesseth merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior.” 2 Blackstone’s Commentary, page 105

“Thus, the term fee simple absolute in Common-Law England denotes the most and best title a person could have as long as the King allowed him to retain possession of (own) the land. It has been commented that the basis of English land law is the ownership of all reality by the sovereign. From the crown, all titles flow. The original and true meaning of the word “fee” and therefore fee simple absolute is the same as fief or feud, this being in contradiction to the term “allodium” which means or is defined as a man’s own land, which he possesses merely in his own right, without owing any rent or service to any superior.” Wendell [4] v Crandall, 1 N. Y. 491 (1848), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“Therefore on Common-Law England practically everybody who was allowed to retain land, had the type of fee simple absolute often used or defined by courts, a fee simple that grants or gives the occupier as much of a title as the “sovereign” allows such occupier to have at that time. The term became a synonym with the supposed ownership of land under the feudal system of England at common law. Thus, even though the word absolute was attached to the fee simple, it merely denoted the entire estate that could be assigned or passed to heirs, and the fee being the operative word; fee simple absolute dealt with the entire fief and its divisibility, alienability and inheritability.” Friedman v Steiner, 107 111. 131 (1883), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“If a fee simple absolute in Common-Law England denoted or was synonymous with only as much title as the King allowed his barons to possess, then what did the King have by way of a title?

The King of England held ownership of land under a different title and with far greater powers than any of his subjects. Though the people of England held fee simple titles to their land, the King actually owned all the land in England through his allodial title, and though all the land was in the feudal system, none of the fee simple titles were of equal weight and dignity with the King’s title, the land always remaining allodial in favor of the King.” Gilsbert of Mons, Chronique, Ch. 43, p. 75 (ed. Vanderkindere), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

“Thus, it is relatively easy to deduce that allodial lands and titles are the highest form of lands and titles known to Common-Law. An estate of inheritance without condition, belonging to the owner, and alienable by him, transmissible to his heirs absolutely and simply, is an absolute estate in perpetuity and the largest possible estate a man can have, being in fact allodial in its nature.” Stanton v Sullivan, 63 R.I. 216, 7 A. 696 (1839), Allodial And Land Patents Titles

The law of Mortmain, law of the sovereign, protecting his lands held by his lords and religious men in fee, prohibiting them from diluting his title. Declaring he could confiscate the land he or his lords were alienated from. Even the lords were subject to have their land reclaimed by the king, if they violated the king’s license requirements. You can find the law of Mortmain at the end of the chapter, in the quotes section.

I want to make this clear, if the king and his law (common law) are still live, so are his Charters, Corporations and Trusts. Without defeating the king (death or removal) his law still exists, if his law still exists, his Corporation (Crown) is as I have said: alive and well. What did we do at the end of the Revolutionary War and in framing the 1787 Constitution? Claim the king’s law, his common law, his feudal law for our own, and made it our law. So, if you are subject to any tax on the land you live on, you do not, I repeat, DO NOT own your land, you do not have allodial title to you land. It is not possible, allodial and taxed property are an oxymoron, the two are as opposite as light and darkness, the two cannot exist together. Even worse than this, under common law, which we made our law o the land, you do not even have fee simple possession of your land, because early fee simple possession is free from taxation, you hold the land in fee simple at best if you have a tax shelter, trust. Fee tail, and lessor ownerships are evidenced by a title, deed or mortgage, which is how most land is held, and is subject to taxation and or repossession, if the taxes are not paid. I’m sorry but this is a fact, I don’t care what you have been told, or lead to believe concerning allodial title. A huge number of patriots believe because of the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War that we are sovereigns here possessing the land through allodial title, as a matter of sovereignty, by defeating the king. Wrong, it is impossible, the king has conned Americans, or I should say allowed them to believe they are sovereigns, owning their land through allodial title.

This would be a good place for you to read some quotes by Sir Edmund Burke, and by Adam Smith, because of the importance taxation plays in proving land ownership in America, by allodial title is an oxymoron. I’m including more quotes at the end of this chapter by Adam Smith and other relevant information.

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

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”

“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

“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 (So Benjamin Franklin saying: we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it, means nothing, and was not a hindrance to the king and his barristers.) Author’s comment in brackets.

“The people heard, indeed, from the beginning of these disputes, one thing continually dinned in their ears, that reason and justice demanded that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be compelled to contribute….”Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people.”


Here are some court cases, that will help you understand fee simple, and how land is held in this country. In this first case you will see our perception of what took place, then the judge lets the air out, and tells you how it was and is, as a matter of law.

North Carolina Reports (Archive)

MARSHALL v. LOVELASS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801)

2 S.E. 70

Page 368

“….Every person knows in what manner the citizens acquired the property of the soil within the limits of this State. Being dissatisfied with the measures of the British Government, they revolted from it, assumed the government into their own hands, seized and took possession of all the estates of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, appropriated them to their own use, and defended their possessions against the claims of Great Britain, during a long and bloody war, and finally obtained a relinquishment of those claims by the treaty of Paris. 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? Might it not be stated with equal propriety that this country escheated to the King of Great Britain from the Aborigines, when he drove them off, and took and maintained possession of their country?….

….At the time of the revolution, and before the Declaration of Independence, the collective body of the people had neither right to nor possession of the territory of this State; it is true some individuals had a right to, and were in possession of certain portions of it, which they held under grants from the King of Great Britain; but they did not hold, nor did any of his subjects hold, under the collective body of the people, who had no power to grant any part of it”….

North Carolina Reports (Archive)

WARNER v. HARDING, 1 N.C. 700; 2 S.E. 70; Page 703


“As to the exception to the value of 12d., nothing appears, non refert. As to the matter of record. The Queen may seize lands without any record. If return be made into the Exchequer that a man is beyond the sea and will not return, being commanded so to do, the Crown may seize his lands. And although the son cannot be heir during the life of his father, *the father may have an action de filio et haerede.”

North Carolina Reports (Archive)


2 S.E. 70

Page 680


Page 681

…..”the statute is to be construed reasonably, and shall be expounded as the King’s patents are. Therefore, if the King grant by his letters patent, under the great seal, all mines, the patentee shall not have royal mines. Then when all possessions are given, there is a right of entry and a right of action, but the right of action is not given by the general words of an act of Parliament. Now the word condition is a species and not a genus; and the 26 H., 8, enacting that such persons shall forfeit all the lands, tenements, and hereditaments, in which the offender shall have any estate of inheritance, there is not a difference between an inheritance in fee or in tail, while there are but these two estates of inheritance, and the statute says that he shall forfeit all the lands in which he has an estate of inheritance; and a condition is as simple as an inheritance”….

North Carolina Reports (Archive)

McKENZIE v. HULET, 4 N.C. 613 (1817)

2 S.E. 70

Page 443

….”Where a grant abuts upon the sea or a navigable river, it stops, according to the common law, at the ordinary high-water mark; and the shore that is, the ground between the high and low water marks belongs of common right to the king. Hale, de Jure Maris, 12. But it seems to be well settled that whatever is below the high-water mark may be granted by the king, of which many instances are put in the book already cited. The charter of Car. II. to the lords proprietors is an illustration of the form used by the crown in the grant of royalties”….

North Carolina Reports (Archive)

MARSHALL v. LOVELASS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801)

2 S.E. 70

Page 347

….”If the land had escheated, it then becomes necessary to inquire, In what manner has the State taken? I contend that the land is taken by the State, exempt of any trust for in England, when the Lord or King takes by escheat, they take discharged of the trust. 1 Coke’s Rep., 122, Chudleigh’s case. Before the Statute of 27 Henry, 8, whenever feoffee to uses did anything which produced escheat, the land reverted to the Lord discharge of the trust.

North Carolina Reports (Archive)

MARSHALL v. LOVELASS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801)

2 S.E. 70

August 1, 1999

Page 349

When the war broke out those who did not like the new government were at liberty to sell their lands and retire with the proceeds where they pleased; and this is agreeable to the law of nations. Vattel, B. 1, sec. 33, 195. This doctrine seems to have been held in view by the framers of the Constitution. Iredell’s Rev., 276. Declaration of Rights, sec. 25. This section only charges the sovereign, and by it no escheat can take place, and aliens may still take and hold lands. This section provides that the titles made by the King and the Lords Proprietors shall not be affected; and the General Assembly of this State have shown that they were under the influence of this opinion, as appears from the 3d chap., Acts 1777. Iredell’s Rev., 284, 285

So read closely the portions of ancient state statutes, provided below.




“All fines and common recoveries levied and suffered within this State, in pursuance of or according to the common or statute laws of England, in the Superior Court of the county wherein the lands, tenements or hereditaments entailed lie shall be as good in law, to bar estates so entailed, as fines and common recoveries of lands, tenements or hereditaments levied, or England are. Any heir at law or other person claiming any right in the lands, tenements or hereditaments may, either by appeal or writ of error, reverse such fines or recoveries for any errors in levying or suffering the fines or recoveries.”

(Code 1852, 1639, 1640; Code 1915, 3234; Code 1935, 3697; 25 Del. C. 1953, 301. 302.) Bar of estate tail by deed.

“A person having a legal or equitable estate or right in fee tail in possession, remainder or reversion, in any lands, tenements or hereditaments may alien the lands, tenements or hereditaments, in fee simple, or for other less estate, by deed, in the same manner and as effectually as if such estate or right were in fee simple. The deed of alienation in fee simple of any person, of any lands, tenements or hereditaments shall have the same effect and operation for barring all estate tail and other interests in the lands, tenements or hereditaments, as such persons being a party cognizor to a fine in due manner levied,

or party vouchee to a common recovery with a double voucher in due manner suffered, of the lands, tenements or hereditaments. No deed shall avail within either of these provisions, unless it is duly acknowledged or proved according to law, or unless it would be a valid and lawful deed sufficient to pass the premises, if the maker were seized of the premises in fee simple.”

(Code 1852, 1641; Code 1915, 3235; Code 1935, 3698; 25 Del.

C. 1953, 302.)

  1. Warranty by life tenant and collateral warranty.

“A warranty made by a tenant for life shall not, by descending or coming to a person in remainder or reversion, bar or affect his title. A collateral warranty shall not in any case bar or affect a title not derived from the person making such warranty.”

(Code 1852, 1642; Code 1915, 3236; Code 1935, 3699; 25 Del.

C. 1953, 303.)

  1. Permanent leasehold estates as estates in fee simple.

“Permanent leasehold estates, renewable forever, shall be considered to be estates in fee simple, and shall be subject to the same modes of alienation, power of devise, and rules of descent and distribution, and to all the incidents of an estate in fee, provided that the grantor of the leasehold or the person entitled to the estate, out of which the term issues, has first released to the grantee of the term or the person in possession of the leasehold all his right to the rent charged upon or growing out of the leasehold.”

(15 Del. Laws, c. 168; Code 1915, 3237; Code 1935, 3700; 25 Del. C. 1953, 304.)

  1. Deeds by foreign corporations; recording as evidence; ownership rights.

“All deeds to lands in Delawware executed and delivered b corporations created by and existing under the laws of the states and territories of the United States of America, other than Delaware, or created by and existing under the laws of any foreign state or nation, are made valid and effective to convey the fee simple or other estate purported to be conveyed in such deeds, with the same force and effect as if the corporation grantor had been a corporation lawfully created by and existing under the laws of this State. Such deeds, when recorded, or any office copy thereof, shall be admitted as evidence in all courts of this State, and shall be valid and conclusive evidence, with the same force and effect as if such deeds had been properly executed, acknowledged and delivered by corporations created by and existing under the laws of this State. A foreign corporation owning lands in Delaware may exercise all rights and privileges of ownership to the same extent as if such corporation were a corporation lawfully created by and existing under the laws of this State.”

(26 Del. Laws, c. 253; Code 1915, 3238; 38 Del. Laws, c. 174;

Code 1935, 3701; 25 Del. C. 1953, 305.)

I just wanted to point out the below statute declared that the State of Georgia (created Corporation) is a successor to the Crown of England. The Crown is the Corporate entity of the king, and as I have stated before, first there were the Corporate Charters, amended to corporate colonies, amended to corporate States, via their State Constitutions, that did not change the original corporate charter, as declared in the 25th sec. of the North Carolina, Declaration of Rights, 1776 N.C. Constitution, which I quote again here:

“And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them.” Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution

Then confirmed by the 1783 Paris Treaty, wherein the minerals did not change hands, they stayed with the king, his heirs and successors. In other words, the king, his heirs and his successors forever, were to continue to receive as a matter of Trust, the gain, profit from his corporate venture. To cement this since his subjects had gone brain dead, and now believed themselves free from their obligations. Believing when the States became States of, after the 1787 Constitution was ratified, they became free and sovereign. In March 1791 thanks to George Washington, the States of, became District States of the Crown, side stepping the 1787 Constitution and the States short lived independence declared in 1776, in favor of the king’s public policy, his taxes and licenses to be administered by his United States Corporation and its elected fiduciaries and den of thieves. When governing for the king, the President and Congress were no longer bound by the 1787 Constitution. The king would now receive as declared in his early Charters for himself, his heirs and successors, the 30 percent tax for his family business venture. Because now his bank could operate within the several District States, incorporated in the District of Columbia, this was not possible until Washington made the District States; never to be repealed. Also, go back and read the quotes I gave by Burke and Smith, there is no doubt.


52-1-2 G

*** CODE SECTION *** 12/31/98


“The General Assembly finds and declares that the State of Georgia became the owner of the beds of all tidewaters within the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia as successor to the Crown of England and by the common law. The State of Georgia continues to hold title to the beds of all tidewaters within the state, except where title in a private party can be traced to a valid Crown or state grant which explicitly conveyed the beds of such tidewaters. The General Assembly further finds that the State of Georgia, as sovereign, is trustee of the rights of the people of the state to use and enjoy all tidewaters which are

capable of use for fishing, passage, navigation, commerce, and transportation, pursuant to the common law public trust doctrine. Therefore, the General Assembly declares that the protection of tidewaters for use by the state and its citizens has more than local significance, is of equal importance to all

citizens of the state, is of state-wide concern, and, consequently, is properly a matter for regulation under the police powers of the state. The General Assembly further finds and declares that structures located upon tidewaters which are used as places of habitation, dwelling, sojournment, or residence interfere with the state’s proprietary interest or the public trust, or both, and must be removed to ensure the rights of the state and the people of the State of Georgia to the use and enjoyment of such tidewaters. It is declared to be a policy of this state and the intent of this article to protect the tidewaters of the state by authorizing the commissioner of natural resources to remove or require removal of certain structures from such tidewaters in accordance with the procedures and within the timetable set forth in this article.”

“(1) An Act for reviving and enforcing certain laws therein mentioned and adopting the common laws of England as they existed on May 14, 1776, approved February 25, 1784. (For the adopting Act of 1784, see Prince’s 1822 Digest, p. 570; Cobb’s 1851 Digest, p. 721; and Code of 1863, Section 1, paragraph 6.)”




“2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.

2.04 Repealed statute not revived by implication.

2.01 Common law and certain statutes declared in force.-The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state. History.–s. 1,

Nov. 6, 1829; RS 59; GS 59; RGS 71; CGL 87.”



“The common law The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly 1-11 Acts of Parliament The right and benefit of all writs, remedial and judicial, given by any statute or act of Parliament, made in aid of the common law prior to the fourth year of the reign of James the First, of a general nature, not local to England, shall still be saved, insofar as the same are consistent with the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth and the Acts of Assembly.”

I hope by now when you read the below statute, you recognize when they say public’s interest they are not talking about the people that voted them into office.


  1. Legislative findings and purpose

“The Legislature finds and declares that the intertidal lands of the State are impressed with a public trust and that the State is responsible for protection of the public’s interest in this

land. [1985, c. 782 (new).]

The Legislature further finds and declares that this public trust is part of the common law of Maine and generally derived from the practices, conditions and needs in Maine, from English Common Law and from the Massachusetts Colonial Ordinance of 1641-47. The public trust is an evolving doctrine reflective of the customs, traditions, heritage and habits of the Maine people. In Maine, the doctrine has diverged from the laws of England and Massachusetts. The public trust encompasses those uses of intertidal land essential to the health and welfare of the Maine people, which uses include, but are not limited to,fishing, fowling, navigation, use as a footway between points along the shore and use for recreational purposes. These recreational uses are among the most important to the Maine people today who use intertidal land for relaxation from the pressures of modern society and for enjoyment of nature’s beauty. [1985, c. 782 (new).]

The Legislature further finds and declares that the protection of the public uses referred to in this chapter is of great public interest and grave concern to the State. [1985, c. 782 (new).]”



Title 24. Municipal and County Government

Chapter 65. Public Lands and Funds


The selectmen shall have the care of lands in the town granted under the authority of the British Government as glebes for the use of the Church of England and now by law granted to such town for the use of schools, and lands granted to the use of the ministry or the social worship of God, and lands granted to the first settled minister, and not appropriated according to law.


    The selectmen shall be entitled to the possession of such lands, except when the same have been otherwise disposed of according to law. They may commence, prosecute or defend, in the name of the town, any action necessary to recover or protect such possession, or recover damages for injuries done to such lands.


    The rents of lands granted to the use of the ministry or social worship of God, and the rents of lands granted to the first settled minister, shall annually, on February 1, be equally divided by the selectmen among the different organized religious societies in town that maintain public worship at least a fourth of the Sabbaths in the year. If there is not such a society, the same shall be covered into the treasury, and may be appropriated to pay for preaching the gospel or for the support of public schools, or for the improvement or care of public burial grounds, as such town by a vote in town meeting directs, until a religious society is organized in the town.


    Section 2404 of this title shall not affect a lease of such lands or a contract relating to or disposition of the same under previous law.


    Educational, ecclesiastical or municipal corporations may convey by deed the fee simple in lands the title to or use of which is held by such corporations under state or colonial grant for purposes defined in such grants. Such conveyance may be made to the owner and holder of leasehold rights in such land if such lands are then held under leease, but shall not be made t other than such holders of leasehold interests except subject to such leasehold interest, if any, or simultaneously with the extinguishment thereof. Such lands may be condemned in accordance with and in the manner provided by law. The funds received in consideration of such conveyance or awarded such corporations as damages in condemnation proceedings shall be kept intact, in trust, by such corporations as endowment funds, and the income only shall be used for the purposes for which such lands were originally granted. Such lands as may be sold, conveyed or condemned as provided in this section shall thereafter be subject to taxation as are other lands.”

New Jersey


46:1-1. Words and phrases defined

“As used in this title, except where the context clearly indicates a contrary intent, the terms “county recording officer” and “office of the county recording officer” mean the register of deeds and mortgages and his office in counties having such an officer and office, and the county clerk and his office in the other counties.”

46:2-1. Titles, rights and interests preserved

“Nothing in this title contained shall in any way affect, abridge or abrogate any title to or rights or interests in any real estate or personal property lawfully given, acquired and existing at the time when the Revised Statutes take effect.”

The main thing I want you to understand, and I believe most do, as I said earlier, our laws were based on the Common law of England, all states in union of the United States are, accept one. That’s right one state out of the fifty is not under English Common law. A lot of you may think this must be Texas, but it’s not. The one state not subject to, or formed under English common law is New York, New York City is responsible for not only our demise, but the entire World’s. New York City is the alter ego of London, and the other banking centers for the Banksters of the World to operate. New York City is the home of the Bankers, the World Trade Center, the Stock Market, the World Bank’s control via the IMF and the United Nations, etc. The controlling center for all banking, communication and super computers containing data on everyone and every transaction for the Bankers to control the Worlds population and their leaders, through their finances, with the U.N. as their police force and NATO as prosecutor of the Law Of The Flag and Conqueror of new Empires. When you read the very revealing statements in the New York statutes below you will see, they declare themselves not to be under English Common law, by section 70, sec. 71 deals with Acts and sec. 72 deals with Resolutions.

If you would like to understand how this fits into God’s Word, that is New York City, read Rev. 17-18, Jer. 51 and Isa 13. I wrote on this subject years ago and I won’t go into it here other than to say, New York City is the Biblical Babylon as you can read for yourself, as God Almighty defines Babylon in Rev. 18, no other City in the World meets His definition.

New York

New York State Consolidated Laws: General Construction




70. Statutes of England and Great Britain inoperative in this state.

71. Acts of the legislature of the colony of New York inoperative.

72. Resolutions of the congress of the colony and the convention of New York inoperative.

S 70. Statutes of England and Great Britain inoperative in this state. A statute of England or Great Britain shall not be deemed to have had any force or effect in this state since May first, seventeen hundred and eighty-eight.

S 71. Acts of the legislature of the colony of New York inoperative. Acts of the legislature of the colony of New York shall not be deemed to have had any force or effect in this state since December twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred and twenty-eight.

S 72. Resolutions of the congress of the colony and the convention of New York inoperative. The resolutions of the congress of the colony of New York and of the convention of the state of New York, shall not be deemed to be the laws of this state hereafter.”


Civil Practice and Remedies Code




Sec. 5.001. Rule of Decision.

“The rule of decision in this state consists of those portions of the common law of England that are not inconsistent with the constitution or the laws of this state, the constitution of this state, and the laws of this state.

Acts 1985, 69th Leg., ch. 959, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1985”

North Carolina

“Chapter 40A. Eminent Domain. ARTICLE 1. General. 40A-1.

Exclusive provisions. It is the intent of the General Assembly that the procedures provided by this Chapter shall be the exclusive condemnation procedures to be used in this State by all private condemnors and all local public condemnors. All other provisions in laws, charters, or local acts authorizing the use of other procedures by municipal or county governments or agencies or political subdivisions thereof, or by corporations, associations or other persons are hereby repealed effective January 1, 1982. Provided, that any condemnation proceeding initiated prior to January 1, 1982, may be lawfully completed pursuant to the provisions previously existing. This chapter shall not repeal any provision of a local act enlarging or limiting the purposes for which property may be condemned. Notwithstanding the language of G.S. 40A-3(b),this Chapter also shall not repeal any provision of a local act creating any

substantive or procedural requirement or limitation on the authority of a local public condemnor to exercise the power of eminent domain outside of its boundaries.”

” 40A-2. Definitions. As used in this Chapter the following words and phrases have the meanings indicated unless the context clearly requires another meaning:

(1) “Condemnation” means the procedure prescribed by law for exercising the power of eminent domain.

(2)”Condemnor” means those listed in G.S. 40A-3.

(3) “Eminent domain” means the power to divest right, title or interest from the owner of property and vest it in the possessor of the power against the will of the owner upon the payment of just compensation for the right, title or interest divested.

(4) “Judge” means a resident judge of the superior court in the district where the cause is pending, or special judge residing in said district, or a judge of the superior court assigned to hold the courts of said district or an emergency or special judge holding court in the county where the cause is pending.

(5) “Owner” includes the plural when appropriate and means any person having an interest or estate in the property.

(6) “Person” includes the plural when appropriate and means a natural person, and any legal entity capable of owning or having interest in property.

(7) “Property” means any right, title, or interest in land, including leases and options to buy or sell. “Property” also includes rights of access, rights-of-way, easements, water rights, air rights, and any other privilege or appurtenance in or to the possession, use, and enjoyment of land.”

” 40A-3. By whom right may be exercised.

(a) Private Condemnors. — For the public use or benefit, the persons or organizations listed below shall have the power of eminent domain and may acquire by purchase or condemnation property for the stated purposes and other works which are authorized by law.

(1) Corporations, bodies politic or persons have the power of eminent domain for the construction of railroads, power generating facilities, substations, switching stations, microwave towers, roads, alleys, access railroads, turnpikes, street railroads, plank roads, tramroads, canals, telegraphs, telephones, electric power lines, electric lights, public water supplies, public sewerage systems, flumes, bridges, and pipelines or mains originating in North Carolina for the transportation of petroleum products, coal, gas, limestone or minerals. Land condemned for any liquid pipelines shall.”

I guess now is a good time to deal with the pipe dreams we have been taught and allowed to believe, reinforced by the governments school system, in the selective teaching of history, also, parroted by the media. The pipe dream as I said earlier is our belief we do, or can possess land in this country, under the present law, in allodial title. Notice I said under the present law, this is the key to the king’s power, retaining possession to his Corporation, the Crown. What did we do at the beginning of this nation? Declare our law to be English common law, confirming the king’s Corporation and the law that created it and protects it even today.

“Corporation Sole: A corporation consisting of one person only and his successors. An older concept of the status of a king or a bishop as incorporated in order to give to them and their successors legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which they could not have in their natural capacities.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary, Third Ed., 1969

“Reversion. The residue of an estate and left in the grantor, to commence in possession after the determination of some particular estate granted out by him. The return of land to the grantor and his heirs after the grant is over.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, vol. 3, 1914

“651. b. Civil corporations (1) Lay corporations. ….But first, as I have laid it down as a rule that the founder, his heirs, or assigns, are the visitors of all lay corporations, let us inquire what is meant by the founder. The confounder of all corporations in the strictest and original sense is the king alone, for he only can incorporate a society; and in civil incorporations, such as mayor and commonalty, etc., where there are no possessions or endowments given to the body, there is no other founder but the king:”…. Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 685

  1. 10. Dissolution of corporations. ….But the body politic may also itself be dissolved in several ways; which dissolution is the civil death of the corporation: and in this case their lands and tenements shall revert to the person, or his heirs, who granted them to the corporation: for the law doth annex a condition to every such grant, that if the corporation be dissolved, the grantor shall have the lands again, only during the life of the corporation; which may endure forever: but, when that life is determined by the dissolution of the body politic, the grantor takes it back by reversion, as in the case of every other grant for life.” Blackstone’s Commentaries, vol. 1 pg. 700

Not to get ahead of myself, we first declared our Independence, sounded good, but why would you place your neck back under the yoke, the law that subjected you? Simple, as history proves, many of our fore fathers, including Washington did not want to be separated from the king. Some stood to lose lands and title, others understood they were subjects of the king and liked it. History shows they were not at odds with being subjects of the king, just his policies, regarding taxes and their government being so far removed; commerce and legal convenience demanded representation here, but still controlled by the king.

The king being so far removed from his possessions in America, misjudged his subjects needs, rebellion turned into War. But as always, the belligerents just wanted their redress heard, and our fore fathers knowing full well English history and how the game was played, knew the king would capitulate and make the concessions needed, never dreaming they would have what appeared to be a separate sovereign country at the end of the War. What about this War, did we win? Well lets look at history, I have covered this before, but it bears repeating. Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, but the document read, Capitulation at Yorktown. Did Cornwallis surrender, or did they just quit fighting because the king, made the necessary capitulations to the colonist demands? Well, did Cornwallis surrender his arms, in other words, did he and his troops lay down their arms and leave unarmed? No. Did Cornwallis surrender his colors, the king’s flag? No. Anyone that knows anything about War and Conquest, knows the flag of the surrendering enemy has to be Surrendered; if not, you just fought a battle, and did not win the war. Was Cornwallis and his army allowed to return to England armed and with their colors? Yes. Were British subjects allowed to retain their lands and possessions in America? Yes Was the king removed from his throne and his laws defeated, by his removal? No. Tell me again America, we won the Revolutionary War? I’m sorry, the facts don’t support what you want to believe is the case.

Now, to the so-called 1783 Paris Treaty, wherein the king’s possessions were turned over to us without his losing the War. Benjamin Franklin spent almost the entire war traveling back and forth from France and England working out the terms of the Treaty, excuse me GRANT, from the king of England. Let me see, we did not win the War, we did not dictate the terms of surrender, the king’s barrister’s along with the esquires chosen from America, Franklin, Jay and Adams, wrote the document. A document wherein the king’s law remained in force, and he GRANTED lands to his new Corporation, the United States. However, he did not grant to his Corporation the rights to the minerals existing and all to be found in the future. As I have said before, he declared in his Charters, ownership to all minerals, and that he was to receive a portion of the gain/profit in this country forever. Go back and read the quotes earlier in this paper. Also, how can the king do anything else but give fee simple title, when his law provides for only him to have allodial title. Did he change his law? NO. Could he change the un-revocable Trust his Charters established for all his heirs and successors? No. No, and could not, without destroying his throne, his Crown (corporation) and his law, thereby conquesting himself. You see that is the only way under the king’s law to own land by allodial title, via conquest, as the conqueror. This is why no country has defeated the king of England and his Crown, because if his law exists wherein the Corporate Charter was created, and the king and his heirs remain, the king’s Crown and Charters remain in force.

Let’s look at another source, here are several relevant quotes I pulled out of the Book written by Frederic Maitland, 1901, The Crown as Corporation.

“In 1522 Fineux C.J. after telling how some corporations are made by the king, others by the pope, others by both king and pope, adds that there are corporations by the common law, for, says he, “the parliament of the king and the lords and the commons are a corporation.”(7*) Y.B. 14 hen. VIII, f. 3 (Mich. pl. 2). The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“The king has two capacities, for he has two bodies, the one whereof is a body natural… the other is a body politic, and the members thereof are his subjects, and he and his subjects together compose the corporation, as Southcote said, and he is incorporated with them and they with him, and he is the head and they are the members, and he has the sole government of them.”(12*) Plowden, p. 234. The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“But, says an Act of 1738, the said premises “being vested in His Majesty, his heirs and successors in his politick capacity, which in consideration of law never dies, it may create a doubt whether the tenants of the said estates ought… to pay such fines… on the death of His present Majesty (whom God long preserve for the benefit of his People) or On the death of any future King or Queen.” So the tenants are to pay as they would have paid “in case such King or Queen so dying was considered as a private person only and not in his or her politick capacity”.(27*) (II Geo. II, c. 30, pr. and s. 1.) Thus that artificial person, the king in his politick capacity, who is a trustee for the Publick, must be deemed to die now and then for the benefit of cestui que trust.

But it was of “the Publick” that we were speaking, and I believe that “the Publick” first becomes prominent in connexion with the National Debt. Though much might be done for us by a slightly denaturalized king, he could not do all that was requisite. Some proceedings of one of his predecessors, who closed the Exchequer and ruined the goldsmiths, had made our king no good borrower. So the Publick had to take his place. The money might be “advanced to His Majesty”, but the Publick had to owe it. This idea could not be kept off the statute book. “Whereas,” said an Act of 1786, “the Publick stands indebted to” the East India Company in a sum of four millions and more.”(28*) 26 Geo. III, c. 62.

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“This is natural, for we may, if we will, trace the beginnings of a national debt back to days when a king borrows money and charges the repayment of it upon a specific tax; perhaps he will even appoint his creditor to collect that tax, and so enable him to repay himself.”

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“In 1714 the Governor, Council and General Assembly of New York passed a long Act “for the paying and discharging the several debts and sums of money claimed as debts of this Colony”. A preamble stated that some of the debts of the Colony had not been paid because the Governors had misapplied and extravagantly expended “the revenue given by the loyal subjects aforesaid to Her Majesty and Her Royal Predecessors, Kings and Queens of England, sufficient for the honorable as well as necessary support of their Government here.” “This Colony”, the preamble added, “in strict justice is in no manner of way obliged to pay many of the said claims”; however, in order “to restore the Publick Credit”, they were to be paid.(35*)(Act of 1714 13 Anne) Here we have a Colony which can be bound even in strict justice to pay money. What the great colonies did the small colonies did also.”

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“But then comes the lawyer with theories in his head, and begins by placing a legal estate in what he calls the Crown or Her Majesty. “In construing these enactments, it must always be kept in view that wherever public land with its incidents is described as ‘the property of’ or as ‘belonging to’ the Dominion or a Province, these expressions merely import that the right to its beneficial use, or to its proceeds, has been appropriated to the Dominion or the Province, as the case may be, and is subject to the control of its legislature, the land itself being vested in the Crown.”(44*)St. Catherine’s Milling and Lumber Co. v. The Queen (1888), 14 App. Cas. 46. esp. p. 56; A.-G. of Brit. Columbia v. A.-G. of Canada, 14 App. Cas. 295; A.-G. of Ontario v. Mercer (1883), 8 App. Cas. 767; A.-G. of Canada v. As.-G. of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia [1898] A.C. 700.”

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“Although the Secretary of State [for India] is a body corporate, or in the same position as a body corporate, for the purpose of contracts, and of suing and being sued, yet he is not a body corporate for the purpose of holding property. Such property as formerly vested, or would have vested, in the East India Company now vests in the Crown.”(45*) Ilbert, Government of India

(3rd.ed. 1915), p. 196”

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

In the quote below from Maitland, you will see that even the Postmaster General was used to secure the king’s possessions in America, and was a vehicle used by the king, through the President and his powers as Commander-in-Chief, to expand the king’s land west, via the king’s law going west with the laws governing the mail. After that, is a quote from President Monroe, arguing that such powers were not being used and did not exist, he would no doubt have to eat a huge amount of crow today, if he was alive today, and saw the Dept. of Transportation, and the power they have been granted over the Nation’s roads, and skies. You will also see the need for the king to incorporate, and that a grant of sovereign land ownership in was given to the War Dept. Sounds like the military’s loyalty was bought and paid for, leading up to conquest of America, after the Civil War.

“In 1840 the Postmaster-General and his successors “is and are” made “a body corporate” for the purpose of holding and taking conveyances and leases of lands and hereditaments for the service of the Post Office. From the Act that effected this incorporation we may learn that the Postmaster as a mere individual had been holding land in trust for the Crown.(52*) 3&4 Vict. c. 96, s. 67 [now – Ed. VII, c. 48, s. 45] One of the main reasons, I take it, for erecting some new corporations sole was that our “Crown”, being more or less identifiable with the King, it was difficult to make the Crown a leaseholder or copyholder in a direct and simple fashion. The Treasurer of Public Charities was made a corporation sole in 1853.(53*) 16 & 17 Vict. c. 137, s. 47. Then in 1855 the Secretary of State intrusted with the seals of the War Department was enabled to hold land as a corporation sole.(54*) 18&19 Vict. c. 117, s. 2. Perhaps if there were a Lord High Admiral he would be a corporation sole vel quasi.(55*)

27&28 Vict. C. 57, s.”

The Crown as Corporation, Frederic Maitland, 1901

“If the United States possessed, the power contended for under this grant, might they not, in adopting the roads of the individual states for the carriage of the mail, as has been done, assume jurisdiction over them, and preclude a right to interfere with or alter them? Might they not establish turnpikes, and exercise all the other acts of sovereignty, above stated, over such roads, necessary to protect them from injury, and defray the expense of repairing them? Surely, if the right exists, these consequences necessarily followed, as soon as the road was established. The absurdity of such a pretension must be apparent to all, who examine it. In this way, a large portion of the territory of every state might be taken from it; for there is scarcely a road in any state, which will not be used for the transportation of the mail. A new field for legislation and internal government would thus be opened.” President Monroe’s Message, of 4th May, 1822, p. 24 to 27. .

1 Johnson’s Dict. ad verb.; Webster’s Dict. ibid.

Post Routes

“All public roads and highways while kept up and maintained. 39 USC 482. All the waters of the United States during the time the mail is carried thereon, all the railroads or parts of railroads and all air routes which are now, or hereafter may be, in operation; all canals and plank roads during the time the mail is carried thereon; the road on which may mail is carried to supply any court house which may be without a mail; the road on which mail is carried under contract made by the Postmaster General for extending the line of post to supply mails to post offices not on any established route, during the time such mail is carried thereon; and all letter-carrier routes established in any city or town for the collection and delivery of mail matter.” 39 USC 481.

Below is the Quote section, I’ve also added The Treaty of Verona, a quote by Senator Owen, from the Congressional Record, 1916 on the same Treaty, and last but not least, the Jesuit Oath. In these documents you will see thee hidden agenda of the Pope, had bought this information out in previous emails, but now is the proper time to re air this subject, so you can understand the relevance of the Informer’s comments, in his introduction. As the Informer said, in this last chapter I have dealt primarily with our nexus with the king of England, so as not to cloud the issue anymore than it is, by dealing with more than this subject.







“Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people.”



“Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, can not properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY CONSENT TO THE OPERATION OF SUCH ACTS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, as are BONA FIDE, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the PURPOSE OF SECURING THE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE WHOLE EMPIRE TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY, and the COMMERCIAL BENEFITS OF ITS RESPECTIVE MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the SUBJECTS IN AMERICA, without their consent.” Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774 (The forefathers wanted the commercial benefits without paying the taxes that go hand in hand, it does not work that way Patriots.)

“Resolved, 7. That these, His Majesty’s colonies, are likewise entitled to all the IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED and confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.” Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774


“Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to taxes in general.

  1. 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.”


“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 defense, not of Great Britain allone, but of all the different provinces of the empire; the immense debt contracted in the late war in particular, and a great part of that contracted in the war before, were both properly contracted in defense of America.”


“The expense of the peace establishment of the colonies was, before the commencement of the present disturbances, very considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can be drawn from them ought certainly to be saved altogether. This constant expense in time of peace, though very great, is insignificant in comparison with what the defense of the colonies has cost us in time of war. The last war, which was undertaken altogether on account of the colonies, cost Great Britain, it has already been observed, upwards of ninety millions. The Spanish war of 1739 was principally undertaken on their account, in which, and in the French war that was the consequence of it, Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of which ought justly to be charged to the colonies. In those two wars the colonies cost Great Britain much more than double the sum which the national debt amounted to before the commencement of the first of them. Had it not been for those wars that debt might, and probably would by this time, have been completely paid; and had it not been for the colonies, the former of those wars might not, and the latter certainly would not have been undertaken. It was because the colonies were supposed to be provinces of the British empire that this expense was laid out upon them. But countries which contribute neither revenue nor military force towards the support of the empire cannot be considered as provinces. They may perhaps be considered as appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of the empire. But if the empire can no longer support the expense of keeping up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay it down; and if it cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense, it ought, at least, to accommodate its expense to its revenue. If the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal to submit to British taxes, are still to be considered as provinces of the British empire, their defense in some future war may cost Great Britain as great an expense as it ever has done in any former war. The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of an empire; not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shown, are, to the great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit.”



Exchequer: “The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king’s debts and duties. It was called exchequer, “scaccharium,” from the checked cloth, resembling a chessboard, which covers the table.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

Exchequer: “That department of the English government which has charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury department.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th ed.

Exchequer: “In English Law. A department of the government which has the management of the collection of the king’s revenue.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

Court of Exchequer: “56.The court of exchequer is inferior in rank not only to the court of king’s bench, but to the common pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on account of its double capacity, as a court of law and a court of equity [44] also. It is a very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, through regulated and reduced to its present order by King Edward I; and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king’s debts and duties. It is called the exchequer, scaccharium, from the chequed cloth, resembling a chess-board, which covers the table there; and on which, when certain of the king’s accounts are made up, the sums are marked and scored with counters. It consists of two divisions; the receipt of the exchequer, which manages to royal revenue, and with which these Commentaries have no concern; and the court or judicial part of it, which is again subdivided into a court of equity, and a court of common law.”

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

Court of Exchequer: “An English superior court with jurisdiction of matter of law and matters involving government revenue.”

Ballentine’s Law Dictionary

Court of Exchequer: “A court for the correction and prevention of errors of law in the three superior common-law courts of the kingdom.

A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31 Edw. III. C. 12, to determine causes upon writs of error from the common-law side of the exchequer court. It consisted of the chancellor, treasurer, and the “justices and other sage persons as to them seemeth.” The judges were merely assistants. A second court of exchequer chamber was instituted by statute 27 Eliz. C. 8, consisting of the justices of the common pleas and the exchequer, or any six of them, which had jurisdiction in error of cases in the king’s bench. In exchequer chamber substituted in their place as an intermediate court of appeal between the three common-law courts and Parliament. It consisted of the judges of the two courts which had not rendered the judgement in the court below. It is now merged in the High Court of Justice.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

The equity court of the exchequer: “57. The court of equity is held in the exchequer chamber before the lord treasurer, the chancellor of the exchequer, the chief baron, and three puisne’ ones. These Mr. Selden conjectures to have been anciently made out of such as were barons of the kingdom, or parliamentary barons; and thence to have derived their name: which conjecture receives great strength form Bracton’s explanation of magna carta, c.14, which directs that the earls and barons be amerced by their peers; that is, says he, by the barons of the exchequer. The primary and original business of this court is to call the king’s debtors to account, by bill filed by the attorney general; and to recover any lands, tenements, or hereditaments, any goods, chattels, or other profits or benefits, belonging to the crown. So that by their original constitution the jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas, king’s bench, and exchequer, was entirely separate and distinct; the common pleas being intended to decide all controversies between subject and subject; the king’s bench to correct all crimes and misdemeanors that amount to a breach of the peace, the king being then the plaintiff, as such offenses are in open derogation of the jura regalia (regal rights) of his crown; and the exchequer to adjust [45] and recover his revenue, wherein the king also is plaintiff, as the withholding and nonpayment thereof is an injury to his jura fiscalia (fisical rights). But, as by a fiction almost all sorts of civil actions are now allowed to be brought in the king’s bench, in like manner by another fiction all kinds of personal suits may be prosecuted in the court of exchequer. For as all the officers and ministers of this court have, like those of other superior courts, the privilege of suing and being sued only in their own court; so exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead all manner of persons in the same court of equity that they themselves are called into. They have likewise privilege to sue and implead one another, or any stranger, in the same kind of common-law actions (where the personalty only is concerned) as are prosecuted in the court of common pleas.”

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

The common-law court of the exchequer: “58. This gives original to the common-law part of their jurisdiction, which was established merely for the benefit of the king’s accountants, and is exercised by the barons only of the exchequer, and not the treasurer or chancellor. The writ upon which the plaintiff suggests that he is the king’s farmer or debtor, and that the defendant hath done him the injury or damage complained of; quo minus sufficient exist, by which he is the less able, to pay the king his debt or rent. And these suits are expressly directed, by what is called the statute of Rutland, to be confined to such matters only as specially concern the king or his ministers of the exchequer. And by the articuli super cartas it is enacted that no common pleas be thenceforth holden in the exchequer, contrary to the form of the great charter. But not, by the suggestion of privilege, any person may be admitted to sue in the exchequer as well as the king’s accountant. The surmise of being debtor to the king is therefore become matter of form and mere words of course, and the court is open to all the nation equally. The same holds with regard to the equity side of the court: for there any person may file [46] a bill against another upon a bare suggestion that he is the king’s accountant; but whether he is so or not is never controverted. In this court, on the nonpayment of titles; in which case the surmiise of being the king’s debto is no fiction, they being bound to pay him their first-fruits, and annual tenths. But the chancery has of late years obtained a large share in this business.”

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555

Definition of a legal fiction: For a discussion of fictions in law, see chapter II of Maine’s Ancient Law, and Pollock’s note D in his edition of the Ancient Law. Blackstone gives illustrations of legal fictions on pages 43, 45, 153, 203 of this book. Mr Justice Curtis (Jurisdiction of United States Courts, 2d ed., 148) gives the following instance of a fiction in our practice:

“A suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name may be presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the state which created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to the contrary is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.

There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law, presumes all the members are citizens of the state which created the corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse that presumption’; and that is the law now. (Authors note-by your residence you are incorporated) Under it, the courts of the United States constantly entertain suits by or against corporations. (Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 24 L. Ed. 207.) It has been so frequently settled, that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that it will ever be departed from by the court. It has been repeated over and over again in subsequent decisions; and the supreme court seem entirely satisfied that it is the right ground to stand upon; and, as I am now going to state to you, they have applied it in some cases which go beyond, much beyond, these decisions to which I have referred. So that when a suit is to be brought in a court of the United States by or against a corporation, by reason of the character of the parties, you have only to say that this corporation (after naming it correctly) was created by a law of the state; and that is exactly the same in its consequences as if you could allege, and did allege, that the corporation was a citizen of that state. According to the present decisions, it is not necessary you should say that the members of that corporation are citizens of Massachusetts. They have passed beyond that. You have only to say that the corporation was created by a law of the state of Massachusetts, and has its principal place of business in that state; and that makes it, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the same as if it were a citizen of that state” See Pound, Readings in Roman Law, 95n.

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553

Statute of Mortmain, 1279

“The king to his Justices of the Bench, greeting. Where as of late it was provided that religious men should not enter into the fees of any without the will and licence of the lords in chief of whom these fees are held immediately; and such religious men have, notwithstanding, later entered as well into their own fees as into those of others, appropriated, them to themselves, and buying them, and sometimes receiving them from the gift of others, whereby the services which are due of such fees, and which at the beginning, were provided for the defence of the realm, are unduly withdrawn, and the lords in chief do lose their escheats of the same; we, therefore, to the profit of our realm, wishing to provide a fit remedy in this matter, by advice of our prelates, counts and other subjects of our realm who are of our council, have provided, established, and ordained, that no person, religious or other, whatsoever presume to buy or sell any lands or tenements, , or under colour of gift or lease, or of any other term or title whatever to receive them from any one, or in any other craft or by wile to appropriate them to himself, whereby such lands and tenements may come into mortmain under pain of forfeiture of the same. We have provided also that if any person, religious or other, do presume either by craft or wile to offend against this statute it shall be lawful for us and for other immediate lords in chief of the fee so alienated, to enter it within a year from the time of such alienation and to hold it in fee as an inheritance. And if the immediate lord in chief shall -be negligent and be not willing to enter into such fee within the year, then it shall be lawful for the next mediate lord in chief, within the half year following, to enter that fee and to hold it, as has been said; and thus each mediate lord may do if the next lord be negligent in entering such fee as as been said. And if all such chief lords of such fee, who shall be of full age, and within the four seas and out of prison, shall before one year negligent or remiss in this matter, we, straightway after the year is completed from the time when such purchases, mgifts, or appropriations of another kind happen to have been made, shall take such lands and tenements into our hand, and shall enfief others therein by certain services to be rendered thence to us for the defence of our kingdom ; saving to the lords

in chief of the same fees their wards, escheats and other things which pertain to them, and the services therefrom due and accustomed. And therefore we command you to cause the aforesaid statute to be read before you, and from henceforth firmly kept and observed. Witness myself at Westminster, the 15th day of November, the 7h year of our reign.”

Could the President as trustee, in behalf of the Crown, sell what it does not control, as trustee? No. Will the unsuspecting purchasers of the sold property own it? No. They might be granted fee simple title, or be made to pay taxes if given only fee tail title. Either way the king is still the corporate sole, and they will not have allodial title. Remember this Executive Order, I use it because it further proves the American people do not own any land in America.

Federal Register

Vol. 57, No. 86
Monday, May 4, 1992
Title 3– Executive Order 12803 of April 30, 1992

The President

Infrastructure Privatization

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and in order to ensure that the United States achieves the most beneficial economic use of its resources, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “Privatization” means the disposition or transfer of an infrastructure asset, such as by sale or by long-term lease, from a State or local government to a private party.

(b) “Infrastructure asset” means any asset financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government and needed for the functioning of the economy. Examples of such assets include, but are not limited to: roads, tunnels, bridges, electricity supply facilities, mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports, waterways, water supply facilities, recycling and wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing, schools, prisons, and hospitals.

(c) “Originally authorized purposes” means the general objectives of the original grant program; however, the term is not intended to include every condition required for a grantee to have obtained the original grant.

(d) “Transfer price” means: (i) the amount paid or to be paid by a private party for an infrastructure asset, if the asset is transferred as a result of competitive bidding; or (ii) the appraised value of an infrastructure asset, as determined by the head of the executive department or agency and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, if the asset is not transferred as a result of competitive bidding.

(e) “State and local governments” means the government of any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, any commonwealth, territory, or possession of the United States, and any county, municipality, city, town, township, local public authority, school district, special district, intrastate district, regional or interstate governmental entity, council of governments, and any agency or instrumentality of a local government, and any federally recognized Indian Tribe.

Sec. 2. Fundamental Principles. Executive departments and agencies shall be guided by the following objectives an principles:

(a) Adequate and well-maintained infrastructure is critical to economic growth. Consistent with the principles of federalism enumerated in Executive Order No. 12612, and in order to allow the private sector to provide for infrastructure modernization and expansion, State and local governments should have greater freedom to privatize infrastructure assets.

(b) Private enterprise and competitively driven improvements are the foundation of our Nation’s economy and economic growth. Federal financing of infrastructure assets should not act as a barrier to the achievement of economic efficiencies through additional private market financing or competitive practices, or both.

(c) State and local governments are in the best position to assess and respond to local needs. State and local governments should, subject to assuring continued compliance with Federal requirements that public use be on reasonable and nondiscriminatory terms, have maximum possible freedom to United States, its agencies or instrumentalities, its officers or employees, or any other person.

[Signed George Bush]



April 30, 1992.

{FR Doc. 92-10495
Filed 4-30-92; 4:17 pm}
Billing code 3195-01-m

Secret Treaty Of Verona

“The undersigned specially authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows:

ARTICLE I. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchial principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right, engage mutually, in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put an end to the system of representative governments, in whatever country it may exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it is not yet known.

ARTICLE 2. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in their own state but also in the rest of Europe.

ARTICLE 3. Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their own interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant co-operation in their views of submitting the nations.

ARTICLE 4. The situation of Spain and Portugal unite unhappily all the circumstances to which this treaty has particular reference. The high contracting parties, in confiding to France the care of putting an end to them, engaged to assist her in the manner which may at least compromit them with their own people and the people of France by means of a subsidy on the part of the two empires of 20,000,000 of francs every year from the date of signature of this treaty to the end of the war.

ARTICLE 5. In order to establish in the peninsula the order of things which existed before the revolution of Cadiz, and to insure the entire execution of the articles of the present treaty, the high contracting parties give to each other the reciprocal assurance that as long as their views are not fulfilled, rejecting all other ideas of futility or other measure to be taken, they will address themselves with the shortest possible delay to all the authorities existing in their states and to all their agents in foreign countries, with the view to establish connections tending toward the accomplishment of the objects proposed by this treaty.

ARTICLE 6. This treaty shall be renewed with such changes as new circumstances may give occasion for; either at a new congress, or at the court of one of the contracting parties, as soon as the war with Spain shall be terminated.

ARTICLE 7. The present treaty shall be ratified and the ratifications exchanged at Paris within the space of six months.

Made at Verona the 22nd of November, 1822.

For Austria: Metternich.
For France: Chateaubriand.
For Russia: Bernstet.
For Russia: Nesselrode.”


Senator Owen

“This Holy Alliance, having put a Bourdon prince upon the throne of France by force, then used France to suppress the condition of Spain, immediately afterwards, and by this very treaty gave her a subsidy of 20,000,000 francs annually to enable her to wage war upon the people of Spain and prevent their exercise of any measure of the right of self-government. The Holy Alliance

immediately did not same thing in Italy, by sending Austrian troops to Italy, where the people there attempted to exercise a like measure of liberal constitutional self-government; and it was not until the printing press, which the Holy Alliance so stoutly opposed, taught the people of Europe the value of liberty that finally one country after another seized a greater and greater right of self-government, until now it may be fairly said that nearly all the nations of Europe have a very large measure of self-government.

“However, I wish to call the attention of the Senate to this important history in the growth of constitutional popular self-government. The Holy Alliance made its powers felt by the wholesale drastic suppression of the press in Europe, by universal censorship, by killing free speech and all ideas of popular rights, and by the complete suppression of popular government. The Holy Alliance having destroyed popular government in Spain, and Italy, had well-laid plains also to destroy popular government in the American Colonies which had revolted from Spain and Portugal in Central and South America under the influence of the successful example of the United States.”

“It was because of this conspiracy against the American Republics by the European monarchies that the great English statesman, Canning, called the attention of our government to it, and our statesmen then, including Thomas Jefferson, who was still living at that time, took an active part to bring about the declaration by President Monroe in his next annual message to the Congress of the United States that the United States would regard it as an act of hostility to the government of the United States and an unfriendly act, if this coalition, or if any power of Europe ever undertook to establish upon the American continent any control of any American republic, or to acquire any territorial rights.

“This is the so-called Monroe Doctrine. The threat under the secret treaty of Verona to suppress popular government in the American republics is the basis of the Monroe Doctrine. This secret treaty sets fourth clearly the conflict between monarchial government and popular government, and the government of the few as against the government on the many.”

Senator Owen, Congressional Record 1916 THE JESUIT OATH

“I…………………………, now in the presence of Almighty God, the Blessed Virgin Mary, the Blessed Michael the Archangel, The Blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, Peter and Paul, and all the Saints, sacred hosts of Heaven, and to you, my ghostly Father, the Superior General of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyaola, in the Ponification of Paul the Third, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that his holiness, the Pope, is Christ’s Vice-regent, and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing, given to his Holiness by my Savior, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths and governments, all being illegal without his sacred confirmation, and that they may be safely destroyed.

“Therefore, to the utmost of my power, I shall and will defend this doctrine and his Holiness’ right and customs against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority, whatever especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority of the Church of England and Scotland, the branches of the same, now established in Ireland, and on the continent of America and elsewhere….I so now renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or state named Protestant or Liberals, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers.

“I do further declare, that I will help and assist and advise all or any of his Holiness’ agents in any place wherever I shall be, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant of Liberal doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise.

“I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical, for the propagating of the Mother Church’s interest, to keep secret and private all her agents’ counsels, from time to tome as they may instruct me, and not to divulge directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstances whatever; but to execute all that shall be proposed given in charge or discovered unto me, by you, my ghostly father…..

“I do further promise and declare, that I will have no opinion or will of my own, or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver) but unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the Militia of the Pope and Jesus Christ.

“That I will go to any part of the world, whatsoever, without murmuring and will be submissive in all things whatsoever communicated to me…..I do further promise and declare, that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly or openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Liberals, as I am directed to do to extirpate and exterminate them from the face of the whole earth, and that I will spare neither sex, age no condition, and that I will hang, waste, boil, flay, strangle and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women and crush their infants’ heads against the wall, in order to annihilate forever their execrable race.

That when the same cannot be done openly, I will secretly use the poison cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poinard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of honor, rank, dignity or authority of the person or persons whatsoever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agent of the Pope or superior of the brotherhood of the holy faith of the Society of Jesus.”

Congressional Record, House Bill 1523, Contested election case of Eugene C. Bonniwell, against Thos. S. Butler, Feb. 15, 1913, pages 3215-16, sited: “The Suppressed Truth About The Assassination Of Abraham Lincoln”


Volume 8 ThE Magazine Contents


ThE-Magazine is a publication of TGS Services –
Please direct all correspondence to
TGS HiddenMysteries, c/o TGS Services,
22241 Pinedale Lane, Frankston, Texas, 75763

All Content © HiddenMysteries – TGS (1998-2012) Internet Store ~ HiddenMysteries Information Central
Texas National Press ~ TGS Publishers Dealers Site
All Rights Reserved

Please send bug reports to the Information .





Frederic Bastiat’s classic The Law.


Like others, Bastiat recognized that the greatest single threat to liberty is government.


 Foreward By

Walter Williams

I must have been forty years old before reading Frederic Bastiat’s classic The Law. An anonymous person, to whom I shall eternally be in debt, mailed me an unsolicited copy. After reading the book I was convinced that a liberal-arts education without an encounter with Bastiat is incomplete. Reading Bastiat made me keenly aware of all the time wasted, along with the frustrations of going down one blind alley after another, organizing my philosophy of life. The Law did not produce a philosophical conversion for me as much as it created order in my thinking about liberty and just human conduct.

Many philosophers have made important contributions to the discourse on liberty, Bastiat among them. But Bastiat’s greatest contribution is that he took the discourse out of the ivory tower and made ideas on liberty so clear that even the unlettered can understand them and statists cannot obfuscate them. Clarity is crucial to persuading our fellowman of the moral superiority of personal liberty.

Like others, Bastiat recognized that the greatest single threat to liberty is government. Notice the clarity he employs to help us identify and understand evil government acts such as legalized plunder. Bastiat says,“See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not

Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University, Fairfax,Virginia.

See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing  a crime.” With such an accurate description of legalized plunder, we cannot deny the conclusion that most government activities, including ours, are legalized plunder, or for the sake of modernity, legalized theft.

Frederic Bastiat could have easily been a fellow traveler of the signers of our Declaration of Independence. The signers’ vision of liberty and the proper role of government was captured in the immortal words “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain Unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among Men. . . .” Bastiat echoes the identical vision, saying, “Life, faculties, production—in other words individuality, liberty, property—that is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.” Bastiat gave the same rationale for government as did our Founders, saying,“Life, liberty, and prop- erty do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” No finer statements of natural or God-given rights have been made than those found in our Declaration of Independence and The Law.

Bastiat pinned his hopes for liberty on the United States saying,“. . . look at the United States.There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every person’s liberty and property. As a conse- quence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation.” Writing in 1850, Bastiat noted two areas where the United States fell short: “Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty.The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.”

If Bastiat were alive today, he would be disappointed with our failure to keep the law within its proper domain. Over the course of a century and a half, we have created more than 50,000 laws. Most of them permit the state to initiate violence against those who have not initiated violence against others. These laws range from anti-smoking laws for private establishments and Social Security “contributions” to licensure laws and minimum wage laws. In each case, the person who resolutely demands and defends his God-given right to be left alone can ultimately suffer death at the hands of our government.*

Bastiat explains the call for laws that restrict peaceable, volun- tary exchange and punish the desire to be left alone by saying that socialists want to play God. Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations. To them—the elite—“the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.” And for people who have this vision, Bastiat displays the only anger I find in The Law when he lashes out at do-gooders and would-be rulers of mankind, “Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”

Bastiat was an optimist who thought that eloquent arguments in defense of liberty might save the day; but history is not on his side. Mankind’s history is one of systematic, arbitrary abuse and control by the elite acting privately, through the church, but mostly through government. It is a tragic history where hundreds of mil- lions of unfortunate souls have been slaughtered, mostly by their own governments. A historian writing 200 or 300 years from now might view the liberties that existed for a tiny portion of mankind’s

*Death is not the stated penalty for disobedience; however, death can occur if the person refuses to submit to government sanctions for his disobedience.

population, mostly in the Western world, for only a tiny portion of its history, the last century or two, as a historical curiosity that defies explanation. That historian might also observe that the curiosity was only a temporary phenomenon and mankind reverted back to the traditional state of affairs—arbitrary control and abuse.

Hopefully, history will prove that pessimistic assessment false. The worldwide collapse of the respectability of the ideas of social- ism and communism suggests that there is a glimmer of hope. Another hopeful sign is the technological innovations that make it more difficult for government to gain information on its citizens and control them. Innovations such as information access, commu- nication, and electronic monetary transactions will make government attempts at control more costly and less probable. These technological innovations will increasingly make it possible for world citizens to communicate and exchange with one another without government knowledge, sanction, or permission.

The collapse of communism and technological innovations, accompanied by robust free-market organizations promoting Bas- tiat’s ideas, are the most optimistic things I can say about the future of liberty in the United States. Americans share an awesome bur- den and moral responsibility. If liberty dies in the United States, it is destined to die everywhere. A greater familiarity with Bastiat’s clear ideas about liberty would be an important step in rekindling respect and love, and allowing the resuscitation of the spirit of liberty among our fellow Americans.

The Law

The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!

If this is true, it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it.

 Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life—physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

Law and Government Properly Defined

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two.  For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend—even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual can- not lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason— cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights.Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual act- ing separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this com- mon force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.

A Just and Enduring Government

If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most sim- ple, easy to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable—whatever its political form might be.

Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with govern- ment, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this con- cept of government.

It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention  of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.

The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.

Complete Perversion of the Law

But, unfortunately, law by no means confines itself to its proper functions. And when it has exceeded its proper functions, it has not done so merely in some inconsequential and debatable matters. The law has gone further than this; it has acted in direct opposition to its own purpose. The law has been used to destroy its own objective: It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which its real purpose was to respect.The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right, in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense.

How has this perversion of the law been accomplished? And what have been the results?

The law has been perverted by the influence of two entirely different causes: stupid greed and false philanthropy. Let us speak of the first.

A Fatal Tendency of Mankind

Self-preservation and self-development are common aspira- tions among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.

But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others. This is no rash accusation. Nor does it come from a gloomy and uncharitable spirit. The annals of history bear witness to the truth of it: the incessant wars, mass migrations, religious persecutions, universal slavery, dishonesty in commerce, and monopolies.This fatal desire has its origin in the very nature of man—in that primitive, universal, and in-suppressible instinct that impels him to satisfy his desires with the least possible pain.

Property and Plunder

Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor; by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property.

But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder.

Now since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain—and since labor is pain in itself—it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it.

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor.

It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.

But, generally, the law is made by one man or one class of men. And since law cannot operate without the sanction and support of a dominating force, this force must be entrusted to those who make the laws.

This fact, combined with the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their lib- erty by oppression, and their property by plunder.This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds.

Victims of Lawful Plunder

Men naturally rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered classes try somehow to enter—by peaceful or revolutionary means—into the making of laws.

According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or they may wish to share in it.

Woe to the nation when this latter purpose prevails among the mass victims of lawful plunder when they, in turn, seize the power to make laws!

Until that happens, the few practice lawful plunder upon the many, a common practice where the right to participate in the making of law is limited to a few persons. But then, participation in the making of law becomes universal. And then, men seek to balance their conflicting interests by universal plunder. Instead of rooting out the injustices found in society, they make these injus- tices general.

As soon as the plundered classes gain political power, they establish a system of reprisals against other classes. They do not abolish legal plunder. (This objective would demand more enlight- enment than they possess.) Instead, they emulate their evil predecessors by participating in this legal plunder, even though it is against their own interests.

It is as if it were necessary, before a reign of justice appears, for everyone to suffer a cruel retribution—some for their evilness, and some for their lack of understanding.

The Results of Legal Plunder

It is impossible to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this: the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder.

What are the consequences of such a perversion? It would require volumes to describe them all. Thus we must content our- selves with pointing out the most striking.

In the first place, it erases from everyone’s conscience the distinction between justice and injustice.

No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.

The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing.There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate.This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.

If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that “You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests.”

If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought:“That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in  force.”*

Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not ever be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.

Universal  Suffrage?

Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.

I could prove this assertion in a thousand ways. But, by way of illustration, I shall limit myself to a subject that has lately occupied the minds of everyone: universal suffrage.

The followers of Rousseau’s school of thought—who consider themselves far advanced, but whom I consider twenty centuries behind the times—will not agree with me on this. But universal suffrage—using the word in its strictest sense—is not one of those sacred dogmas which it is a crime to examine or doubt. In fact, serious objections may be made to universal suffrage.

In the first place, the word universal conceals a gross fallacy. For example, there are 36 million people in France.Thus, to make the right of suffrage universal, there should be 36 million voters. But the most extended system permits only 9 million people to vote. Three persons out of four are excluded. And more than this, they are excluded by the fourth.This fourth person advances the prin- ciple of incapacity as his reason for excluding the others. Universal suffrage means, then, universal suffrage for those who are capable. But there remains this question of fact: Who is capable? Are minors, females, insane persons, and persons who have committed certain major crimes the only ones to be determined incapable?

A closer examination of the subject shows us the motive which causes the right of suffrage to be based upon the supposition of incapacity. The motive is that the elector or voter does not exer- cise this right for himself alone, but for everybody.

The most extended elective system and the most restricted elective system are alike in this respect.They differ only in respect to what constitutes incapacity. It is not a difference of principle, but merely a difference of degree.

If, as the republicans of our present-day Greek and Roman schools of thought pretend, the right of suffrage arrives with one’s birth, it would be an injustice for adults to prevent women and children from voting. Why are they prevented? Because they are presumed to be incapable. And why is incapacity a motive for exclusion? Because it is not the voter alone who suffers the consequences of his vote; because each vote touches and affects everyone in the entire community; because the people in the community have a right to demand some safeguards concerning the acts upon which their welfare and existence depend.

I know what might be said in answer to this; what the objections might be. But this is not the place to exhaust a controversy of this nature. I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be.

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self-defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder—is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peace- ably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege? If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these  circumstances, those  who  voted  could  not inconvenience

those who did not vote?

The Fatal Idea of Legal Plunder

But on the other hand, imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few—whether farmers, manufacturers, shipowners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.

The excluded classes will furiously demand their right to vote—and will overthrow society rather than not to obtain it. Even beggars and vagabonds will then prove to you that they also have an incontestable title to vote.They will say to you:

“We cannot buy wine, tobacco, or salt without paying the tax. And a part of the tax that we pay is given by law—in privileges and subsidies—to men who are richer than we are. Others use the law to raise the prices of bread, meat, iron, or cloth.Thus, since every- one else uses the law for his own profit, we also would like to use the law for our own profit. We demand from the law the right to relief, which is the poor man’s plunder.To obtain this right, we also should be voters and legislators in order that we may organize Beggary on a grand scale for our own class, as you have organized Protection on a grand scale for your class. Now don’t tell us beg- gars that you will act for us, and then toss us, as Mr. Mimerel [textile manufacturer and politician] proposes, 600,000 francs to keep us quiet, like throwing us a bone to gnaw. We have other claims. And anyway, we wish to bargain for ourselves as other classes have bargained for themselves!”

And what can you say to answer that argument!

As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose—that it may violate property instead of protecting it—then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all- absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.

Is there any need to offer proof that this odious perversion of the law is a perpetual source of hatred and discord; that it tends to destroy society itself? If such proof is needed, look at the United States [in 1850].There is no country in the world where the law is kept more within its proper domain: the protection of every per- son’s liberty and property. As a consequence of this, there appears to be no country in the world where the social order rests on a firmer foundation. But even in the United States, there are two issues— and only two—that have always endangered the public peace.

What are these two issues? They are slavery and tariffs. These are the only two issues where, contrary to the general spirit of the republic of the United States, law has assumed the character of a plunderer.

Slavery is a violation, by law, of liberty.The protective tariff is a violation, by law, of property.

It is a most remarkable fact that this double legal crime—a sorrowful inheritance from the Old World—should be the only issue which can, and perhaps will, lead to the ruin of the Union. It is indeed impossible to imagine, at the very heart of a society, a more astounding fact than this: The law has come to be an instrument of injustice. And if this fact brings terrible consequences to the United States—where the proper purpose of the law has been perverted only in the instances of slavery and tariffs—what must be the consequences in Europe, where the perversion of the law is a principle; a system?

Two Kinds of Plunder

Mr. de Montalembert [politician and writer] adopting the thought contained in a famous proclamation by Mr. Carlier [chief of Paris police], has said: “We must make war against socialism.” According to the definition of socialism advanced by Mr. Charles Dupin [political economist], he meant: “We must make war against plunder.”

But of what plunder was he speaking? For there are two kinds of plunder: legal and illegal.

I do not think that illegal plunder, such as theft or swindling— which the penal code defines, anticipates, and punishes—can be called socialism. It is not this kind of plunder that systematically threatens the foundations of society. Anyway, the war against this kind of plunder has not waited for the command of these gentle- men. The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. Long before the Revolution of February 1848—long before the appearance even of socialism itself—France had provided police, judges, gendarmes, prisons, dungeons, and scaffolds for the purpose of fighting illegal plunder. The law itself conducts this war, and it is my wish and opinion that the law should always maintain this attitude toward plunder.

But it does not always do this. Sometimes the law defends plunder and participates in it. Thus the beneficiaries are spared the shame, danger, and scruple which their acts would otherwise involve. Sometimes the law places the whole apparatus of judges, police, prisons, and gendarmes at the service of the plunderers, and treats the victim—when he defends himself—as a criminal. In short, there is a legal plunder, and it is of this, no doubt, that Mr. de Montalembert speaks.

This legal plunder may be only an isolated stain among the legislative measures of the people. If so, it is best to wipe it out with a minimum of speeches and denunciations—and in spite of the uproar of the vested interests.

Legal Plunder Defined

But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a  crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case—is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obli- gated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor


Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests.The accept- ance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred.The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.

Legal Plunder Has Many Names

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, mini- mum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism.

Now, since under this definition socialism is a body of doctrine, what attack can be made against it other than a war of doctrine? If you find this socialistic doctrine to be false, absurd, and evil, then refute it. And the more false, the more absurd, and the more evil it is, the easier it will be to refute. Above all, if you wish to be strong, begin by rooting out every particle of socialism that may have crept into your legislation.This will be no light task. Mr. de Montalembert has been accused of desiring to fight socialism by the use of brute force. He ought to be exonerated from this accusation, for he has plainly said:“The war that we must fight against socialism must be in harmony with law, honor, and justice.” But why does not Mr. de Montalembert see that he has placed himself in a vicious circle? You would use the law to oppose socialism? But it is upon the law that socialism itself relies. Socialists desire to practice legal plunder, not illegal plunder. Socialists, like all other monopolists, desire to make the law their own weapon. And when once the law is on the side of socialism, how can it be used against socialism? For when plunder is abetted by the law, it does not fear your courts, your gendarmes, and your prisons. Rather, it may call upon them for help.

To prevent this, you would exclude socialism from entering into the making of laws?You would prevent socialists from entering the Legislative Palace? You shall not succeed, I predict, so long as legal plunder continues to be the main business of the legislature. It is illogical—in fact, absurd—to assume otherwise.

The Choice Before Us

This question of legal plunder must be settled once and for all, and there are only three ways to settle it:

The few plunder – Everybody plunders -Nobody plunders

We must make our choice among limited plunder, universal plunder, and no plunder.The law can follow only one of these three.

Limited legal plunder: This system prevailed when the right to vote was restricted. One would turn back to this system to prevent the invasion of socialism.

Universal legal plunder: We have been threatened with this sys- tem since the franchise was made universal. The newly enfranchised majority has decided to formulate law on the same principle of legal plunder that was used by their predecessors when the vote was limited.

No legal plunder: This is the principle of justice, peace, order, stability, harmony, and logic. Until the day of my death, I shall pro- claim this principle with all the force of my lungs (which alas! is all too inadequate).*

*Translator’s note:At the time this was written, Mr. Bastiat knew that he was dying of tuberculosis.Within a year, he was dead.


And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be required of the law? Can the law—which necessarily requires the use of force—rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting it and, consequently, turning might against right.This is the most fatal and most illogi- cal social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must be admitted that the true solution—so long searched for in the area of social relationships—is contained in these simple words: Law is organized justice.

Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law— that is, by force—this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce, industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of these would inevitably destroy the essential organization—justice. For truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its proper purpose?

The Seductive Lure of Socialism

Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic. Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.

This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: “Your doctrine is only the half of my program.You have stopped at liberty; I go  on to fraternity.” I answered him: “The second half of your program will destroy the first.”

In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being legally trampled underfoot.

The Roots of Plunder

Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.

At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the word plunder.*

I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain, approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance—as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns it—without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or by fraud—to any- one who does not own it, then I say that property is violated; that an act of plunder is committed.

I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to sup- press, always and everywhere.When the law itself commits this act that it is supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering.The responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator, and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.

It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive. I have tried in vain to find an inoffensive word, for I would not at any

*Translator’s note:The French word used by Mr. Bastiat is spoliation.

I wish to add an irritating word to our dissensions. Thus, whether I am believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the suffering.

Three Systems of Plunder

The sincerity of those who advocate protectionism, socialism, and communism is not here questioned.Any writer who would do that must be influenced by a political spirit or a political fear. It is to be pointed out, however, that protectionism, socialism, and communism are basically the same plant in three different stages of its growth. All that can be said is that legal plunder is more visible in communism because it is complete plunder; and in protection- ism because the plunder is limited to specific groups and industries.* Thus it follows that, of the three systems, socialism is the vaguest, the most indecisive, and, consequently, the most sincere stage of development.

But sincere or insincere, the intentions of persons are not here under question. In fact, I have already said that legal plunder is based partially on philanthropy, even though it is a false philanthropy.

With this explanation, let us examine the value—the origin and the tendency—of this popular aspiration which claims to accomplish the general welfare by general plunder.


*If the special privilege of government protection against competition—a monop- oly—were granted only to one group in France, the iron workers, for instance, this act would so obviously be legal plunder that it could not last for long. It is for this reason that we see all the protected trades combined into a common cause.They even organize them- selves in such a manner as to appear to represent all persons who labor. Instinctively, they feel that legal plunder is concealed by generalizing it.

Law Is Force

Since the law organizes justice, the socialists ask why the law should not also organize labor, education, and religion.

Why should not law be used for these purposes? Because it could not organize labor, education, and religion without destroying justice. We must remember that law is force, and that, consequently, the proper functions of the law cannot lawfully extend beyond the proper functions of force.

When law and force keep a person within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige him only to abstain from harming others.They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all.

Law Is a Negative Concept

The harmlessness of the mission performed by law and lawful defense is self-evident; the usefulness is obvious; and the legitimacy cannot be disputed.

As a friend of mine once remarked, this negative concept of law is so true that the statement, the purpose of the law is to cause justice to reign, is not a rigorously accurate statement. It ought to be stated that the purpose of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is injustice, instead of justice, that has an existence of its own. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.

But when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creed—then the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills; the initiative of the legislator for their own initiatives. When this happens, the people no longer need to discuss, to compare, to plan ahead; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless prop for the people; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Try to imagine a regulation of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property. If you cannot reconcile these contradictions, then you must conclude that the law cannot organize labor and industry without organizing injustice.

The Politician’s Approach

When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office, he is struck by the spectacle of the inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth.

Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. Perhaps he should consider this proposition: Since all persons seek well-being and perfection, would not a condition of justice be sufficient to cause the greatest efforts toward progress, and the greatest possible equality that is compatible with individual responsibility? Would not this be in accord with the concept of individual responsibility which God has willed in order that mankind may have the choice between vice and virtue, and the resulting punishment and reward?

But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements—legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder. We have seen that justice is a negative concept. Is there even one of these positive legal actions that does not contain the principle of plunder?

The Law and Charity

You say: “There are persons who have no money,” and you turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in. If every person draws from the treasury the amount that he has put in it, it is true that the law then plunders nobody. But this procedure does nothing for the persons who have no money. It does not promote equality of income. The law can be an instrument of equalization only as it takes from some persons and gives to other persons.When the law does this, it is an instrument of plunder.

With this in mind, examine the protective tariffs, subsidies, guaranteed profits, guaranteed jobs, relief and welfare schemes, public education, progressive taxation, free credit, and public works. You will find that they are always based on legal plunder, organized injustice.

The Law and Education

You say:“There are persons who lack education” and you turn to the law. But the law is not, in itself, a torch of learning which shines its light abroad.The law extends over a society where some persons have knowledge and others do not; where some citizens need to learn, and others can teach. In this matter of education, the law has only two alternatives: It can permit this transaction of teaching-and- learning to operate freely and without the use of force, or it can force human wills in this matter by taking from some of them enough to pay the teachers who are appointed by government to instruct others, without charge. But in this second case, the law commits legal plunder by violating liberty and property.

The Law and Morality

You say: “Here are persons who are lacking in morality or religion,” and you turn to the law. But law is force. And need I point out what a violent and futile effort it is to use force in the matters of morality and religion?

It would seem that socialists, however self-complacent, could not avoid seeing this monstrous legal plunder that results from such systems and such efforts. But what do the socialists do? They cleverly disguise this legal plunder from others—and even from themselves—under the seductive names of fraternity, unity, organization, and association. Because we ask so little from the law—only justice—the socialists thereby assume that we reject fraternity, unity, organization, and association.The socialists brand us with the name individualist.

But we assure the socialists that we repudiate only forced organization, not natural organization. We repudiate the forms of association that are forced upon us, not free association.We repudiate forced fraternity, not true fraternity. We repudiate the artificial unity that does nothing more than deprive persons of individual responsibility. We do not repudiate the natural unity of mankind under Providence.

A Confusion of Terms

Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, con- fuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.

We disapprove of state education.Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

Influence of Socialist Writers

How did politicians ever come to believe this weird idea that the law could be made to produce what it does not contain—the wealth, science, and religion that, in a positive sense, constitute prosperity? Is it due to the influence of our modern writers on public affairs?

Present-day writers—especially those of the socialist school of thought—base their various theories upon one common hypothesis: They divide mankind into two parts. People in general—with the exception of the writer himself—form the first group.The writer, all alone, forms the second and most important group. Surely this is the weirdest and most conceited notion that ever entered a human brain!

In fact, these writers on public affairs begin by supposing that people have within themselves no means of discernment; no motivation to action. The writers assume that people are inert matter, passive particles, motionless atoms, at best a kind of vegetation indifferent to its own manner of existence. They assume that people are susceptible to being shaped—by the will and hand of another per- son—into an infinite variety of forms, more or less symmetrical, artistic, and perfected.

Moreover, not one of these writers on governmental affairs hesitates to imagine that he himself—under the title of organizer, discoverer, legislator, or founder—is this will and hand, this universal motivating force, this creative power whose sublime mission is to mold these scattered materials—persons—into a society.

These socialist writers look upon people in the same manner that the gardener views his trees. Just as the gardener capriciously shapes the trees into pyramids, parasols, cubes, vases, fans, and other forms, just so does the socialist writer whimsically shape human beings into groups, series, centers, sub-centers, honeycombs, labor- corps, and other variations. And just as the gardener needs axes, pruning hooks, saws, and shears to shape his trees, just so does the socialist writer need the force that he can find only in law to shape human beings. For this purpose, he devises tariff laws, tax laws, relief laws, and school laws.

Socialists Want to Play God

Socialists look upon people as raw material to be formed into social combinations.This is so true that, if by chance, the socialists have any doubts about the success of these combinations, they will demand that a small portion of mankind be set aside to experiment upon.The popular idea of trying all systems is well known. And one socialist leader has been known seriously to demand that the Constituent Assembly give him a small district with all its inhabitants, to try his experiments upon.

In the same manner, an inventor makes a model before he constructs the full-sized machine; the chemist wastes some chemicals—the farmer wastes some seeds and land—to try out an idea. But what a difference there is between the gardener and his trees, between the inventor and his machine, between the chemist and his elements, between the farmer and his seeds! And in all sincerity, the socialist thinks that there is the same difference between him and mankind!

It is no wonder that the writers of the nineteenth century look upon society as an artificial creation of the legislator’s genius. This idea—the fruit of classical education—has taken possession of all the intellectuals and famous writers of our country. To these intellectuals and writers, the relationship between persons and the legislator appears to be the same as the relationship between the clay and the potter.

Moreover, even where they have consented to recognize a principle of action in the heart of man—and a principle of discernment in man’s intellect—they have considered these gifts from God to be fatal gifts. They have thought that persons, under the impulse of these two gifts, would fatally tend to ruin themselves.

They assume that if the legislators left persons free to follow their own inclinations, they would arrive at atheism instead of religion, ignorance instead of knowledge, poverty instead of production and exchange.

Socialists Despise Mankind

According to these writers, it is indeed fortunate that Heaven has bestowed upon certain men—governors and legislators—the exact opposite inclinations, not only for their own sake but also for the sake of the rest of the world! While mankind tends toward evil, the legislators yearn for good; while mankind advances toward darkness, the legislators aspire for enlightenment; while mankind is drawn toward vice, the legislators are attracted toward virtue. Since they have decided that this is the true state of affairs, they then demand the use of force in order to substitute their own inclinations for those of the human race.

Open at random any book on philosophy, politics, or history, and you will probably see how deeply rooted in our country is this idea—the child of classical studies, the mother of socialism. In all of them, you will probably find this idea that mankind is merely inert matter, receiving life, organization, morality, and prosperity from the power of the state. And even worse, it will be stated that mankind tends toward degeneration, and is stopped from this downward course only by the mysterious hand of the legislator. Conventional classical thought everywhere says that behind passive society there is a concealed power called law or legislator (or called by some other terminology that designates some unnamed person or persons of undisputed influence and authority) which moves, controls, benefits, and improves mankind.

Let us first consider a quotation from Bossuet [tutor to the Dauphin in the Court of Louis XIV]:

One of the things most strongly impressed (by whom?) upon the minds of the Egyptians was patriotism.

. . . No one was permitted to be useless to the state.The law assigned to each one his work, which was handed down from father to son. No one was permitted to have two professions. Nor could a person change from one job to another. . . . But there was one task to which all were forced to conform: the study of the laws and of wisdom. Ignorance of religion and of the political regulations of the country was not excused under any circumstances. Moreover each occupation was assigned (by whom?) to a certain district. . . . Among the good laws, one of the best was that everyone was trained (by whom?) to obey them. As a result of this, Egypt was filled with wonderful inventions, and nothing was neglected that could make life easy and quiet.

Thus, according to Bossuet, persons derive nothing from themselves. Patriotism, prosperity, inventions, husbandry, science— all of these are given to the people by the operation of the laws, the rulers. All that the people have to do is to bow to leadership.

Defense of Paternal Government

Bossuet carries this idea of the state as the source of all progress even so far as to defend the Egyptians against the charge that they rejected wrestling and music. He said: How is that possible? These arts were invented by Trismegistus [who was alleged to have been Chancellor to the Egyptian god Osiris]. And again among the Persians, Bossuet claims that all comes from above: One of the first responsibilities of the prince was to encourage agriculture. . . . Just as there were offices established for the regulation of armies, just so were there offices for the direction of farm work. . . . The Persian people were inspired with an overwhelming respect for royal authority.

And according to Bossuet, the Greek people, although exceedingly intelligent, had no sense of personal responsibility; like dogs and horses, they themselves could not have invented the most simple games:

The Greeks, naturally intelligent and courageous, had been early cultivated by the kings and settlers who had come from Egypt. From these Egyptian rulers, the Greek people had learned bodily exercises, foot races, and horse and char- iot races. . . . But the best thing that the Egyptians had taught the Greeks was to become docile, and to permit themselves to be formed by the law for the public good.

The Idea of Passive Mankind

It cannot be disputed that these classical theories [advanced by these latter-day teachers, writers, legislators, economists, and philosophers] held that everything came to the people from a source outside themselves.As another example, take Fénelon [arch- bishop, author, and instructor to the Duke of Burgundy].

He was a witness to the power of Louis XIV. This, plus the fact that he was nurtured in the classical studies and the admiration of antiquity, naturally caused Fénelon to accept the idea that mankind should be passive; that the misfortunes and the prosperity—vices and virtues—of people are caused by the external influence exer- cised upon them by the law and the legislators.Thus, in his Utopia of Salentum, he puts men—with all their interests, faculties, desires, and possessions—under the absolute discretion of the legislator. Whatever the issue may be, persons do not decide it for them- selves; the prince decides for them. The prince is depicted as the soul of this shapeless mass of people who form the nation. In the prince resides the thought, the foresight, all progress, and the principle of all organization.Thus all responsibility rests with him.

The whole of the tenth book of Fénelon’s Telemachus proves this. I refer the reader to it, and content myself with quoting at random from this celebrated work to which, in every other respect, I am the first to pay homage.

Socialists Ignore Reason and Facts

With the amazing credulity which is typical of the classicists, Fénelon ignores the authority of reason and facts when he attributes the general happiness of the Egyptians, not to their own wisdom but to the wisdom of their kings:

We could not turn our eyes to either shore without seeing rich towns and country estates most agreeably located; fields, never fallowed, covered with golden crops every year; meadows full of flocks; workers bending under the weight of the fruit which the earth lavished upon its cultivators; shepherds who made the echoes resound with the soft notes from their pipes and flutes. “Happy,” said Mentor,“is the people governed by a wise king. . . .”

Later, Mentor desired that I observe the contentment and abundance which covered all Egypt, where twenty- two thousand cities could be counted. He admired the good police regulations in the cities; the justice rendered in favor of the poor against the rich; the sound education of the children in obedience, labor, sobriety, and the love of the arts and letters; the exactness with which all religious ceremonies were performed; the unselfishness, the high regard for honor, the faithfulness to men, and the fear of the gods which every father taught his children. He never stopped admiring the prosperity of the country.“Happy,”said he,“is the people ruled by a wise king in such a manner.”

Socialists Want to Regiment People

Fénelon’s idyl on Crete is even more alluring. Mentor is made to say:

All that you see in this wonderful island results from the laws of Minos.The education which he ordained for the children makes their bodies strong and robust. From the very beginning, one accustoms the children to a life of frugality and labor, because one assumes that all pleasures of the senses weaken both body and mind. Thus one allows them no pleasure except that of becoming invincible by virtue, and of acquiring glory. . . . Here one punishes three vices that go unpunished among other people: ingratitude, hypocrisy, and greed. There is no need to punish persons for pomp and dissipation, for they are unknown in Crete. . . . No costly furniture, no magnificent clothing, no delicious feasts, no gilded palaces are permitted.

Thus does Mentor prepare his student to mold and to manipulate—doubtless with the best of intentions—the people of Ithaca. And to convince the student of the wisdom of these ideas, Mentor recites to him the example of Salentum.

It is from this sort of philosophy that we receive our first political ideas! We are taught to treat persons much as an instructor in agriculture teaches farmers to prepare and tend the soil.

A Famous Name and a Frightful Idea

Now listen to the great Montesquieu on this same subject:

To maintain the spirit of commerce, it is necessary that all the laws must favor it.These laws, by proportionately dividing up the fortunes as they are made in commerce, should provide every poor citizen with sufficiently easy circumstances to enable him to work like the others. These same laws should put every rich citizen in such lowered circumstances as to force him to work in order to keep or to gain.

Thus the laws are to dispose of all fortunes!

Although real equality is the soul of the state in a democracy, yet this is so difficult to establish that an extreme precision in this matter would not always be desirable. It is sufficient that here be established a census to reduce or fix these differences in wealth within a certain limit.After this is done, it remains for specific laws to equalize inequality by imposing burdens upon the rich and granting relief to the poor.

Here again we find the idea of equalizing fortunes by law, by force.

In Greece, there were two kinds of republics, One, Sparta, was military; the other, Athens, was commercial. In the former, it was desired that the citizens be idle; in the latter, love of labor was encouraged.

Note the marvelous genius of these legislators: By debasing all established customs—by mixing the  usual

concepts of all virtues—they knew in advance that the world would admire their wisdom.

Lycurgus gave stability to his city of Sparta by combining petty thievery with the soul of justice; by combining the most complete bondage with the most extreme liberty; by combining the most atrocious beliefs with the greatest moderation. He appeared to deprive his city of all its resources, arts, commerce, money, and defenses. In Sparta, ambition went without the hope of material reward. Natural affection found no outlet because a man was neither son, husband, nor father. Even chastity was no longer considered becoming. By this road, Lycurgus led Sparta on to greatness and glory.

This boldness which was to be found in the institutions of Greece has been repeated in the midst of the degeneracy and corruption of our modern times. An occasional honest legislator has molded a people in whom integrity appears as natural as courage in the Spartans.

Mr. William Penn, for example, is a true Lycurgus. Even though Mr. Penn had peace as his objective—while Lycurgus had war as his objective—they resemble each other in that their moral prestige over free men allowed them to overcome prejudices, to subdue passions, and to lead their respective peoples into new paths.

The country of Paraguay furnishes us with another example [of a people who, for their own good, are molded by their legislators].*

Now it is true that if one considers the sheer pleasure of commanding to be the greatest joy in life, he contemplates a crime against society.

*Translator’s note:What was then known as Paraguay was a much larger area than it is today. It was colonized by the Jesuits who settled the Indians into villages, and generally saved them from further brutalities by the avid conquerors.

Those who desire to establish similar institutions must do as follows: Establish common ownership of property as in the republic of Plato; revere the gods as Plato commanded; prevent foreigners from mingling with the people, in order to preserve the customs; let the state, instead of the citizens, establish commerce. The legislators should supply arts instead of luxuries; they should satisfy needs instead of desires.

Those who are subject to vulgar infatuation may exclaim: “Montesquieu has said this! So it’s magnificent! It’s sublime!”As for me, I have the courage of my own opinion. I say: What! You have the nerve to call that fine? It is frightful! It is abominable! These random selections from the writings of Montesquieu show that he considers persons, liberties, property—mankind itself—to be nothing but materials for legislators to exercise their wisdom upon.

Rousseau and Social Democracy

Now let us examine Rousseau on this subject.This writer on public affairs is the supreme authority of the democrats. And although he bases the social structure upon the will of the people, he has, to a greater extent than anyone else, completely accepted the theory of the total inertness of mankind in the presence of the legislators:

If it is true that a great prince is rare, then is it not true that a great legislator is even more rare? The prince has only to follow the pattern that the legislator creates. The legislator is the mechanic who invents the machine; the prince is merely the workman who sets it in motion.

And what part do persons play in all this? They are merely the machine that is set in motion. In fact, are they not merely considered to be the raw material of which the machine is made?

Thus the same relationship exists between the legislator and the prince as exists between the agricultural expert and the farmer; and the relationship between the prince and his subjects is the same as that between the farmer and his land. How high above mankind, then, has this writer on public affairs been placed? Rousseau rules over legislators themselves, and teaches them their trade in these imperious terms:

Would you give stability to the state? Then bring the extremes as closely together as possible. Tolerate neither wealthy persons nor beggars.

If the soil is poor or barren, or the country too small for its inhabitants, then turn to industry and arts, and trade these products for the foods that you need.

. . . On a fertile soil—if you are short of inhabitants— devote all your attention to agriculture, because this multiplies people; banish the arts, because they only serve to depopulate the nation. . . .

If you have extensive and accessible coast lines, then cover the sea with merchant ships; you will have a brilliant but short existence. If your seas wash only inaccessible cliffs, let the people be barbarous and eat fish; they will live more quietly—perhaps better—and, most certainly, they will live more happily.

In short, and in addition to the maxims that are common to all, every people has its own particular circumstances. And this fact in itself will cause legislation appropriate to the circumstances.

This is the reason why the Hebrews formerly—and, more recently, the Arabs—had religion as their principle objective. The objective of the Athenians was literature; of Carthage and Tyre, commerce; of Rhodes, naval affairs; of Sparta, war; and of Rome, virtue. The author of The Spirit of Laws has shown by what art the legislator should direct his institutions toward each of these objectives. . . . But suppose that the legislator mistakes his proper objective, and acts on a principle different from that indicated by the nature of things? Suppose that the selected principle sometimes creates slavery, and sometimes liberty; sometimes wealth, and sometimes population; some- times peace, and sometimes conquest? This confusion of objective will slowly enfeeble the law and impair the constitution.The state will be subjected to ceaseless agitations until it is destroyed or changed, and invincible nature regains her empire.

But if nature is sufficiently invincible to regain its empire, why does not Rousseau admit that it did not need the legislator to gain it in the first place? Why does he not see that men, by obeying their own instincts, would turn to farming on fertile soil, and to commerce on an extensive and easily accessible coast, without the interference of a Lycurgus or a Solon or a Rousseau who might easily be mistaken.

Be that as it may, Rousseau invests the creators, organizers, directors, legislators, and controllers of society with a terrible responsibility. He is, therefore, most exacting with them:

He who would dare to undertake the political creation of a people ought to believe that he can, in a manner of speaking, transform human nature; transform each individual—who, by himself, is a solitary and perfect whole—into a mere part of a greater whole from which the individual will henceforth receive his life and being. Thus the person who would undertake the political creation of a people should believe in his ability to alter man’s constitution; to strengthen it; to substitute for the physical and independent existence received from nature, an existence which is partial and moral.* In short, the would-be creator of political man must remove man’s own forces and endow him with others that are naturally alien to him.

Poor human nature! What would become of a person’s dignity if it were entrusted to the followers of Rousseau?

Legislators Desire to Mold Mankind

Now let us examine Raynal [French historian and philosopher] on this subject of mankind being molded by the legislator:

The legislator must first consider the climate, the air, and the soil. The resources at his disposal determine his duties. He must first consider his locality. A population living on maritime shores must have laws designed for navigation. . . . If it is an inland settlement, the legislator must make his plans according to the nature and fertility of the soil. . . .

It is especially in the distribution of property that the genius of the legislator will be found. As a general rule, when a new colony is established in any country, sufficient land should be given to each man to support his family. . . .

On an uncultivated island that you are populating with children, you need do nothing but let the seeds of truth germinate along with the development of reason. . . .


*Translator’s note: According to Rousseau, the existence of social man is partial in the sense that he is henceforth merely a part of society. Knowing himself as such and thinking and feeling from the point of view of the whole—he thereby becomes moral.

But when you resettle a nation with a past into a new country, the skill of the legislator rests in the policy of permitting the people to retain no injurious opinions and customs which can possibly be cured and corrected. If you desire to prevent these opinions and customs from becoming permanent, you will secure the second generation by a general system of public education for the children. A prince or a legislator should never establish a colony with- out first arranging to send wise men along to instruct the youth. . . .

In a new colony, ample opportunity is open to the careful legislator who desires to purify the customs and manners of the people. If he has virtue and genius, the land and the people at his disposal will inspire his soul with a plan for society. A writer can only vaguely trace the plan in advance because it is necessarily subject to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complications, and circumstances that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail.

Raynal’s instructions to the legislators on how to manage people may be compared to a professor of agriculture lecturing his students: “The climate is the first rule for the farmer. His resources determine his procedure. He must first consider his locality. If his soil is clay, he must do so and so. If his soil is sand, he must act in another manner. Every facility is open to the farmer who wishes to clear and improve his soil. If he is skillful enough, the manure at his disposal will suggest to him a plan of operation. A professor can only vaguely trace this plan in advance because it is necessarily subject to the instability of all hypotheses; the problem has many forms, complications, and circumstances that are difficult to foresee and settle in detail.”

Oh, sublime writers! Please remember sometimes that    this clay, this sand, and this manure which you so arbitrarily dispose of, are men! They are your equals! They are intelligent and free human beings like yourselves! As you have, they too have received from God the faculty to observe, to plan ahead, to think, and to judge for themselves!

A Temporary Dictatorship

Here is the historian Mably on this subject of the law and the legislator. In the passages preceding the one here quoted, Mably has supposed the laws, due to a neglect of security, to be worn out. He continues to address the reader thusly:

Under these circumstances, it is obvious that the springs of government are slack. Give them a new tension, and the evil will be cured. . . . Think less of punishing faults, and more of rewarding that which you need. In this manner you will restore to your republic the vigor of youth. Because free people have been ignorant of this procedure, they have lost their liberty! But if the evil has made such headway that ordinary governmental procedures are unable to cure it, then resort to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.

In this manner, Mably continues through twenty volumes.

Under the influence of teaching like this—which stems from classical education—there came a time when everyone wished to place himself above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it in his own way.

Socialist Vision of Equality

Next let us examine Condillac on this subject of the legislators and mankind:

My Lord, assume the character of Lycurgus or of Solon. And before you finish reading this essay, amuse yourself by giving laws to some savages in America or Africa. Confine these nomads to fixed dwellings; teach them to tend flocks. . . . Attempt to develop the social consciousness that nature has planted in them. . . . Force them to begin to practice the duties of humanity. . . . Use punishment to cause sensual pleasures to become dis- tasteful to them. Then you will see that every point of your legislation will cause these savages to lose a vice and gain a virtue.

All people have had laws. But few people have been happy. Why is this so? Because the legislators themselves have almost always been ignorant of the purpose of society, which is the uniting of families by a common interest.

Impartiality in law consists of two things: the establishing of equality in wealth and equality in dignity among the citizens. . . . As the laws establish greater equality, they become proportionately more precarious to every citizen. . . . When all men are equal in wealth and dignity—and when the laws leave no hope of dis- turbing this equality—how can men then be agitated by greed, ambition, dissipation, idleness, sloth, envy, hatred, or jealousy?

What you have learned about the republic of Sparta should enlighten you on this question. No other state has ever had laws more in accord with the order of nature; of equality.

The Error of the Socialist Writers

Actually, it is not strange that during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the human race was regarded as inert matter, ready to receive everything—form, face, energy, movement, life— from a great prince or great legislator or a great genius. These centuries were nourished on the study of antiquity. And antiquity presents everywhere—in Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome—the spectacle of a few men molding mankind according to their whims, thanks to the prestige of force and fraud. But this does not prove that this situation is desirable. It proves only that since men and society are capable of improvement, it is naturally to be expected that error, ignorance, despotism, slavery, and superstition should be greatest toward the origins of history.The writers quoted above were not in error when they found ancient institutions to be such, but  they were in error when they offered them for the admiration and imitation of future generations. Uncritical and childish conformists, they took for granted the grandeur, dignity, morality, and happiness of the artificial societies of the ancient world. They did not understand that knowledge appears and grows with the passage of time; and that in proportion to this growth of knowledge, might takes the side of right, and society regains possession of itself.

What Is Liberty?

Actually, what is the political struggle that we witness? It is the instinctive struggle of all people toward liberty. And what is this liberty, whose very name makes the heart beat faster and shakes the world? Is it not the union of all liberties—liberty of conscience, of education, of association, of the press, of travel, of labor, of trade? In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so? Is not liberty the destruction of all despotism—including, of course, legal despotism? Finally, is not liberty the restricting of the law only to its rational sphere of organizing the right of the individual to lawful self-defense; of punishing injustice?

It must be admitted that the tendency of the human race toward  liberty is largely thwarted, especially in France. This    is greatly due to a fatal desire—learned from the teachings of antiquity—that our writers on public affairs have in common: They desire to set themselves above mankind in order to arrange, organize, and regulate it according to their fancy.

Philanthropic Tyranny

While society is struggling toward liberty, these famous men who put themselves at its head are filled with the spirit of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They think only of subjecting mankind to the philanthropic tyranny of their own social inventions. Like Rousseau, they desire to force mankind docilely to bear this yoke of the public welfare that they have dreamed up in their own imaginations.

This was especially true in 1789. No sooner was the old regime destroyed than society was subjected to still other artificial arrangements, always starting from the same point: the omnipotence of the law.

Listen to the ideas of a few of the writers and politicians during that period:

SAINT-JUST: The legislator commands the future. It is for him to will the good of mankind. It is for him to make men what he wills them to be.

ROBESPIERRE: The function of  government  is to direct the physical and moral powers of the nation toward the end for which the commonwealth has come into being.

BILLAUD-VARENNES: A people who are to be returned to liberty must be formed anew. A strong force and vigorous action are necessary to destroy old prejudices,  to  change  old  customs,  to  correct     depraved affections, to restrict superfluous wants, and to destroy ingrained vices. . . . Citizens, the inflexible austerity of Lycurgus created the firm foundation of the Spartan republic. The weak and trusting character of Solon plunged Athens into slavery. This parallel embraces the whole science of government.

LE PELLETIER: Considering the extent of human degradation, I am convinced that it is necessary to effect a total regeneration and, if I may so express myself, of creating a new people.

Socialists Want Tyranny

Again, it is claimed that persons are nothing but raw material. It is not for them to will their own improvement; they are incapable of it. According to Saint-Just, only the legislator is capable of doing this. Persons are merely to be what the legislator wills them to be. According to Robespierre, who copies Rousseau literally, the legislator begins by decreeing the end for which the commonwealth has come into being. Once this is determined, the government has only to direct the physical and moral forces of the nation toward that end. Mean- while, the inhabitants of the nation are to remain completely passive. And according to the teachings of Billaud-Varennes, the people should have no prejudices, no affections, and no desires except those authorized by the legislator. He even goes so far as to say that the inflexible austerity of one man is the foundation of a republic.

In cases where the alleged evil is so great that ordinary governmental procedures cannot cure it, Mably recommends a dictatorship to promote virtue: “Resort,” he says,“to an extraordinary tribunal with considerable powers for a short time. The imagination of the citizens needs to be struck a hard blow.” This doctrine has not been forgotten. Listen to Robespierre:

The principle of the republican government is virtue, and the means required to establish virtue is terror. In our country we desire to substitute morality for selfishness, honesty for honor, principles for customs, duties for manners, the empire of reason for the tyranny of fashion, contempt of vice for contempt of poverty, pride for insolence, greatness of soul for vanity, love of glory for love of money, good people for good companions, merit for intrigue, genius for wit, truth for glitter, the charm of happiness for the boredom of pleasure, the greatness of man for the littleness of the great, a generous, strong, happy people for a good natured, frivolous, degraded people; in short, we desire to substitute all the virtues and miracles of a republic for all the vices and absurdities of a monarchy.

Dictatorial Arrogance

At what a tremendous height above the rest of mankind does Robespierre here place himself! And note the arrogance with which he speaks. He is not content to pray for a great reawaken- ing of the human spirit. Nor does he expect such a result from a well-ordered government. No, he himself will remake mankind, and by means of terror.

This mass of rotten and contradictory statements is extracted from a discourse by Robespierre in which he aims to explain the principles of morality which ought to guide a revolutionary government. Note that Robespierre’s request for dictatorship is not made merely for the purpose of repelling a foreign invasion or putting down the opposing groups. Rather he wants a dictatorship in order that he may use terror to force upon the country his own principles of morality. He says that this act is only to be a tempo- rary measure preceding a new constitution. But in reality, he desires nothing short of using terror to extinguish from France selfishness, honor, customs, manners, fashion, vanity, love of money, good companion-ship, intrigue, wit, sensuousness, and poverty. Not until he, Robespierre, shall have accomplished these miracles, as he so rightly calls them, will he permit the law to reign again.*

Indirect Despotism and Passive  Mankind

Usually, however, these gentlemen—the reformers, the legislators, and the writers on public affairs—do not desire to impose direct despotism upon mankind. Oh no, they are too moderate and philanthropic for such direct action. Instead, they turn to the law for this despotism, this absolutism, this omnipotence. They desire only to make the laws.

To show the prevalence of this queer idea in France, I would need to copy not only the entire works of Mably, Raynal, Rousseau, and Fénelon—plus long extracts from Bossuet and Montesquieu—but also the entire proceedings of the Convention. I shall do no such thing; I merely refer the reader to them.

It is, of course, not at all surprising that this same idea should have greatly appealed to Napoleon. He embraced it ardently and used it with vigor. Like a chemist, Napoleon considered all Europe to be material for his experiments. But, in due course, this material reacted against him.

At St. Helena, Napoleon—greatly disillusioned—seemed to recognize some initiative in mankind. Recognizing this, he became less hostile to liberty. Nevertheless, this did not prevent him from leaving this lesson to his son in his will:“To govern is to increase and spread morality, education, and happiness.”

After all this, it is hardly necessary to quote the same opinions from Morelly, Babeuf, Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier. Here are, however, a few extracts from Louis Blanc’s book on the organization

*At this point in the original French text, Mr. Bastiat pauses and speaks thusly to all do-gooders and would-be rulers of mankind:“Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don’t you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough.”of labor:“In our plan, society receives its momentum from power.”

Now consider this: The impulse behind this momentum is to be supplied by the plan of Louis Blanc; his plan is to be forced upon society; the Society referred to is the human race. Thus the human race is to receive its momentum from Louis Blanc.

Now it will be said that the people are free to accept or to reject this plan. Admittedly, people are free to accept or to reject advice from whomever they wish. But this is not the way in which Mr. Louis Blanc understands the matter. He expects that his plan will be legalized, and thus forcibly imposed upon the people by the power of the law:

In our plan, the state has only to pass labor laws (nothing else?) by means of which industrial progress can and must proceed in complete liberty. The state merely places society on an incline (that is all?). Then society will slide down this incline by the mere force of things, and by the natural workings of the established mechanism.

But what is this incline that is indicated by Mr. Louis Blanc? Does it not lead to an abyss? (No, it leads to happiness.) If this is true, then why does not society go there of its own choice? (Because society does not know what it wants; it must be propelled.) What is to propel it? (Power.) And who is to supply the impulse for this power? (Why, the inventor of the machine—in this instance, Mr. Louis Blanc.)

The Vicious Circle of Socialism

We shall never escape from this circle: the idea of passive mankind, and the power of the law being used by a great man to propel the people.

Once on this incline, will society enjoy some liberty? (Cer- tainly.) And what is liberty, Mr. Louis Blanc?

Once and for all, liberty is not only a mere granted right; it is also the power granted to a person to use and to develop his faculties under a reign of justice and under the protection of the  law.

And this is no pointless distinction; its meaning is deep and its consequences are difficult to estimate. For once it is agreed that a person, to be truly free, must have the power to use and develop his faculties, then it follows that every person has a claim on society for such education as will permit him to develop himself. It also follows that every person has a claim on society for tools of production, without which human activity cannot be fully effective. Now by what action can society give to every person the necessary education and the necessary tools of production, if not by the action of the state?

Thus, again, liberty is power. Of what does this power consist? (Of being educated and of being given the tools of production.) Who is to give the education and the tools of production? (Society, which owes them to everyone.) By what action is society to give tools of production to those who do not own them? (Why, by the action of the state.) And from whom will the state take them?

Let the reader answer that question. Let him also notice the direction in which this is taking us.

The Doctrine of Social Democracy

The strange phenomenon of our times—one which will probably astound our descendants—is the doctrine based on this triple hypothesis: the total inertness of mankind, the omnipotence of the law, and the infallibility of the legislator. These three ideas form the sacred symbol of those who proclaim themselves totally democratic.

The advocates of this doctrine also profess to be social. So far as they are democratic, they place unlimited faith in mankind. But so far as they are social, they regard mankind as little better than mud. Let us examine this contrast in greater detail.

What is the attitude of the democrat when political rights are under discussion? How does he regard the people when a legislator is to be chosen? Ah, then it is claimed that the people have an instinctive wisdom; they are gifted with the finest perception; their will is always right; the general will cannot err; voting cannot be too universal.

When it is time to vote, apparently the voter is not to be asked for any guarantee of his wisdom. His will and capacity to choose wisely are taken for granted. Can the people be mistaken? Are we not living in an age of enlightenment? What! are the people always to be kept on leashes? Have they not won their rights by great effort and sacrifice? Have they not given ample proof of their intelligence and wisdom? Are they not adults? Are they not capable of judging for themselves? Do they not know what is best for them- selves? Is there a class or a man who would be so bold as to set himself above the people, and judge and act for them? No, no, the people are and should be free. They desire to manage their own affairs, and they shall do so.

But when the legislator is finally elected—ah! then indeed does the tone of his speech undergo a radical change. The people are returned to passiveness, inertness, and unconsciousness; the legislator enters into omnipotence. Now it is for him to initiate, to direct, to propel, and to organize. Mankind has only to submit; the hour of despotism has struck. We now observe this fatal idea: The people who, during the election, were so wise, so moral, and so perfect, now have no tendencies whatever; or if they have any, they are tendencies that lead downward into degradation.

Socialists Fear All Liberties

But ought not the people be given a little liberty?

But Mr. Considérant has assured us that liberty leads inevitably to monopoly!

We understand that liberty means competition. But according to Mr. Louis Blanc, competition is a system that ruins the businessmen and exterminates the people. It is for this reason that free people are ruined and exterminated in proportion to their degree of freedom. (Possibly Mr. Louis Blanc should observe the results of competition in, for example, Switzerland, Holland, England, and the United States.)

Mr. Louis Blanc also tells us that competition leads to monopoly. And by the same reasoning, he thus informs us that low prices lead to high prices; that competition drives production to destructive activity; that competition drains away the sources of purchasing power; that competition forces an increase in production while, at the same time, it forces a decrease in consumption. From this, it follows that free people produce for the sake of not consuming; that liberty means oppression and madness among the people; and that Mr. Louis Blanc absolutely must attend to it.

Well, what liberty should the legislators permit people to have? Liberty of conscience? (But if this were permitted, we would see the people taking this opportunity to become atheists.)

Then liberty of education? (But parents would pay professors to teach their children immorality and falsehoods; besides, according to Mr.Thiers, if education were left to national liberty, it would cease to be national, and we would be teaching our children the ideas of the Turks or Hindus; whereas, thanks to this legal despot- ism over education, our children now have the good fortune to be taught the noble ideas of the Romans.)

Then liberty of labor? (But that would mean competition which, in turn, leaves production unconsumed, ruins businessmen, and exterminates the people.)

Perhaps liberty of trade? (But everyone knows—and the advocates of protective tariffs have proved over and over again—that freedom of trade ruins every person who engages in it, and that it is necessary to suppress freedom of trade in order to prosper.)

Possibly then, liberty of association? (But, according to socialist doctrine, true liberty and voluntary association are in contradiction to each other, and the purpose of the socialists is to suppress liberty of association precisely in order to force people to associate together in true liberty.)

Clearly then, the conscience of the social democrats cannot permit persons to have any liberty because they believe that the nature of mankind tends always toward every kind of degradation and disaster. Thus, of course, the legislators must make plans for the people in order to save them from themselves.

This line of reasoning brings us to a challenging question: If people are as incapable, as immoral, and as ignorant as the politicians indicate, then why is the right of these same people to vote defended with such passionate insistence?

The Government Shepherds and Their Sheep

The claims of these organizers of humanity raise another question which I have often asked them and which, so far as I know, they have never answered: If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers maintain that society, when left un-directed, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority.

They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally superior to the rest of us. And certainly we are fully justified in demanding from the legislators and organizers proof of this natural superiority.

Socialists Reject Free Choice

Please understand that I do not dispute their right to invent social combinations, to advertise them, to advocate them, and to try them upon themselves, at their own expense and risk. But I do dispute their right to impose these plans upon us by law—by force—and to compel us to pay for them with our taxes.

I do not insist that the supporters of these various social schools of thought—the Proudhonists, the Cabetists, the Fourierists, the Universitarists, and the Protectionists—renounce their various ideas. I insist only that they renounce this one idea that they have in common: They need only to give up the idea of forcing us to acquiesce to their groups and series, their socialized projects, their free-credit banks, their Graeco-Roman concept of morality, and their commercial regulations. I ask only that we be permitted to decide upon these plans for ourselves; that we not be forced to accept them, directly or indirectly, if we find them to be contrary to our best interests or repugnant to our consciences.

But these organizers desire access to the tax funds and to the power of the law in order to carry out their plans. In addition to being oppressive and unjust, this desire also implies the fatal supposition that the organizer is infallible and mankind is incompetent. But, again, if persons are incompetent to judge for themselves, then why all this talk about universal suffrage?

This contradiction in ideas is, unfortunately but logically, reflected in events in France. For example, Frenchmen have led all other Europeans in obtaining their rights—or, more accurately, their political demands. Yet this fact has in no respect prevented us from becoming the most governed, the most regulated, the most imposed upon, the most harnessed, and the most exploited people in Europe. France also leads all other nations as the one where revolutions are constantly to be anticipated. And under the cir- cumstances, it is quite natural that this should be the case.

And this will remain the case so long as our politicians continue to accept this idea that has been so well expressed by Mr. Louis Blanc: “Society receives its momentum from power.” This will remain the case so long as human beings with feelings continue to remain passive; so long as they consider themselves incapable of bettering their prosperity and happiness by their own intelligence and their own energy; so long as they expect everything from the law; in short, so long as they imagine that their relationship to the state is the same as that of the sheep to the shepherd.

Enormous Power of Government

As long as these ideas prevail, it is clear that the responsibility of government is enormous. Good fortune and bad fortune, wealth and destitution, equality and inequality, virtue and vice— all then depend upon political administration. It is  burdened with everything, it undertakes everything, it does everything; therefore it is responsible for everything.

If we are fortunate, then government has a claim to our gratitude; but if we are unfortunate, then government must bear the blame. For are not our persons and property now at the disposal of government? Is not the law omnipotent?

In creating a monopoly of education, the government must answer to the hopes of the fathers of families who have thus been deprived of their liberty; and if these hopes are shattered, whose fault is it?

In regulating industry, the government has contracted to make it prosper; otherwise it is absurd to deprive industry of its liberty. And if industry now suffers, whose fault is it?

In meddling with the balance of trade by playing with tariffs, the government thereby contracts to make trade prosper; and if this results in destruction instead of prosperity, whose fault is it?

In giving the maritime industries protection in exchange for their liberty, the government undertakes to make them profitable; and if they become a burden to the taxpayers, whose fault is it?

Thus there is not a grievance in the nation for which the government does not voluntarily make itself responsible. Is it surprising, then, that every failure increases the threat of another revolution in France?

And what remedy is proposed for this? To extend indefinitely the domain of the law; that is, the responsibility of government.

But if the government undertakes to control and to raise wages, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to care for all who may be in want, and cannot do it; if the government under- takes to support all unemployed workers, and cannot do it; if the government undertakes to lend interest-free money to all borrowers, and cannot do it; if, in these words that we regret to say escaped from the pen of Mr. de Lamartine,“The state considers that its purpose is to enlighten, to develop, to enlarge, to strengthen, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people”—and if the government cannot do all of these things, what then? Is it not certain that after every government failure—which, alas! is more than probable—there will be an equally inevitable revolution?

Economics Precedes Politics

[Now let us return to a subject that was briefly discussed in the opening pages of this thesis: the relationship of economics and of politics—political economy.*]

A science of economics must be developed before a science of politics can be logically formulated. Essentially, economics is the science of determining whether the interests of human beings are harmonious or antagonistic.This must be known before a science


*Translator’s note: Mr. Bastiat has devoted three other books and several articles to the development of the ideas contained in the three sentences of the following paragraph.

Immediately following the development of a science of economics, and at the very beginning of the formulation of a science of politics, this all-important question must be answered: What is law? What ought it to be? What is its scope; its limits? Logically, at what point do the just powers of the legislator stop?

I do not hesitate to answer: Law is the common force organized to act as an obstacle to injustice. In short, law is justice.

Proper  Legislative Functions

It is not true that the legislator has absolute power over our persons and property. The existence of persons and property preceded the existence of the legislator, and his function is only to guarantee their safety.

It is not true that the function of law is to regulate our con- sciences, our ideas, our wills, our education, our opinions, our work, our trade, our talents, or our pleasures. The function of law is to protect the free exercise of these rights, and to prevent any person from interfering with the free exercise of these same rights by any other person.

Since law necessarily requires the support of force, its lawful domain is only in the areas where the use of force is necessary. This is justice.

Every individual has the right to use force for lawful self- defense. It is for this reason that the collective force—which is only the organized combination of the individual forces—may lawfully be used for the same purpose; and it cannot be used legitimately for any other purpose.

Law is solely the organization of the individual right of self- defense which existed before law was formalized. Law is justice.

Law and Charity Are Not the Same

The mission of the law is not to oppress persons and plunder them of their property, even though the law may be acting in a philanthropic spirit. Its mission is to protect persons and property. Furthermore, it must not be said that the law may be philanthropic if, in the process, it refrains from oppressing persons and plundering them of their property; this would be a contradiction. The law cannot avoid having an effect upon persons and property; and if the law acts in any manner except to protect them, its actions then necessarily violate the liberty of persons and their right to own property.

The law is justice—simple and clear, precise and bounded. Every eye can see it, and every mind can grasp it; for justice is measurable, immutable, and unchangeable. Justice is neither more than this nor less than this.

If you exceed this proper limit—if you attempt to make the law religious, fraternal, equalizing, philanthropic, industrial, literary, or artistic—you will then be lost in an uncharted territory, in vagueness and uncertainty, in a forced utopia or, even worse, in a multitude of utopias, each striving to seize the law and impose it upon you. This is true because fraternity and philanthropy, unlike justice, do not have precise limits. Once started, where will you stop? And where will the law stop itself?

The Road to Communism

Mr. de Saint-Cricq would extend his philanthropy only to some of the industrial groups; he would demand that the law control the consumers to benefit the producers.

Mr. Considérant would sponsor the cause of the labor groups; he would use the law to secure for them a guaranteed minimum of clothing, housing, food, and all other necessities of life.

Mr. Louis  Blanc  would  say—and  with  reason—that these minimum guarantees are merely the beginning of complete fraternity; he would say that the law should give tools of production and free education to all working people.

Another person would observe that this arrangement would still leave room for inequality; he would claim that the law should give to everyone—even in the most inaccessible hamlet—luxury, literature, and art.

All of these proposals are the road to communism; legislation will then be—in fact, it already is—the battlefield of all kinds of wild fantasies and unbridled greed.

Law Is Justice

Law is justice. In this proposition a simple and enduring government can be conceived. And I defy anyone to say how even the thought of revolution, of insurrection, of the slightest uprising could arise against a government whose organized force was con- fined only to suppressing injustice.

Under such a regime, there would be the most prosperity— and it would be the most equally distributed. As for the sufferings that are inseparable from humanity, no one would even think of blaming the government for them. This is true because, if the force of government were limited to suppressing injustice, then government would be as innocent of these sufferings as it is now innocent of changes in the temperature.

As proof of this statement, consider this question: Have the people ever been known to rise against the Court of Appeals, or mob a Justice of the Peace, in order to get higher wages, free credit, tools of production, favorable tariffs, or government-created jobs? Everyone knows perfectly well that such matters are not within the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals or a Justice of the Peace. And if government were limited to its proper functions, everyone would soon learn that these matters are not within the jurisdiction of the law itself.

But make the laws upon the principle of fraternity—proclaim that all good, and all bad, stem from the law; that the law is responsible for all individual misfortunes and all social inequalities—then the door is open to an endless succession of complaints, irritations, troubles, and revolutions.

Justice Means Equal Rights

Law is justice. And it would indeed be strange if law could properly be anything else! Is not justice right? Are not rights equal? By what right does the law force me to conform to the social plans of Mr. Mimerel, Mr. de Melun, Mr.Thiers, or Mr. Louis Blanc? If the law has a moral right to do this, why does it not, then, force these gentlemen to submit to my plans? Is it logical to suppose that nature has not given me sufficient imagination to dream up a utopia also? Should the law choose one fantasy among many, and put the organized force of government at its service only?

Law is justice. And let it not be said—as it continually is said— that under this concept, the law would be atheistic, individualistic, and heartless; that it would make mankind in its own image.This is an absurd conclusion, worthy only of those worshippers of government who believe that the law is mankind.

Nonsense! Do those worshippers of government believe that free persons will cease to act? Does it follow that if we receive no energy from the law, we shall receive no energy at all? Does it fol- low that if the law is restricted to the function of protecting the free use of our faculties, we will be unable to use our faculties? Suppose that the law does not force us to follow certain forms of religion, or systems of association, or methods of education, or regulations of labor, or regulations of trade, or plans for charity; does it then follow that we shall eagerly plunge into atheism, hermitary, ignorance, misery, and greed? If we are free, does it follow that we shall no longer recognize the power and goodness of God? Does it follow that we shall then cease to associate with each other, to help each other, to love and succor our unfortunate brothers, to study the secrets of nature, and to strive to improve ourselves to the best of our abilities?

Freedom, Dignity, and Progress

Law is justice. And it is under the law of justice—under the reign of right; under the influence of liberty, safety, stability, and responsibility—that every person will attain his real worth and the true dignity of his being. It is only under this law of justice that mankind will achieve—slowly, no doubt, but certainly—God’s design for the orderly and peaceful progress of humanity.

It seems to me that this is theoretically right, for whatever the question under discussion—whether religious, philosophical, political, or economic; whether it concerns prosperity, morality, equality, right, justice, progress, responsibility, cooperation, property, labor, trade, capital, wages, taxes, population, finance, or government—at whatever point on the scientific horizon I begin my researches, I invariably reach this one conclusion: The solution to the problems of human relationships is to be found in liberty.

And does not experience prove this? Look at the entire world. Which countries contain the most peaceful, the most moral, and the happiest people? Those people are found in the countries where the law least interferes with private affairs; where government is least felt; where the individual has the greatest scope, and free opinion the greatest influence; where administrative powers are fewest and simplest; where taxes are lightest and most nearly equal, and popular discontent the least excited and the least justifiable; where individuals and groups most actively assume their responsibilities, and, consequently, where the morals of admittedly imperfect human beings are constantly improving; where trade, assemblies, and associations are the least restricted; where labor, capital, and populations suffer the fewest forced dis-placements; where mankind most nearly follows its own natural inclinations; where the inventions of men are most nearly in harmony with the laws of God; in short, the happiest, most moral, and most peaceful people are those who most nearly follow this principle: Although mankind is not perfect, still, all hope rests upon the free and voluntary actions of persons within the limits of right; law or force is to be used for nothing except the administration of universal justice.

Do Not Claim to Know More than God

This must be said: There are too many “great” men in the world—legislators, organizers, do-gooders, leaders of the people, fathers of nations, and so on, and so on. Too many persons place themselves above mankind; they make a career of organizing it, patronizing it, and ruling it.

Now someone will say: “You yourself are doing this very thing.” True. But it must be admitted that I act in an entirely  different sense; if I have joined the ranks of the reformers, it is solely for the purpose of persuading them to leave people alone. I do not look upon people as Vancauson looked upon his automaton. Rather, just as the physiologist accepts the human body as it is, so do I accept people as they are. I desire only to study and admire.

My attitude toward all other persons is well illustrated by this story from a celebrated traveler: He arrived one day in the midst of a tribe of savages, where a child had just been born. A crowd of soothsayers, magicians, and quacks—armed with rings, hooks, and cords—surrounded it. One said:“This child will never smell the per- fume of a peace-pipe unless I stretch his nostrils.”Another said: “He will never be able to hear unless I draw his ear-lobes down to his shoulders.” A third said:“He will never see the sunshine unless I slant his eyes.” Another said:“He will never stand upright unless I bend his legs.” A fifth said: “He will never learn to think unless I flatten his skull.”

“Stop,” cried the traveler.“What God does is well done. Do not claim to know more than He. God has given organs to this frail creature; let them develop and grow strong by exercise, use, experience, and liberty.”

Let Us Now Try Liberty!

God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works.


The Wisdom of Frederic Bastiat


I cannot legitimately force my fellow men to be industrious, sober, thrifty, generous, learned, or pious; but I can force them to be just.

For the same reason, the collective force cannot be legitimately employed to foster the love of labor, sobriety, thrift, generosity, learning, religious faith; but it can be legitimately employed to further the rule of justice, to defend every man’s rights.

Try to imagine a system of labor imposed by force that is not a violation of liberty; a transfer of wealth imposed by force that is not a violation of property rights. If you cannot do so, then you must agree that the law cannot organize labor and industry with- out organizing injustice.

Unhappy country, where the sacred forces that were meant to support each man’s rights are perverted to accomplish themselves the violation of these rights.

Shall I speak of the corrupting immorality that seeps into the veins of the whole body politic when, in principle, the law puts itself at the service of every spoliative impulse? Attend a meeting of the National Assembly when bonuses, subsidies, bounties, restrictions are on the agenda. See with what shameless rapacity everyone tries to make sure of his share of the plunder—plunder to which he would blush to stoop as a private individual.

How could men dream of blaming themselves for  their woes when they have been persuaded that by nature they are inert, that the source of all action, and consequently of all responsibility, lies outside themselves, in the will of the sovereign and of the lawgiver?

Certain nations seem particularly liable to fall prey to govern- mental plunder. They are those in which men, lacking faith in their own dignity and capability, would feel themselves lost if they were not governed and administered every step of the way. . . . I have seen countries in which the people think that agriculture can make no progress unless the government supports experimental farms; that soon there will no longer be any horses, if the government does not provide studs; that fathers will not have their children educated, or will have them taught only immorality, if the government does not decide what it is proper to learn.

People are beginning to realize that the apparatus of government is costly. But what they do not know is that the burden falls inevitably on them.

When a nation is burdened with taxes, nothing is more difficult, as I would say, impossible, than to levy them equally. The statisticians and fiscal authorities no longer even try to do so. What is still more difficult, however, is to shift the tax burden onto the shoulders of the rich. The state can have an abundance of money only by taking from everyone and especially from the masses.

In a country where no law may be voted and no tax may be levied save with the consent of those whom the law is to govern and upon whom the tax is to fall, the public can be robbed only  if it is first deceived. Our ignorance is the raw material of every extortion that is practiced upon us, and we may be certain beforehand that every sophism is the precursor of an act of plunder. My friends, when you detect a sophism in a petition, get a good grip on your wallet, for you may be sure that this is what the petitioners are aiming at.

In the realm of government operation it may happen that functionaries receive services from the citizens without rendering services in return; in that case the taxpayer suffers a loss, no matter what illusion the circulation of bank notes may create.

. . . the state has no resources of its own. It has nothing, it possesses nothing that it does not take from the workers. When, then, it meddles in everything, it substitutes the deplorable and costly activity of its own agents for private activity.

. . . we must wait until we have learned by experience—per- haps cruel experience—to trust in the state a little less and in mankind a little more.

… the government offers to cure all the ills of mankind. It promises to restore commerce, make agriculture prosperous, expand industry, encourage arts and letters, wipe out poverty, etc., etc. All that is needed is to create some new government agencies and to pay a few more bureaucrats.

The state too is subject to the Malthusian law. It tends to expand in proportion to its means of existence and to live beyond its means, and these are, in the last analysis, nothing but the sub- stance of the people.


“In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.” But everyone wants as much bread and as little sweat as possible.

. . . certain men have recourse to the law in order to abridge the natural prerogatives of this freedom on the part of other men. This kind of plunder is called privilege or monopoly.

This is called . . . brotherhood: “You have produced; I have not; we are comrades; let us share.” “You own something; I own nothing; we are brothers; let us share.”

Let a merchant begin to sell his good on the principle of brotherly love, and I do not give him even a month before his children will be reduced to beggary.

It is indeed a singular thing that people wish to pass laws to nullify the disagreeable consequences that the law of responsibility entails. Will they never realize that they do not eliminate these consequences, but merely pass them along to other people? The result is one injustice the more and one moral lesson the less.…

The poorest class in civilized countries is far above the poor- est class among savage peoples. It has risen so far; why should it not rise even higher?

The present level of consumption enjoyed by an honest and industrious working-class family does not surprise us because habit has familiarized us with this strange situation. If, however, we were to compare the standard of living that this family has attained with the one that would be its lot in a hypothetical social order from which competition had been excluded; . . . we should realize that freedom, despite all still-existing restrictions on it, has wrought a miracle so enduring that for that very reason we fail to be aware of it.

We are endowed with the faculty of comparing, of judging, of choosing, and of acting accordingly. This implies that we can arrive at a good or a bad judgment, make a good or a bad choice—a fact that it is never idle to remind men of when we speak to them of liberty.

. . . is it so difficult to permit men to experiment, to feel their way, to choose, to make mistakes, to correct them, to learn, to work together, to manage their own property and their own interests, to act for themselves, at their own risk and peril, on their own responsibility? Do we not see that this is what makes them men? Must we always start with the fatal premise that all those who govern are guardians and all the governed are wards?

For my part, it seems to me that there is a connection between the aspiration that impels all men toward the improvement of their material, intellectual, and moral condition, and the faculties with which they are endowed to realize this aspiration.

Hence, I should like each man to have, on his own responsibility, the free disposition, administration, and control of his own person, his acts, his family, his transactions, his associations, his intelligence, his faculties, his labor, his capital, and his property.

Advise me, but do not force your opinion on me. I shall decide at my peril and risk; that is enough, and for the law to interfere would be tyranny.

. . . since liberty is still a sacred word and still has the power to stir men’s hearts, her enemies would strip her of her name and her prestige and, rechristening her competition, would lead her forth to sacrifice while the applauding multitudes extend their hands to receive their chains of slavery.

Competition is merely the absence of oppression.

. . . self-interest is that indomitable individualistic force within us that urges us on to progress and discovery, but at the same time disposes us to monopolize our discoveries. Competition is that no less indomitable humanitarian force that wrests progress, as fast as it is made, from the hands of the individual and places it at the disposal of all mankind. These two forces, which may well be deplored when considered individually, work together to create our social harmony.

By virtue of exchange, one man’s prosperity is beneficial to all others.

. . . if coercion assumes endless forms, freedom has only one. Once again, the free and voluntary transfer of services from one person to another can be defined in these simple words: “Give me this, and I will give you that. Do this for me, and I will do that for you.”

In a country like the United States, where the right to prop- erty is placed above the law, where the sole function of the public police force is to safeguard this natural right, each person can in full confidence dedicate his capital and his labor to production. He does not have to fear that his plans and calculations will be upset from one instant to another by the legislature.

Social Engineers

. . . one of the saddest sights that can present itself to anyone who loves mankind is that of a productive age bending all its efforts to infect itself—by way of education—with the thoughts, the sentiments, the errors, the prejudices, and the vices of a nation of plunderers. Our age is often accused of a lack of consistency, of a failure to show any correlation between the ideals it professes and the way of life it pursues.The criticism is just, and I believe that I have here indicated the principal reason why this situation prevails.

It is the unfortunate obsession of our age to wish to give pure abstractions a life of their own, to imagine a city apart from the people who live in it, mankind independently of the individual men who constitute it, a whole aside from its component parts, collective life without the individual units that comprise it.

Can the human race establish a new basis for property, family, labor, and exchange every day in the year? Can it risk changing the social order every morning?

There are too many “great” men in the world; there are too many legislators, planners, founders of societies, leaders of nations, fathers of their country, etc., etc. Too many people place them- selves above mankind in order to guide its footsteps; too many people make a career of being concerned with mankind.

As we have seen, the legislator, according to the ideas of the ancients, bears the same relation to mankind as the potter does to the clay. Unfortunately, when this idea prevails, nobody wants to be the clay, and everyone wants to be the potter.

I confess that I am one of those who think that the choice, the impulse, should come from below, not from above, from the citizens, not from the legislator; and the contrary doctrine seems to me to lead to the annihilation of liberty and of human dignity.

. . . when the law, by the intervention of its necessary agent, force, imposes a system of labor, a method or a subject of education, a faith or a religion, its action on men is no longer negative, but positive. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own will, the initiative of the legislator for their own initiative. They no longer have to take counsel together,  to compare, to foresee; the law does all this for them. Intelligence becomes a useless accessory; they cease to be men; they lose their personality, their liberty, their property.

Let us, therefore, not have the presumption to overthrow everything, to regulate everything, to seek to exempt all, men and things alike, from the operation of the laws to which they are naturally subject. . . . Let us not make ourselves ridiculous by proposing to change humanity, as if we stood apart from it and from its errors and shortcomings.

If by ill-advised measures you free men from the responsibility of their acts, they could still be taught by theory—but no longer by experience. And I am not certain that instruction that is not reinforced and backed by experience is not more dangerous than ignorance itself.

,Meanwhile, socialism has carried its folly so far as to announce the end of all the ills of society, though not of all the ills of the individual. It has not yet dared to predict that man will reach the point where suffering, old age, and death will be eliminated.

,The admirers of unity are very numerous, and that is understandable. By a providential decree, we all have faith in our own judgment, and we believe that there is only one right opinion in the world, namely, our own.Therefore we think that the legislator could do no better than to impose it on everyone; and, the better to be on the safe side, we all want to be that legislator.

,But once the legislator is elected and freed from his campaign promises, oh, then his language changes! The nation returns to passivity, to inertia, to nothingness, and the legislator takes on the character of omnipotence. His the invention, his the direction, his the impulsion, his the organization. Mankind has nothing to do but to let things be done to it; the hour of despotism has arrived.

For what precise and definite object are all the citizens today to be stamped, like the coinage, with the same image?

. . . On what basis would they be cast in the same mold? And who will possess the mold? A terrible question, which should give us pause. Who will possess the mold?

Property is a necessary consequence of the nature of man.

In the full sense of the word, man is born a proprietor, because he is born with wants whose satisfaction is necessary to life, and with organs and faculties whose exercise is indispensable to the satisfaction of these wants. Faculties are only the extension of the person; and property is nothing but an extension of the faculties…

To tamper with man’s freedom is not only to injure him, to degrade him; it is to change his nature, to render him, insofar as such oppression is exercised, incapable of improvement; it is to strip him of his resemblance to the Creator, to stifle within him the noble breath of life with which he was endowed at his creation.

The Future

Every attempt to divert responsibility from its natural course is an attack upon justice, freedom, order, civilization, or progress.

. . . gentlemen, organize industry as much as you please. But we, for our part, will take care to see that you do not organize robbery. It is not, as people think, the monopolists, but the monopolized, that sustain the monopolies.

When misguided public opinion honors what is despicable and despises what is honorable, punishes virtue and rewards vice, encourages what is harmful and discourages what is useful, applauds falsehood and smothers truth under indifference or insult, a nation turns its back on progress and can be restored only by the terrible lessons of catastrophe.

When education has sown a fatal seed in the soil of public opinion, there is in the body politic a force of self-preservation, vis medicatrix, that enables it to rid itself, at long last, after many sufferings and tears, of the baneful germ with which it has become infected.

What is freedom? It is the sum total of all our freedoms. To be free, on one’s own responsibility, to think and to act, to speak and to write, to labor and to exchange, to teach and to learn—this alone is to be free.

I have not made an alliance with anyone; I have not joined either side. On each question, I have voted according to my own conscience.

The Book and the Author

When a reviewer wishes to give special recognition to a book, he predicts that it will still be read “a hundred years from now.” The Law, first published as a pamphlet in June 1850, is already more than 150 years old. And because its truths are eternal, it will still be read when another century has passed.

Frederic Bastiat (1801–1850) was a French economist, states- man, and author. He did most of his writing during the years just before—and immediately following—the Revolution of February 1848. This was a period when France was rapidly turning to complete socialism. As a Deputy to the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Bastiat was studying and explaining each socialist fallacy as it appeared. And he explained how socialism must inevitably degenerate into communism. But most of his countrymen chose to ignore his logic.

The Law is here presented again because the same situation exists in America today as in the France of 1848. The same socialist- communist ideas and plans that were then adopted in France are now sweeping America. The explanations and arguments then advanced by Mr. Bastiat are—word for word—equally valid today. His ideas deserve a serious hearing.








Gold Confiscation: History, Myths, And Real Solutions



By Jeff Clark and Mike Maloney
Gold & Silver

One concern of retail precious metals investors is the possibility of a gold confiscation.

Imagine having the forethought to buy gold to shield your finances from an economic or monetary crisis—only to have it taken away from you by your government. You’d lose not just the protective buffer you put in place but potentially a chunk of your net worth.

Gold confiscation may sound preposterous to investors used to securities or real estate. But it’s happened in the past enough times to make it a reasonable concern for those uneasy about unsolvable debt levels, runaway government spending, and continual central bank money creation. Watch this video for the complete history of gold confiscation and what you can do to protect yourself or read on below:

When a grab is made for people’s savings, governments don’t bother to confiscate instruments like stocks and bonds and savings accounts—those can be wiped out by simply devaluing the currency. But when times are really tough, governments have “requested” citizens turn over their gold—the one asset they’ve historically been unable to control, since it’s not someone else’s liability.

When a gold confiscation happens, there unfortunately aren’t a lot of viable solutions. If your government declares it illegal to own a meaningful amount of bullion, you’d have little choice but to comply. Either that or play the role of a fugitive—with the prospects of financial penalties, forcible confiscation of your metal, and even jail time waiting for you.

Many investors believe gold won’t be confiscated today because it’s not part of the monetary system like it was during the U.S. nationalization in 1933, under Roosevelt. While it’s true we’re not on a gold standard today, if the crisis gets bad enough any and all viable solutions could be on the table. Debt in all developed countries is unpayable, for example, especially when you add in unfunded liabilities… where could the government get funds to service it all? One source could definitely be gold.

The sober reality is, while lower than in the past, the risk of a gold confiscation is not zero. The world today can be an uncertain place, and what were once “local” issues can rapidly escalate and have global consequences. This does not mean, however, that we are suggesting a gold confiscation is imminent or even probable; simply that it could happen if one or a series of events having significant worldwide implications occurs. Without official gold-backing on most major currencies today, the specific motivation to “confiscate” gold that existed during many previous confiscations barely exists today. But as you’ll see, even that hasn’t stopped modern government’s without a gold standard from doing the same, ostensibly as a form of currency controls to slow down market-driven devaluation.

The “Solutions” to Confiscation Risk

There’s lots of speculation floating around the Web about what one might do if gold was confiscated again. Unfortunately, the majority of the most common solutions don’t hold up to much scrutiny.

Some investors assume silver would be exempt. That’s usually because past confiscations mainly focused on gold, since silver wasn’t part of the monetary system. However, what many investors don’t know is that a year after the 1933 confiscation order, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 6814 that “required the delivery of all silver to the United States for coinage.”

Many dealers claim numismatic coins would be excluded, since there was an exception made for rare coin collectors in 1933. But as history will show, during past confiscations the onus was on the investor to prove they were a coin collector and not a bullion buyer. Unless you owned a substantial amount of rare coins, you were automatically deemed a bullion owner, not a collector.

The uncomfortable truth is, no one knows exactly what form a confiscation could take, or how new laws might be enforced. And that’s part of the problem. As Mike Maloney said well in his best-selling book, Guide to Investing in Gold and Silver:

“Confiscation all comes down to this: the government makes the rules, changes the rules, and enforces the rules. Though it lacks the moral right, it can create legal authority. Though it lacks the constitutional empowerment, it can turn a blind eye to the Constitution… The Constitution did not stop the government from taking people’s gold in 1933.”

Political leaders can and will do whatever they deem necessary at the time. In any way they see fit. For as long as they think it’s needed.

When the gold investor considers the number of ways a confiscation could take place, how long it could last, how easily the government could change the rules and how deeply it could reach—all against the backdrop of an economic or monetary crisis—it underscores the need to put a viable strategy in place.

What’s really viable is a lesson best learned by the mistakes and successes of the past…

Gold Confiscation: A Surprisingly Common Solution

Since 1933, there have been a few notable gold confiscations around the world.

The specific circumstances varied, but there was one common thread to all of them: they all arose out of a financial crisis. As government coffers dwindled and reached emergency levels, politicians didn’t hesitate to grab the net worth of private citizens. And in many cases it was portrayed as patriotic; your country is threatened—help save your nation!

Here are some gold confiscations that have occurred within the past 80 years…

United States Gold Confiscation—1933

Labeled Executive Order 6102, President Franklin Roosevelt signed on a law on April 5, 1933 “forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States.”

It basically meant that private owners were required to take their coins, bars or gold certificates to a bank, and exchange them for US dollars at the prevailing rate of $20.67 per ounce.

Why did he do this? The US was on a gold standard at the time, so hoarding gold (i.e., money) was seen as a threat to the stability of the country’s financial system. Remember how bad things got… banks were shut, unemployment soared, bread lines formed, civil unrest grew, and the government couldn’t make its debt payments. Roosevelt desperately needed to remove the constraint on the Federal Reserve that prevented it from increasing the money supply the Great Depression was already four years old and wasn’t showing any sign of abating.

Within nine months after making gold illegal to own, the president raised the official price to $35 per ounce. The dollars those ex-gold owners received in exchange had just been devalued by 40%, overnight. It’s actually a misconception that FDR “confiscated” gold in 1933. More accurately, he nationalized it. Citizens were compensated for what they turned over… in a true confiscation, your assets are essentially seized, with no compensation. In a severe national crisis, it’s certainly possible the government wouldn’t be able to afford to pay investors the full value of their bullion.

And the US government was serious about you not hoarding gold. As Wikipedia reports…

“Under the Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, as later amended by the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, violation of the order was punishable by fine up to $10,000, up to ten years in prison, or both. Numerous individuals and companies were prosecuted.”

Worse, the ban on private ownership of gold in America—the home of the free—lasted over four decades. Not until January 1, 1975 could US citizens own more than $100 in gold again.

Australia Gold Confiscation—1959

The Australian government similarly nationalized gold.

The law, part of the Banking Act in 1959, allowed gold seizures of private citizens if the Governor determined it was “expedient so to do, for the protection of the currency or of the public credit of the Commonwealth.” In other words, they made it legal to seize gold from private citizens and exchange it for paper currency.

The country’s Treasurer stated in a press release that followed, “All gold (other than wrought gold and coins to a limited extent) had to be delivered to the Reserve Bank of Australia within one month of its coming into a person’s possession.”

The law also said you weren’t allowed to sell gold, except to the Reserve Bank of Australia (their central bank). Nor could you export any gold (send it outside the country) without the bank’s permission.

While it is unclear whether or not the country moved ahead with active seizures, or just how many citizens complied, the law still destroyed the local private gold market overnight.

Like the US ban, this rule wasn’t short lived either. Reports indicate it stayed on the books until 1976, a full 17 years, before being “suspended.”

Great Britain’s Gold Ban—1966

Ever since Great Britain went off the gold standard in 1931, their currency had been falling. As the decline stretched from years into decades, many investors began to store gold overseas, worried their country might never recover. Who could blame them? Their standard of living was threatened.

To stem the decline in the Pound Sterling, in 1966 the government banned private citizens from owning more than four precious metals coins. It also blocked imports of gold coins (a common move to keep currency from being exported, similar to modern day tariffs on gold imports in places like India).

The only exemption to owning more than four coins was to prove you were a collector. You were required to apply for a license, and then an officer from the Bank of England would determine if you were a true collector or not. If not, we’ll take your bullion, thank you very much.

The important distinction about this gold ban is that it occurred when Great Britain was not on a gold standard. In other words, we have historical precedence that gold was confiscated without it being part of the monetary system. Gold is not part of the monetary system today, either.

Like most confiscations, this law lasted a long time—until 1979, a full 13 years.

See Any Patterns Here?

These three gold confiscations have some things in common. They all…

  1. Were imposed by Western governments. These were advanced societies, among the richest countries on the planet. And yet they all confiscated gold.
  2. Arose out of economic crisis. Each government had abused its finances so badly that it eventually nationalized privately held gold from citizens.
  3. Lasted for a LONG time. Of these confiscations from advanced economies, the shortest was 13 years. $50 Gift Ca… Buy New $50.00
  4. Completely forbid any type of hoarding of bullion. Only true collectors were exempt, and only those pieces that were truly classified as rare. And you had to prove it. Interestingly, gold jewelry was not part of any of these confiscations.

Unfortunately, there are some nastier gold confiscations from history. These involve…

The Brutes, Bullies, and Dictators

It won’t surprise you that in nations ruled by an oppressive regime, gold was a natural target to grab funds for the government…

Italy’s Gold “Donation”

Benito Mussolini—Italy’s prime minister turned dictator—tried to fight a nasty recession by introducing the “Gold for the Fatherland” initiative in 1935. He “encouraged” the public to “voluntarily donate” their gold rings, necklaces, and other forms of gold to the government. In exchange, citizens received a steel wristband that bore the proud words, translated, “Gold for the Fatherland.” It’s said that even his wife Rachele donated her own wedding ring in a show of solidarity.

The gold was melted down and made into bars, then distributed to the country’s banks. The government netted 35 tonnes (1.23 million ounces) from citizen “donations.”

Germany’s Confiscation of Czech Gold

Hitler’s Nazi party pulled a tricky scheme in 1939… after the invasion of Czechoslovakia the year before, the Bank of International Settlements, chaired by Bank of England director Otto Niemeyer—a German no less—instructed the Bank of England to transfer £5.6 million of gold from the Czech national bank to the Reichsbank.

Even though the gold belonged to Czechoslovakian government, and even though English authorities had been warned of the possible transfer, it went through without a hitch. To mask the theft, Germany’s central bank understated its official reserves later that year.

Saddam and Fidel

The madman of Iraq and the communist oppressor of Cuba both confiscated gold, art, jewelry, etc. These brutal dictators took whatever they wanted, at the point of a sword or gun.

As you might surmise, citizens were not compensated when their holdings were seized—unless you count remaining alive as compensation.


Based on interviews I’ve conducted with two large gold bullion dealers in Russia, the old Soviet Union has historically viewed gold and silver as a matter of national security. Therefore, private ownership in any form—except jewelry and numismatic coins—was strictly forbidden. People went to jail for owning a gold bar.

And in spite of the Russian central bank being one of the biggest buyers of gold since 2008, those old laws are still on the books. It is illegal to buy or sell bullion bars except at a bank that has a precious metals license (and very few have them)… it is a criminal offense to buy or sell a gold bar from a friend or relative… transporting bars has strict rules and can send you to prison if you break them… it is illegal to take bullion bars out of the country… buying and selling foreign-made bars is also illegal.

These laws are not as strictly enforced today, but they remain on the books and thus could be easily activated again. You can buy gold coins, but they’re not abundant and are in poor quality.

What About India’s Government Schemes?The Indian government has tried to crackdown on gold jewelry demand numerous times and in numerous ways. They currently have a 10% tariff on all gold imports in an attempt to curtail demand, a program they seem to try every few years. They introduced a monetization scheme last year that would pay interest on the gold you “lent” them, also something they’ve tried several times. In fact, these attempts have been tried for decades, on both gold and silver. Check out this excerpt from the New York Times on August 27, 1976:

“India announced it was resuming its ban on the export of silver. India is believed to have the largest silver hoard and the government there freed exports earlier this year as a means of earning taxes levied on overseas sales. However, most silver dealers minimized the significance of India’s move yesterday. As one dealer explained, ‘Smuggling silver out of India is so ingrained there that the ban will have no effect on the flow. It never has. Indian silver will continue to ebb and flow into the world market according to price.’”

The reason these schemes haven’t worked is because gold jewelry in India is viewed as an investment, not an adornment. Although they have coins and bars, the vast majority of gold in India is in jewelry form. It is thus more accurate to view “jewelry” demand in India as investment demand.

  • The difference in gold confiscations between the plunderers vs. those from advanced economies is that the plunderers were more oppressive about the confiscation, typically took more than just gold, and of course were more brutal in carrying it out.

There’s another crucial distinction. Except during times of active persecution, there is no historical precedence of goldjewelry being confiscated. If a nation operated under the rule of law, seizing jewelry wasn’t part of the government’s strategy.

The reality is that in a crisis, we could potentially face a lethal combination: a desperate government, with your assets ready for the taking.

The point to all this isn’t to predict that there will be a gold confiscation. The idea is be aware of the risks and to have a viable plan in place to combat one if it occurs.

But is there really such a strategy?

On the surface it would seem that short of renouncing your citizenship and moving out of the country, there are precious few options to protect against such a draconian act.

But there are a couple strategies that have historically been effective in combating a gold confiscation…

Proven Solutions

Out of Jurisdiction

Storing gold and silver where a government is less likely to be able to reach it quickly and easily is smart buffer to put in place.

First, as many have noted before, keeping it outside the banking system is a good step. Many references cite how banks have been known to hypothecate gold, i.e. lend it out to someone other than its rightful owner, putting it at systemic risk. Just as importantly, during the modern “bail-ins” we’ve seen in debt-stricken countries, banks were often working hand in hand with governments to seize assets long before citizens found out what was happening. The threat of being cut-off from central bank liquidity is an existential threat to banks, and thus they are not known for going to bat for consumers in court to block overreach like an independent vault provider hopefully would.

Another step further removed is storing overseas—also in a vault outside the banking system. It puts your assets one step further out of reach. Less low hanging fruit, as they say. Without the ability to take quick possession, you have more time and distance to fight such an order.

But even this is not bulletproof. A desperate government could just as well declare all personal gold holdings be repatriated, regardless of where they’re stored. It’d be a spinoff of the old tax joke, “How much gold do you own?… Give it to us.”

If the company holding your metal is a domestic entity, they might be forced to comply anyway, at least in reporting your holdings so they can be taxed in lieu of surrender.

Some suggest you should instead do business with a foreign company. But that adds a different risk, and one that comes with a dubious level of added protection. First, you give up access to the local rule of law. If a vault in Singapore swears your gold is there, what will you do if it ends up not being the case? When dealing with a domestic company, at least you can turn to the court system.

Second, a foreign company can be compelled to cooperate with a big enough foreign government, like the US. As investors using private banking services in Switzerland discovered in recent years, the threat of being cut off from banking with the US will quickly convince a company, or its host government, to comply with a confiscation order at least by reporting holdings.

Even if it does not relent to pressure from abroad, the foreign entity would almost certainly refuse to deliver, buy, or sell precious metals in a jurisdiction where authorities have issued a confiscation order, leaving you only with the option to relocate elsewhere—hardly better, and often much worse than using a domestic provider you have real recourse against.

Bottom line, while not risk free, private foreign vault holdings, whose affordability surprises many precious metals investors, stewarded by a company based in a nation with a historically strong rule of law, can be one of your best lines of defense if confiscation is a concern.

The Elizabeth Taylor Solution 

You probably know that the queen of the silver screen loved jewelry. Her collection fetched over $156 million after her death. She even wrote a book about her jewelry. Indeed, it’s hard to find a picture of her without gold, diamonds, or pearls draped over her neck or wrists.

You may also know that Elizabeth Taylor traveled a lot. At various points in her life she had homes in Beverly Hills, London, and Switzerland, among other places. She even traveled to Iran a few years before the Iran Hostage Crisis.

And here’s an interesting fact about her travels: she always took some jewelry with her—and walked right through customs with it. No messing with customs forms, no requirement to declare a financial asset.

This circumstance remains true today. You likely know that when crossing borders, travelers are often required to complete customs paperwork and declare large amounts money they are carrying, anything over $10,000 for travel to/from the US for example. The new rules specifically mention gold, and also that the price of the gold determines if you are at the reporting limit (not the face value on a coin). That means 7 ounces of gold would be the maximum you could carry at $1,300 gold. You’d be at risk with 5 coins when gold reaches $2,000/ounce.

Since gold jewelry is not considered a financial asset under US law, it does not require reporting. Nor have we discovered any country where it’s handled differently, though always be sure to check the laws along your itinerary.

You and your loved ones can employ your very own Elizabeth Taylor solution.

Consider the advantages you’d possess if you wanted to transport some gold outside the country… it would be a lot easier to hop on a plane wearing a few necklaces or bracelets than carrying a stack of gold coins or bars. Consider the hassle you could avoid passing through customs, as well as the threat of your bullion coins being questioned or seized.

But what about confiscation? As history has shown, in the developed world, gold confiscations have targeted monetary metals, like coins and bars. Jewelry was spared. Only in oppressive nations, ruled by dictators, was it a target. In other words, the resident of a developed nation that owns gold jewelry has an asset that is far off the radar of appealing assets to grab.

Which is why we believe that bullion-grade jewelry is one of the most unique and important asset classes to own if confiscation is a concern…

Gold Without Borders: GoldSilver’s Investment Grade Gold Bullion Jewelry

The problem with most “gold” jewelry sold in the West is dilution. It’s often made with cheaper alloys that contain only a fraction of gold, and is very expensive relative to the actual precious metals content. Mark-ups are easily two and three times the gold value, and it’s not hard to find it four or even five times higher.

That takes gold jewelry far from its roots, when it was a form a wearable wealth, meant to keep assets close at hand. Traditionally in Europe and Asia, gold jewelry was a more portable alternative to art, heirloom furniture, and land as outside-the-bank assets that held their value and were easily passed between generations. Today in India, China, Thailand and elsewhere the tradition remains—the Thai currency, Baht, for example, is even named for a common jewelry style that pre-dates it.

And that’s exactly what we’ve recreated with our exclusive Gold Without Borders jewelry line.

These investment grade 22-carat (91.6% gold, same as an American Eagle coin) and 24-carat (99.99% pure gold) pieces are an affordable alternative to the mostly costume jewelry you find in today’s stores. Classic designs that provide much more bullion for your money.

And of course, they’re beautiful.

Bullion jewelry is a real asset that is both portable and practical—you can wear it, transport it, and a confiscation order is likely to bypass it. Discreet, wearable wealth.

Reprinted with permission from


The advice given above is only for the one half of one percent, and  I am amazed that no mention anywhere I have looked considers diamonds as crucial inventories of wealth preservation. They are a lot lighter in weight and per-value much smaller in size. Does anyone think that there is any fool proof method of protection from the biggest crooks in the world’s history as governments? The international Investment Banking Cartel has been planning a world takeover for over a hundred years, and unless some military force puts them down, the bastards will succeed. Best advice is, bend over and kiss your ass good bye, or die fighting with honor. This is the shitty situation we are in for being government trusting patriots!


It’s the “ISMS” Part 31



By Anna Von Reitz

Ever notice how you will be thinking of something, and then your best friend or your Aunt or your neighbor —completely out of the blue—comes up talking about the same thing?  That happened to me today.  I was thinking about the “-isms”—– imperialism, feudalism, communism, socialism and fascism.

Those of you who have been following along will remember my Dad’s explanation of communism and fascism to me circa age five:  “The Communists steal everything and pay for everything. The Fascists steal everything and then make you pay for everything, too.”

This naturally gives the Fascists a substantial material advantage over the Communists, which the Communists lament on moral grounds.

Imagine two bands of thieves arguing over who has the moral high ground?  The Communists saying, “Yeah, we are thieves, but at least we are honest thieves and pay for the upkeep of what we stole.” And then the Fascists answering, “Yeah, but you are still thieves and too stupid to take full advantage of it.”

This ridiculous bickering goes on and on and the rhetoric never changes.

The comparatively panty-waist white collar crooks known as Socialists then start waving their handkerchiefs and saying, “Gentlemen! Gentlemen! We all want a better world…..”

To which the Communists and Fascists both roar, “Go soak your heads! And keep your hands out of the cash box!”

Nobody ever stands up and says, “Hey, you guys, —all of you—go earn an honest living! This world has outgrown any need for gangs of thieves setting themselves up as governments!” —mostly because we are in fact too busy earning an honest living to pay any attention to the flag ends of the political spectrum.

At a certain point Socialism, Communism and Fascism fade together into one big pile of oppression called “the State”, also known as “the Monarch”.

Which brings us to the other, older “isms”—– feudalism nee imperialism.

Feudalism depended on certain men backed by certain armies having the gall to claim that they are kings by “Divine Right”.

This amounts to saying, I can beat you up, so God sides with me.  The end.

Faced with five thousand armed and armored knights on war horses, who was going to say anything otherwise?  Only another king with ten thousand armed and armored knights on war horses.

So around and around it went, with this king beating up that king, one gang against another, year after bloody year, disaster after disaster.

I was just reading about how the bodies of the 50,000 dead soldiers at Waterloo were plundered for their teeth, which were pulled on the battlefield and used to make false teeth known as “Waterloo Dentures”.  The British Crown made the profit on that venture.

They went home smiling. Everyone else got buried in a trench.

This system of things carried right on through the Second World War, but by that time we were no longer dealing with this king versus that king; no, by then, vast alliances of kings and potentates had formed, all lined up on two sides, pushing and shoving.

And for the last 72 years the threat of an all-out nuclear war has kept a simmering lid on things, because even madmen have sense enough to know that if they destroy all life on this planet there will be nothing left for them to rule over.

Instead, we have entered an era of what I shall call “commercial feudalism” where the same Bad Actors play out their war games on a different stage— undermining each other’s economies and currencies by securities fraud and counterfeiting and other white collar crime gambits to continue robbing innocent people.

When you stand back at a distance, the only difference between a king and a Communist or Fascist dictator or Socialist Prime Minister or President of the United States (Inc.) is the verbiage behind the oppression and the excuses used to justify it.  It all boils down to self-interested gangs of armed thieves setting themselves up as governments to rule over the rest of us, and despite all the permutations and rhetoric the end result is pathetically similar.

Would you like raspberry flavored feces?  Or chocolate?  Maybe gumdrop? How about some key lime poop with a sprinkling of sugar on top?

How long must we suffer this weird insanity before we all embrace and declare the Kingdom of Heaven, where every man is a king and every woman is a queen?  Where each home is an inviolate palace, and everyone has their own good Earth to tend and no need of war or plunder?  Come home, to the only true Republic and the simple Laws of Heaven: peace, free will, and equal consideration.

Getting back to my starting comment, about the odd and yet familiar common theme appearing at the same time for no rhyme or reason, just as I was musing about these topics today—look at what came over my desk?  Follow the link below and watch a ten minute comic summary of what the “isms” are all about from fifty years ago, with my thanks to Tarrin Lupo:


Everything You Know About the United States and its Laws is WRONG ! PART TWO



by JohnHenryHill

Before the American Revolution all Americans were subjects of the British Crown, as each colony operated under a corporate charter authorized by the King of England and the British Crown. The British Crown was, and remains to this day, a corporation headed by the King, with the Parliament as its ruling-making body authorized to issue acts or statutes. The American colonies, as sub-corporations of the British Crown, were obligated to obey the acts-statutes of Parliament. The people of the American colonies, like the people of Britain, possessed natural rights under Common Law; and were bound by Parliamentary statutes only when engaged in corporate commerce or upon waiving their rights under Common Law and consenting to the jurisdiction of the acts-statutes. Stated in other terms, statutes-acts of Parliament (and all lesser legislative and administrative bodies) apply to a man ONLY after he has consented to be under their jurisdiction – that is, they require the “consent of the governed”. (Even today in Britain, the ordinary man recognizes the distinction between law and acts-statutes. In Britain “Law” means Common Law ONLY; acts or statutes mean legislated acts which are not considered “law”.) At the start of the American revolution the Crown dissolved the royal corporate charters of all the American colonies, at which time each man in the former American colonies became a sovereign – his own “king”. Here the term “man” is used to mean every living man, woman and child within the former colonies, with the exception of slaves, who were considered property. Thus the term “people” – which is grammatically correct as either singular or plural – means the man as sovereign, either individually or collectively. After the start of the revolution but before the United States existed, there was no legal government. A group of representatives, acting “in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies,” declared the independence of the colonies from the British Crown and the state of Great Britain.

From the beginning, in the 1776 Declaration of Independence, the people were acknowledged as the source of authority, i.e. the sovereignty of the American people which authorized the Declaration of Independence.

Next came the 1778 Articles of Confederation. The states that existed by the authority of the people, created those Articles while in Congress assembled. That didn’t work as well as expected.

In 1787 the people themselves came forth “to ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” [see Preamble]. On September 17th, 1787, the states held a convention and all those present unanimously joined in. [see last paragraph of U.S. Constitution]

So, in 1787, unanimous concurrence was achieved and the Constitution was born, later to be ratified.

The Constitution for the United States of America, in fact, created a TRUST – a type of contract.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

If one closely examines the structure of the PREAMBLE, one observes that it actually contacts all the elements of a TRUST:

TRUSTOR: We the People [trustors]

VENUE: of the United States

PURPOSE: in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty

BENEFICIARY: to ourselves and our Posterity,

ENABLING ACTION 1: do ordain [declare the law]

ENABLING ACTION 2: and establish [bring into existence]

WHAT: this Constitution [articles of incorporation for trust]

TRUSTEE: for the United States of America. [trustee]

RULES: the text in the body of the Constitution



The Preamble defines the context in which the remainder of the Constitution must be interpreted. Most of it is self explanatory. Here’s an explanation that points to popular sovereignty:

After the Declaration of Independence, but before the ordainment and establishment of the Constitution, the people of the United States (that is the former colonies or states) pretty much handled their own affairs using the common law. They were not subject to any higher authority other than the authority of the common law as administered by the people themselves (self governance). Although the states did exist, they only existed by the authority of the people. Every man was a king, and every woman a queen–and none had any subjects. Upon declaring our independence, we all became sovereigns and members of the peerage (nobility).

“The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Through the medium of their Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; subject only to those restrictions which have been imposed by the Constitution of this State or of the U.S.”

Lansing v. Smith, 21 D. 89., 4 Wendel 9 (1829) (New York)
“D.” = Decennial Digest
Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89
10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228;
37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1`67; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
NOTE: Am.Dec.=American Decision, Wend. = Wendell (N.Y.)

The enabling actions in the Preamble are significant because there is simply nothing in the use of those words to imply that the People relinquished any of their own power and authority. The People declared the law (ordain) without taking away from themselves the authority to declare law again in the future. The People established the Constitution without taking away from themselves the authority to establish anything else in the future. In other words, the people gave birth to the Constitution without giving up any of their own power and authority.

What was before, continues to be so today.

From the context of the Preamble, one may conclude that the laws of the United States do not apply to People. The People, as ordainers and establishers of the country, are each individual sovereigns of the country and may not be involuntarily subjected to the laws of the United States. In practical terms a man, as an individual sovereign and one of the people, is NOT bound by the Constitution UNLESS that man freely consents – “consent of the governed.” Likewise, a man, as an individual sovereign and one of the people, is NOT bound by the acts-statutes created by any legislative or other political body under the authority of that Constitution UNLESS that man freely consents – once again, “consent of the governed.”

Because of Amendment X (“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the government has no authority, and cannot assume any authority over the People. Government powers may not reach beyond that which is constitutionally granted. In order for the government to subject People to its law it is necessary for the People to relinquish their sovereignty. Sovereignty is a natural right which cannot lawfully be relinquished involuntarily. Any removal of sovereignty must be accomplished voluntarily by the subject himself.

Some modern legal scholars have asserted that the Constitution, as well as the acts-statutes flowing from legislative bodies authorized the Constitution, automatically apply to all of American people because our ancestors gave their consent through the ratifications by the states of the Constitution. This argument is flawed in several respects.

First, the state governments approved the Constitution; NOT the people of those states. And the people remained sovereign even after the ratification of the Constitution. Therefore, since the term “people” is grammatically correct as either singular or pleural, each individual man retained his sovereignty. The amendments to the Constitution and numerous court decisions have affirmed this interpretation, in that the statement “right of the people” means an individual right guaranteed to each man, not to a collective of men.

Second, under contract law (which includes trusts) in order to be valid, both parties to a contract must freely and knowingly consent to that contract, with each delivering something of value to the other (known as “consideration”). Therefore, a contract signed by a man is NOT enforceable upon his descendants, unless they later also freely and knowingly consented to that contract.

Third, some legal scholars have written that simply by living in America, a man’s descendants give “implied consent” to the contract of the Constitution. To the question of what “consideration” is given to these descendants, these writes reply that the consideration is the “rights and privileges” offered by the government and accepted by these descendants – that UNLESS a man objects to this “implied consent” and explicitly waives all benefits and privileges from government, he has consented to be bound by this contract with government and is therefore bound by all its acts-statutes. This very recent interpretation is clearly faulty, since it fails to recognize that each man is a sovereign (as noted above). And a sovereign cannot be bound by another sovereign, much less by the contracts engaged into by other men. Further, in Western law and tradition, just as God is the creator and sovereign, so is each man sovereign and creator. As such a man, as creator and sovereign cannot be bound by his subjects and any institutions he creates, without his consent. The consent from another sovereign man can NOT bind another sovereign man – it binds only himself. Thus each man, as a sovereign and master, can be bound ONLY if he knowingly and freely consents to such a contract, in which he delegated a specified and limited authority to government. In consenting to this contract, a man does not surrender his sovereignty, but forever retains his status as an individual sovereign. He is NOT subject to law under the Constitution unless he freely consents. Further he is NOT subject to any acts-statutes by legislatures and other institutions created under the authority of the Constitution unless he freely consents.


Sovereign individuals are subject only to a Common Law, whose primary purposes are to protect and defend individual rights, and to prevent anyone, whether public official or private person, from violating the rights of other individuals. Within this scheme, Sovereigns are never subject to their own creations, and the constitutional contract is such a creation. To quote the Supreme Court, “No fiction can make a natural born subject.” Milvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. 598 (1808). That is to say, no fiction, be it a government, a corporation, a legislated statute or act, or an administrative regulation, can mutate a natural born Sovereign into someone who is subject to his own creations.



“Sovereignty itself is, of course, not subject to law, for it is the author and source of law; but in our system, while sovereign powers are delegated to the agencies of government, sovereignty itself remains with the people, by whom and for whom all government exists and acts. And the law is the definition and limitation of power. It is indeed, quite true, that there must always be lodged somewhere, and in some person or body, the authority of final decision; and in many cases of mere administration the responsibility is purely political, no appeal except to the ultimate tribunal of the public judgment, exercised either in the pressure of opinion or by means of the suffrage. But the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, considered as individual possessions, are secured by those maxims of constitutional law which are the monuments showing the victorious progress of the race in securing to men the blessings of civilization under the reign of just and equal laws, so that, in the famous language of the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the government of the commonwealth “may be a government of laws and not of men.” For, the very idea that one man may be compelled to hold his life, or the means of living, or any material right essential to the enjoyment of life, at the mere will of another, seems to be intolerable in any country where freedom prevails, as being the essence of slavery itself.” [Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1886)]



Every Sovereign State Citizen is endowed with certain unalienable rights, for the enjoyment of which no written law or statute is required. “These are fundamental or natural rights, recognized among all free people,” wrote Chancellor Kent in the case of United States v. Morris. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that fundamental rights are natural rights which are inherent in state citizenship:


“This position is that the privileges and immunities clause protects all citizens against abridgment by states of rights of national citizenship as distinct from the fundamental or natural rights inherent in state citizenship.” [Madden v. Kentucky, 309 U.S. 83 (1940)]

[84 L.Ed. 590, at 594


What are the fundamental or natural rights recognized among all free people? Chancellor Kent answered as follows: “That the rights to lease land and to accept employment as a laborer for hire are fundamental [natural] rights, inherent in every free citizen, is indisputable.” United States v. Morris, 125 F.Rept. 322, 331 (1903)


“In the United States***, sovereignty resides in the people who act through the organs established by the Constitution. The Congress as the instrumentality of sovereignty is endowed with certain powers to be exerted on behalf of the people in the manner and with the effect the Constitution ordains. The Congress cannot invoke the sovereign power of the people to override their will as thus declared.” Perry v. United States, 294 U.S. 330, 353 (1935)


No discussion of sovereignty would be complete, therefore, without considering the sovereignty that resides in “US”, the People. The Supreme Court has often identified the People as the source of sovereignty in our republican form of government. Indeed, the federal Constitution guarantees to every State in the Union a “Republican Form” of government, in so many words:


Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government ….     Constitution for the United States of America, Article 4, Section 4


What exactly is a “Republican Form” of government? It is one in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the People and exercised by the People. Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, makes this very clear in its various definitions of “government”:


Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627.



The Supreme Court has clearly distinguished between the operation of governments in Europe, and government in these United States*** of America, as follows:

“In Europe, the executive is almost synonymous with the sovereign power of a State; and generally includes legislative and judicial authority. … Such is the condition of power in that quarter of the world, where it is too commonly acquired by force or fraud, or both, and seldom by compact [consent]. In America, however, the case is widely different. Our government is founded upon compact [consent]. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people.” Glass v. The Sloop Betsey, 3 Dall 6 (1794)









Crown colonies = corporations of the British Crown with corporate charters with King as the Sovereign

War of Independence à King cancelled charters of all of the colonies in America è each individual American became his own sovereign and each state became its own sovereign

Individual sovereignty – subject only to himself and the customs of his neighbors (Common Law)



The 4 United States:


“United States” as a private corporation – 1871 — UScorp


(1)     United States* or U.S.* (first meaning)


                   The name of the sovereign Nation, occupying the position of other sovereigns in the family of nations.



(2)     United States** or U.S.** (second meaning)


                   The federal government and the limited territory over which it exercises exclusive sovereign authority.


(3)United States-Corp or US-Corp as a private corporation – 1871 — UScorp


(4)     United States*** or U.S.***


                   The collective name for the States united by and under the Constitution for the United States of America.



1.) District Court of the United States (DCUS) = Article III (judicial) court

2.) United States District Court (USDC) = Administrative Article I (legislative)

3.) Article IV (territorial) court




The only difference between an action at law and a counterclaim in a court of record is that the original parties have their identifications changed. The defendant becomes the counterplaintiff, and the plaintiff becomes the counterdefendant. Other than that, the counterclaim is written the same as an action at law.

A court of record proceeds according to the common law. It is not a criminal court and it is not a civil court; those two courts are statutory courts, not common law courts.

Also, note that in every county there is only ONE court. The court is typically subdivided into divisions. No matter what division you file the case in, it is still the same court. When you file a common law case the clerks typically don’t know what that is and tend to classify it as a civil case. Sometimes in the Federal courts it is filed as a “constitutional court” case or a “miscellaneous” case (which has a lower filing fee).

It is not necessary to argue too much with the clerk. If the clerk is too ignorant to do it the right way, don’t worry. If the clerk doesn’t like the caption at the top of the page, don’t ask what you should do because he cannot give you legal advice. Instead, you ask him what he requires: he can tell you that.

Changes to the paper can be made on the spot by hand printing IF you print very clearly. Hand printing is legally the same as typewriting. If the clerk objects to the term “counterclaim” you may change it to say “complaint”. It doesn’t really matter because it is the actual text in the body of the paper that is the substance. Titles, headings, and other items in the caption are merely aids to understanding. The substance of the paper is what controls, not the titles and headings.

There are two kinds of trial courts: superior and inferior.

The criminal court is an inferior court because it is operating according to special rules (criminal code) and not according to the common law. Even if its name is “Superior Court of …..” it is still an inferior court so long as it is operating according to some code or statutes rather than the common law.

On the other hand, a court of record, so long as it meets the criteria, is a true superior court.

The decisions and proceedings of an inferior court are not presumed to be valid. The inferior court can be sued in a superior court (that’s called a “collateral attack”). In other words, the superior court (court of record) out ranks the inferior court not of record”.

When you do a counterclaim, the primary issue is jurisdiction. By what authority does the inferior court presume to take jurisdiction over the parties? When the counterclaim is filed, all parties in the inferior court, and the inferior court itself, are served with the suit. Because the primary issue is jurisdiction, the proceedings in the inferior court must stop immediately and may not proceed until it proves in the superior court that it has jurisdiction. If it [the inferior court] fails to prove its jurisdiction, then the final judgment of the superior court will be that the inferior court had no jurisdiction and all proceedings thereafter are barred.

If the inferior court proceeds anyway, then contempt proceedings and judgment enforcement proceedings can be initiated in the superior court.



Court of Record  COMMENTARY      This writer concludes, from the definitions below, that a court of record is a court which must meet the following criteria:      1. generally has a seal     2. power to fine or imprison for contempt     3. keeps a record of the proceedings [“enrolled” for posterity; a transcript is NOT a record]     4. proceeding according to the common law (not statutes or codes)     5. the tribunal is independent of the magistrate (judge)      Note that a judge is a magistrate and is NOT the tribunal. The tribunal is either the sovereign himself [the plaintiff], or a fully empowered jury (not paid by the government)  —————————————————————–            Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426 COURT. …                        INTERNATIONAL LAW  COURT: The person and suite of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. ….                         CLASSIFICATION      Courts may be classified and divided according to several methods, the following being the more usual:      COURTS OF RECORD and COURTS NOT OF RECORD.  The former [courts of record] being those whose acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony, and which have power to fine or imprison for contempt. Error lies to their judgments, and they generally possess a seal. Courts not of record are those of inferior dignity, which have no power to fine or imprison, and in which the proceedings are not enrolled or recorded. 3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.      A “court of record” is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial. Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689.                              ….—————————————————————– See 7 Cal Jur 571 for more info about courts of record 7 California Jurisprudence, Bancroft Whitney (1922), Page 580-581Courts of Record.–Courts are divided generally into courts of record and those that are not of record. A court of record is a judidical tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person designated generally to hold it, and proceeding according to the course of the common law.4 In a court of record the acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, whereas, in courts not of record, the proceedings are not enrolled. The privilege of having these enrolled memorials constitutes the great leading distinction between courts of record and courts not of record.5 4. Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal. 220. As to what are “courts of common-law jurisdiction” within the meaning of the federal naturalization act, see Alienage and Citizenship, Vol. 1, p. 911. 5. Hahn v. Kelly, 34 Cal. 391, 94 Am. Dec. 742, per Sawyer, J., concurring. See infra, §§ 26-28, as to records. Under the constitutional revision of 1863, the district, county and probate courts were also courts of record. Caulfield v. stevens, 28 Cal. 118. —————————————————————-          Webster’s New Practical Dictionary, 386 (1953)             G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass. MAGISTRATE      A person holding official power in a government; as: a The official of highest rank in a government (chief, or first, magistrate). b An official of a class having summary, often criminal, jurisdiction. —————————————————————–                Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary MAGISTRATE      an official entrusted with administration of the laws —————————————————————–            Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1103 MAGISTRATE      Person clothed with power as a public civil officer. State ex rel. Miller v. McLeod, 142 Fla. 254, 194 So. 628, 630.      A public officer belonging to the civil organization of the state, and invested with powers and functions which may be either judicial, legislative, or executive. But the term is commonly used in a narrower sense, designating, in England, a person intrusted with the commission of the peace, and, in America, one of the class of inferior judicial officers, such as justices of the peace and police justices. Martin v. State, 32 Ark. 124; Ex parte White, 15 Nev. 146, 37 Am.Rep. 466; State v. Allen, 83 Fla. 655, 92 So. 155, 156; Merritt v. Merritt, 193 Iowa 899, 188 N.W. 32, 34.….      The word “magistrate” does not necessarily imply an officer exercising any judicial functions, and might very well be held to embrace notaries and commissioners of deeds. Schultz v. Merchants’ Ins. Co., 57 Mo. 336. —————————————————————–                      California Penal Code      7. Words and phrases….The following words have in this code the signification attached to them in this section, unless otherwise apparent from the context:….          9. The word “magistrate” signifies any one of the officers mentioned in Section 808. ….      807. Magistrate defined. A magistrate is an officer having power to issue a warrant for the arrest of a person charged with a public offense. (Enacted 1872.)      808. Persons designated as magistrates The following persons are magistrates:          1. The judges of the Supreme Court          2. The judges of the courts of appeal.          3. The judges of the superior courts.          4. The judges of the municipal courts.          5. The judges of the justice courts. —————————————————————–            Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1602, 1603 SUIT                          Old English Law      The witnesses or followers of the plaintiff. 3 Bl. Comm. 295. See Secta.                            Modern Law     A generic term, of comprehensive signification, and applies to any proceeding by one person or persons against another or others in a court of justice in which the plaintiff pursues, in such court, the remedy which the law affords him for the redress of an injury or the enforcement of a right, whether at law [Common Law] or in equity. See Kohl v. U.S., 91 U.S. 375, 23 L.Ed. 449; Weston v. Charleston, 2 Pet. 464, 7 L.Ed. 481; Syracuse Plaster Co. v. Agostini Bros. Bldg. Corporation, 169 Misc. 564 7 N.Y.S.2d 897. —————————————————————–              Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 1677 TRIBUNAL      The seat of a judge; the place where he administers justice. The whole body of judges who compose a jurisdiction; a judicial court; the jurisdiction which the judges exercise. See Foster v. Worcester, 16 Pick. (Mass.) 81. —————————————————————–          Webster’s New Practical Dictionary, 707 (1953)             G. & C. Merriam Co., Springfield, Mass. TRIBUNE     1. In ancient Rome, a magistrate whose special function was to protect the interests of plebeian citizens from the patricians.     2. Any defender of the people. —————————————————————–                Merriam-Webster On-Line Dictionary COURT      1. the residence of a sovereign or similar dignitary      2: a sovereign and his officials and advisers as a governing power      3: an assembly of the retinue of a sovereign     4: an open space enclosed by a building or buildings     5: a space walled or marked off for playing a game (as tennis or basketball)      6: the place where justice is administered; also: a judicial body or a meeting of a judicial body
A “minute order” issued by a judge is not part of the record.


The proceedings of the courts of common law are records. But every minute made by a clerk of a court for his own future guidance in making up his record is not a record. 4 Wash. C.C. 698. See 10 Penn. St. 157; 2 Pick. Mass. 448; 4 N. II. 450; 6 id. 567; 5 Ohio St. 545; 3 Wend. N.Y. 267; 2 Vt. 573; 6 id. 580; 5 Day, Conn. 363; 3 T. B. Monr. Ky. 63. [Note: The keeping of a transcript of the court proceedings does NOT establish that court as a true “court of record”. ONLY a court operating under Common Law can be a true “court of record” in which either the plaintiff or jury can act as the tribunal.]

“The Common-Law Record consists of the Process, the Pleadings, the Verdict and the Judgment. After Judgment, such Errors were Reviewable by Writ of Error. Errors which occurred at the Trial were not part of the Common-Law Record, and could be Reviewed by a Motion for a New Trial, after Verdict and before Judgment; by Statute, such Errors could be Reviewed after judgment by incorporating them into the Record by means of a Bill of Exceptions. It was therefore essential to keep clearly in mind the distinction between Matter of Record and Matter of Exception.

“UNDER the ancient practice, the Proceedings in a litigated case were Entered upon the Parchment Roll, and when this was completed, the end product became known as the Common-Law Record. It consisted of Four Parts, the Process, which included the Original Writ and the Return of the Sheriff, by which the Court acquired Jurisdiction over the defendant; the Pleadings, presented by the Parties in the prescribed order to develop an Issue of Law or of Fact, and which included the Declaration and all subsequent Pleadings, together with the Demurrers, if any; the Verdict; and the Judgment. These Four Elements formed the Common-Law Record, but it should be observed that at the point where the Retrospective Motions come into play, the Record has not been developed beyond the Stage of Entering the Verdict upon the Roll. At this point it should also be recalled that between the time when the Pleadings Terminated in an Issue, which Joinder in Issue was duly Recorded on the Parchment Roll, and the time when an Entry of the Verdict was made, nothing was Recorded on the Parchment Roll. The reason for this was that between the Joinder of Issue and the Rendition of the Verdict, the Trial takes place, and what occurs during this Trial does not Appear upon the Face of the Common-Law Record. Thus, Offers and Rejection of Evidence, the Court’s Instruction of the Jury, or its Refusal to Instruct as requested by Counsel, or any Misconduct Connected with the Trial, such as Prejudicial Remarks on the Part of the Court, and the like—that is—any Error that occurs at the Trial—cannot be corrected by resort to the Common-Law Record because not Apparent Upon its Face. Such Errors were preserved only in the notes made by the Presiding Judge, or in his memory, and were reviewable, after Verdict and before Final Judgment, by a Motion for New Trial made before the Court En Banc at Westminster, within four days after the Commencement of the Next Term following the Rendition of the Verdict. As each of the Judges of the Court had Motions of a similar character coming up for decision from the Trials over which they had presided, the natural inclination of each Judge was to support the Rulings of his brother Jurists, and thus Overrule the Motion for a New Trial. Furthermore, Errors that occurred at the Trial were not Reviewable after Judgment on Writ of Error, because Not Apparent on any one of the Four Parts of the Common-Law Record. To remedy this Defect, Parliament enacted Chapter 31 of the Statute of Westminster II in 1285,6 which provided for Review of such Errors through the use of what came to be known as a Bill of Exceptions.

“Thus, it appears that in four out of five Retrospective Motions, the Court is permitted to consider only Defects Apparent Upon the Face of Part of the Common-Law Record—the Process, the Pleadings, and the Verdict—and Errors Occurring at the Trial were regarded as extraneous and not to be considered in rendering Judgment upon the Motions. Matters extraneous to or outside of the Record could be tested after Verdict and before Judgment only by a Motion for a New Trial. A distinction is made between Matter of Record and Matter of Exception, Matter of Record referring to those Errors Apparent upon the Face of the Common-Law Record and hence Reviewable after Final Judgment upon a Writ of Error, and Matter of Exception referring to those Errors which Occurred at the Trial, and were Not Apparent on the Face of the Common-Law Record, hence Reviewable after Final Judgment only by incorporating such Errors into the Record by means of a Bill of Exceptions, as authorized by Chapter 31 of the Statute of Westminster II in 1285.”
Koffler: Common Law Pleading 567-568

Proceedings in courts of chancery are said not to be, strictly speaking, records; but they are so considered. Gresley, Ev. 101. And see 8 Mart. La. N. S. 303; 1 Rawle, Penn. 381; 8 Yorg. Tenn. 142; 1 Pet. C. C. 352.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 14th Ed. (1870)


In practice. A memorandum of what takes place in court, made by authority of the court. From these minutes the record is afterwards made up.

Toulier says they are so called because the writing in which they were originally was small; that the word is derived from the Latin minuta (scriptura), in opposition to copies which were delivered to the parties, and which were always written in a larger hand. 8 Toullier, n. 413.

Minutes are not considered as any part of the record. 1 Ohio, 268. See 23 Pick. Mass. 184.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 14th Ed. (1870)

MINUTE BOOK: A book kept by the clerk or prothonotary of a court, in which minutes of its proceedings are entered.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 14th Ed. (1870)


A court of record is a “superior court.”

A court not of record is an “inferior court.”

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

Criminal courts proceed according to statutory law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court.

“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former, none in favor of those of the latter, and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

The decisions of a superior court may only be challenged in a court of appeal.

The decisions of an inferior court are subject to collateral attack. In other words, in a superior court one may sue an inferior court directly, rather than resort to appeal to an appelate court.

Decision of a court of record may not be appealed.
It is binding on ALL other courts.

However, no statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)] – U.S. Supreme Court

Also see Counterclaim Notes



What is a court?


This article is about the substantive definition of a court. For form, legal, and dictionary definitions, see Court of Record Most attorneys will tell you that a court is a forum where litigants may take problems for resolution. Others will tell you that the terms “court” and “judge” are interchangeable. Then there are the various dictionary definitions. But, here is the real substance of a court:

A court is a stage
upon which the sovereign conducts his show
so as to satisfy the rest of the world that his decision is a good one.

The modern concept of a court is based on the ancient English traditions. To best understand it, imagine how things were in the 12th century. The king was the sovereign. On his throne by Divine Right, he was the source of all law. So went the theory. But the king was as vulnerable to death as was anyone else.

Consider this scenario:

The king is sitting on his throne, gazing out the window, surveilling his kingdom. He notices one of the knaves stealing oranges from his favorite orange tree. No problem. Guards are summoned and instructed to incarcerate the knave for a month in the castle dungeon.

There you have all the elements of basic court procedure: jurisdiction, evidence, accusation, judgment, punishment. The king had the jurisdiction; he had personally seen the violation of his rules (the evidence), then he rendered and executed the judgment. Theoretically, that is all that is needed.

As a practical matter, there is more to the story.

In this case the criminal’s brother happens to be the king’s chief cook. The cook takes a day off to visit the dungeon. The prisoner complains about the injustice of it all, that he meant no harm, that he didn’t do it, and that the king was totally unfair. Mr. Cook, enraged by his brother’s story, promises to help. That evening the king dies from a slight overdose of arsenic (that’s how the nobility solved problems in those days).

The arsenic factor is what led to our modern court system. The royalty of that period realized that they were vulnerable, so they devised a trial system which would encourage others to not take it out on the king. This resulted in a

new scenario:

The king is sitting on his throne, gazing out the window, surveilling his kingdom. He notices that one of the knaves is stealing oranges from his favorite orange tree. No problem. He summons the guards and instructs them to bring the knave before the court. Papers are drawn up and a formal accusation is published for the world to see. A future date is set, and the knave is given an opportunity to round up defensive evidence and witnesses as well as a king-trained, tested, and licensed defense attorney.

On the appointed day, the king’s representative publicly announces the accusations, the defendant publicly states his innocence and the reasons therefor. Great argument is heard for both sides, and the king renders his judgment: 30 dungeon days. Attending the trial are the various court officers: judge, counsellors, marshall, court reporter, court jester, court clerk, and the various courtiers who invariably attach themselves to the seat of power. Among them all is the prisoner’s brother, the king’s chief cook.

On visiting day at the dungeon, the criminal complains on deaf ears. Brother chief cook says, “Sorry Bro. I was at the trial. I saw the evidence, I saw that you had an opportunity to defend, and I saw that the judgment was according to law. Even if the judgment was in error, the procedure was fair. There is nothing I can do for you.”

The king’s show was a success! Because of public judicial procedure he is guaranteed a long arsenic-free life, even though there was no difference in the final outcome.

In the first scenario the king acted according to theory. In the second scenario the king acted with prudent life-extending considerations.

Modern courts

Modern court procedure still adheres to the traditions of the past. You can see this in the various rules, statutes, and canons. For example, in Canon 2 of the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT it is well understood that “A judge shall comply with the law and should act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” There is no specific requirement that he actually have integrity and impartiality beyond that minimum required by law; only that the judge should act in a manner that promotes that image.

Maintaining image while protecting sovereign interests is probably the most important function of a court. The actual effectiveness of a government court in meting out justice has been questioned. Spend a day in any traffic court and you will get the full flavor of how the courts protect sovereign interests as they put on a show of procedural propriety.


Subject: NISI PRIUS COURT (is a “court of no record”)  “George H. Cullins” wrote: > Black’s Law Dictionary defines Nisi Prius Courts as:> > “The nisi prius courts are such as are held for the trial of issues of fact> before a jury and one presiding judge. In America the phrase was formerly> used to denote the forum (whatever may be its statutory name) in which the> cause was tried to a jury, as distinguished from the appellate court.”> > To me, that says the nisi prius court is a TRIAL COURT, which of course is> where the FACTS of a case are discovered.> > Thornton says a nisi prius court is a “court of no record.” But a record > is kept in a trial court  =============================================================================== Bill Thornton replies: On the surface of it, your doubts are reasonable. I’ll do my best toexplain nisi prius courts, courts of record, and courts of no record. First, the mere keeping of a record does not qualify any court to be acourt of record. Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, contributes tothe confusion by listing only two of the four requirements for a courtto qualify as a court of record. If you want the full explanation, see InCalifornia, all courts are named as courts of record. However, if in anindividual case they are not operated as courts of record, then theydon’t qualify as such. It takes more than a name to make a court ofrecord. Even though a court may be keeping a record, it is a court ofno record if it does not conform to the remaining three requirements fora lawful court of record. Black’s Law Dictionary’s omissions are subtle. But, if you look deepenough, you can recombine the information and get to the real meaning ofterms such as “nisi prius”. “Nisi prius” is a Latin term. Individually, the words mean thus:    “Prius” means “first.” For example, “Prius vitiis laboravimus, nunclegibus” means “We labored first with vices, now with laws.” Quotedfrom Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition.    “Nisi” means “unless.” Quoting from B.L.D., 5th Ed.: “The word isoften affixed as a kind of elliptical expression, to the words ‘rule,”order,’ ‘decree,’ ‘judgment,’ or ‘confirmation,’ to indicate that theadjudication spoken of is one which is to stand as valid and operativeunless the party affected by it shall appear and show cause against it,or take some other appropriate step to avoid it or procure itsrevocation.” A rule of procedure in courts is that if a party fails to object tosomething, then it means he agrees to it. A nisi procedure is aprocedure to which a person has failed to object (show cause) andtherefore it follows that the person agrees to it. Or, conforming tothe format in the preceding paragraph, a nisi procedure is a procedureto which a party agrees UNLESS he objects or shows causeA “nisi prius” procedure is a procedure to which a party FIRST agreesUNLESS he objects. A “nisi prius court” is a court which will proceed unless a partyobjects. The agreement to proceed is obtained from the parties first. It is a matter of right that one may demand to be tried in a court ofrecord. By sheer definition, that means that the court must proceedaccording to the common law (NOT the statutory law). The only way thata court can suspend that right is by the prior agreement of theparties. For tactical reasons the state prefers to proceed according tostatutory law rather than common law. The only way it can do that is toobtain the prior agreement from the parties. That is the primary (buthidden) purpose of the arraignment procedure. During arraignment thecourt offers three choices for pleading (guilty, not guilty, nolocontendre). But all three choices lead to the same jurisdiction, namelya statutory jurisdiction, not a common law jurisdiction. That is tosay, the question to be decided is whether or not the statute wasviolated, not whether the common law was violated. The dictionary does not lie in its definition of a nisi prius court.But it does omit some important information. Namely, that it is a courtthat has been set up by prior agreement assumed because when the threestatutory options [guilty, not guilty, nolo contendre] were presentedto the defendant he chose one. He thus failed to enforce his right to beprosecuted in a court of record. Once the agreement (as evidenced in the arraignment proceeding) has beensecured, the court proceeds under statutory authority. Now the courtceases to be a court of record and becomes a court of no record by priorlack of objection, i.e. by prior agreement implied by failure to object.. Naturally, after securing the agreement, a nisi prius court can move onto examine the facts with a judge and jury, etc. etc. George H. Cullins wrote: > Mr. Thornton says that the murderers have entered into a contract to go> outside the rules of the “codes” even though they don’t know it. Since a> contract is an AGREEMENT between two or more people, how can a contract be> made without the parties knowing about it. Bill Thornton replies: Yes. If the party never objects, then he must have agreed. Surely youhave heard of appeals that were lost because objection was not timelymade. The appellate court treats unopposed actions by the trial courtas if those actions were agreed to by the party who untimely objected. George H. Cullins wrote: > He says the Penal Codes are not the “law.” My understanding is that the law> is the statutes (codes) plus the law made by appellate judges every time they> make a decision. So if the Penal Code is not the law, what is? Bill Thornton replies: When the word “law” is used without qualification, then it means commonlaw. An “attorney at law” means one who practices common law(notwithstanding the fact that modern attorneys are not trained about thesubject). An “attorney in equity” is one who practices before an equitycourt. In the U.S. 99.99999% of all proceedings are in equity, which iswhy the judges may take liberties. Statutes are expressions of will from the legislature. To keep youconfused, they append the word “law” to it. Naturally, you are supposedto then believe that statutory law is the same as and equal to commonlaw (it isn’t). Codes are nothing more than a collection of statutesand other rules arranged by subject instead of being arranged by date.Law beats statutes; statutes beat codes. A judge exercises his discretion. Because he is authorized by thestatutes to exercise his discretion, most appeals of judges’ decisionswill fail. The appellate courts generally will not second guess a trialcourt’s use of discretion. In a court of record, a judge has NO discretion. Discretion is reserved to the independent tribunal.


A court of record is a “superior court.”

A court not of record is an “inferior court.”

“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

Criminal courts proceed according to statutory law
. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to statutory law is not a “court of record” (which only proceeds according to common law); it is an inferior court.

“The only inherent difference ordinarily recognized between superior and inferior courts is that there is a presumption in favor of the validity of the judgments of the former (superior), none in favor of those of the latter (inferior), and that a superior court may be shown not to have had power to render a particular judgment by reference to its record. Ex parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212. Note, however, that in California ‘superior court’ is the name of a particular court. But when a court acts by virtue of a special statute conferring jurisdiction in a certain class of cases, it is a court of inferior or limited jurisdiction for the time being, no matter what its ordinary status may be. Heydenfeldt v. Superior Court, 117 Cal. 348, 49 Pac. 210; Cohen v. Barrett, 5 Cal. 195” 7 Cal. Jur. 579

The decisions of a superior court may only be challenged in a court of appeal.

The decisions of an inferior court are subject to collateral attack. In other words, in a superior court one may sue an inferior court directly, rather than resort to appeal to an appelate court.

Decision of a court of record may not be appealed.
It is binding on ALL other courts.

However, NO statutory or constitutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. “The judgment of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it.” Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203. [cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218, 255 (1973)]

Also see Counterclaim Notes


Habeas Corpus: History and Definition

There are two definitions for habeas corpus: one formal and the other substantive. The formal definition may be found in any law dictionary. This essay is about the substantive definition. The substantive definiton of habeas corpus is not found in the dictionaries, but rather, in the history books.

In the early days (before Magna Carta), the king had many court systems operating: e.g. courts of Common Pleas, Exchequer, King’s Bench, Chancery, etc. Each court had its jurisdiction defined. Of course, as an arm of government, courts are simply another form of bureaucracy with assigned functions. Like any bureaucracy, they always want to expand their jurisdictions. If a court exceeded its jurisdiction, a person could go to the proper court that should have had jurisdiction, and ask for an order directing the errant court stop its proceedings and release jurisdiction to the proper court. The phrase, “habeas corpus,” meaning, “you have the body” was put at the end of pleadings to the second court asking that the first court be required to produce the body if it was being held. In its most common form, the full formal phrase for habeas corpus was “habeas corpus ad subjiciendum.”

Of course, as you might surmise, that would pit one court bureaucracy against another. The Habeas Corpus worked quite well because, as long as the defendant was not a common enemy to both bureaucracies, one bureaucracy would not miss any opportunity to put down a competing bureacracy. The practical result of all this is that the defendant would often be ordered released, which was the second court’s way of telling the first court that it didn’t know what it was doing and had strayed from it’s original jurisdiction (i.e. exceeded jurisdiction). The habeas corpus, as a by-product of bureaucratic turf protection, tended to serve personal liberty well. Over the centuries it became known as the “Great Writ of Liberty.” It was the only known privilege or right that became stronger with the passage of time.

In summary, habeas corpus is the process of one court sitting in judgment of another court’s jurisdiction. It is NOT a civil or criminal proceeding, but rather it is a family fight between courts. That is why, even though you find habeas corpus rules in the civil procedure books ( FRCP and Calif CCP) the procedures stand somewhat alone, independent of the rest of the procedures in those codes. The reason is obvious: Why would a court burden itself with procedural requirements? That stuff is ok for outsiders not part of the court system (i.e. plaintiffs, defendants, and attorneys) but not ok for judges themselves.

In America, everyone can be sovereign. When you move for habeas corpus, you are activating your own court, which is separate and distinct from their court. You sit in judgment of the jurisdiction of their court. When you order them to produce the injured party and to demonstrate the injury, and when they fail to produce, then your court can issue an order to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. Your court is a court of record and takes precedence over the statutory court.

Also, see Congressional Research Service’s Overview on Habeas Corpus.


This document is a bridge between the Constitutional protection of one’s access to the common law, and the Magna Carta. The modern value of the following is that it links the Magna Carta to the Common Law. The U.S. Constitution guarantees one’s access to the Common Law, i.e. the Magna Carta. (See the next to last line of the first paragraph.)


October 10, 1297

EDWARD, by the grace of God, King of England, Lord of Ireland, and Duke of Guian[27], to all those that these present letters shall hear or see, greeting. Know ye that we, to the honour of God and of Holy Church, and to the profit of our realm, have granted for us and our heirs, that the Charter of liberties, and the Charter of the forest[28], which were made by common assent of all the realm, in the time of King HENRY our father, shall be kept in every point without breach. (2) And we will that the same charters shall be sent under our seal, as well to our justices of the forest, as to others, and to all sheriffs of shires, and to all our other officers, and to all our cities throughout the realm, together with our writs, in the which it shall be contained, that they cause the foresaid charters to be published, and to declare to the people that we have confirmed them in all points; (3) and that our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law[*] and the Charter of the forest, for the wealth of our realm.

  1. AND we will, That if any judgement be given from henceforth contrary to the points of the charters aforesaid by the justices, or by any other our ministers that hold plea before them against the points of the charters, it shall be undone, and holden for nought.
  2. AND we will, That the same charters shall be sent, under our seal, to cathedral churches throughout our realm, there to remain, and shall be read before the people two times by the year.
  3. AND that all archbishops and bishops shall pronounce the sentence of excommunication against all those that by word, deed, or counsel do contrary to the foresaid charters, or that in any point break or undo them. (2) and that the said curses be twice a year denounced and published by the prelates aforesaid. (3) And if the said prelates, or any of them, be remiss in the denunciation of the said sentences, the archbishops of Canterbury and York for the time being shall compel and distrein them to the execution of their duties in form aforesaid.
  4. AND for so much as divers people of our realm are in fear that the aids and tasks[29] which they have given to us beforetime towards our wars and other business, of their own grant and good will (howsoever they were made) might turn to a bondage to them and their heirs, because they might be at another time found in the rolls, and likewise for the prises taken throughout the realm by our ministers: (2) We have granted for us and our heirs, that we shall not draw such aids, tasks, nor prises into a custom, for any thing that hath been done heretofore, be it by roll or any other precedent that may be founden.
  5. Moreover we have granted for us and our heirs, as well to archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and other folk of holy church, as also to earls, barons, and to all the communalty of the land, that for no business from henceforth we shall take such manner of aids, tasks, nor prises, but by the common assent of the realm, and for the common profit thereof, saving the ancient aids, and prises due and accustomed.
  6. AND for so much as the more part of the communalty of the realm find themselves sore grieved with the maletent of wools, that is to wit, a toll of forty shillings for every sack of wool, and have made petition to us to release the same; We at their requests have yearly released it, and have for granted us and our heirs, that we shall not take such things without their common assent and good will, saving to us and our heirs the custom of wools, skins, and leather, granted before by the communalty aforesaid. In witness of which things we have caused these our letters to be made patents. Witness EDWARD our son at London the tenth day of October, the five and twentieth year of our reign.


[26] 25 Edw. i, c. i. Danby Pickering (ed.), Statutes at Large (Cambridge, 1726-1807), I, 273-75.

[27] Aquitaine, the territory in southwestern France.

[28] The Charter of the Forest was issued in 1217, early in the reign of Henry III, as a supplement to Magna Carta. It was confirmed by him in 1225. Some of the provisions omitted in the reissues of Magna Carta which relate to forest matters appeared in the Charter of the Forest.

[29] “Aids,” “tasks,” and “prises” were forms of taxation.


The above is quoted from “Sources of Our Liberties” Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation; distributed by Associated College Presses, 32 Washington Place, New York 3, New York.

[*] This reaffirms that the Magna Carta may be pleaded as the Common Law before a court.

Go to Confirmatio Cartarum Interpretation






“The power of the United States to tax is limited to persons, property, and business within their jurisdiction, as much as that of a state is limited to the same subjects within its jurisdiction.” — Supreme Court Justice Fields

by Attorney Lowell H. “Larry” Becraft Jr.




In the United States, there are two separate and distinct jurisdictions, one being that of the States within their own territorial boundaries and the other being federal jurisdiction. Broadly speaking, state jurisdiction encompasses the legislative power to regulate, control and govern real and personal property, individuals and enterprises within the territorial limits of any given State. In contrast, federal jurisdiction is extremely limited, with the same being exercised only in areas external to state legislative power and territory. Notwithstanding the clarity of this simple principle, the line of demarcation between these two jurisdictions and the extent and reach of each has become somewhat blurred due to popular misconceptions and the efforts expended by the federal government to conceal one of its major weaknesses. Only by resorting to history and case law can this obfuscation be clarified and the two distinct jurisdictions be readily seen.

The original thirteen colonies of America were each separately established by charters from the English Crown. Outside of the common bond of each being a dependency and colony of the mother country, England, the colonies were not otherwise united. Each had its own governor, legislative assembly and courts, and each was governed separately and independently by the English Parliament.

The political connections of the separate colonies to the English Crown and Parliament descended to an rebellious state of affairs as the direct result of Parliamentary acts adopted in the late 1760’s and early 1770’s. Due to the real and perceived dangers caused by these various acts, the First Continental Congress was convened by representatives of the several colonies in October, 1774, and its purpose was to submit a petition of grievances to the British Parliament and Crown. By the Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress, dated October 14, 1774, the colonial representatives labeled these Parliamentary acts of which they complained as “impolitic, unjust, and cruel, as well as unconstitutional, and most dangerous and destructive of American rights;” but further, they asserted that these acts manifested designs, schemes and plans “which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America.”

Matters grew worse and between October, 1775, and the middle of 1776, each of the colonies separately severed their ties and relations with England, and several adopted constitutions for the newly formed States. By July, 1776, the exercise of British authority in all of the colonies was not recognized in any degree. The capstone of this actual separation of the colonies from England was the more formal Declaration of Independence.

The legal effect of the Declaration of Independence was to make each new State a separate and independent sovereign over which there was no other government of superior power or jurisdiction. This was clearly shown in M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), where it was held:

  • “This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

The consequences of independence was again explained in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526, 527 (1827), where the Supreme Court stated:

  • “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

“[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

Thus, unequivocally, in July, 1776, the new States possessed all sovereignty, power, and jurisdiction over all the soil and persons in their respective territorial limits.

This condition of supreme sovereignty of each State over all property and persons within the borders thereof continued notwithstanding the adoption of the Articles of Confederation. Article II of that document declared:

  • “Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

As the history of the confederation government demonstrated, each State was indeed sovereign and independent to such a degree that it made the central government created by the confederation fairly ineffectual. These defects of the confederation government strained the relations between and among the States and the remedy became the calling of a constitutional convention.

The representatives which assembled in Philadelphia in May, 1787, to attend the Constitutional Convention met for the primary purpose of improving the commercial relations among the States, although the product of the Convention was more than this. But, no intention was demonstrated for the States to surrender in any degree the jurisdiction so possessed by them at that time, and indeed the Constitution as finally drafted continued the same territorial jurisdiction of the States as existed under the Articles of Confederation. The essence of this retention of state jurisdiction was embodied in Art. I, ¤ 8, cl. 17 of the U.S. Constitution, which defined federal jurisdiction as follows:

  • “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”

The reason for the inclusion of this clause in the Constitution is obvious. Under the Articles of Confederation, the States retained full and complete jurisdiction over lands and persons within their borders. The Congress under the Articles of Confederation was merely a body which represented and acted as agents of the separate States for external affairs, and it had no jurisdiction within the States. This defect in the Articles made the Confederation Congress totally dependent upon any given State for protection, and this dependency did in fact cause embarrassment for that Congress. During the Revolutionary War while the Congress met in Philadelphia, a body of mutineers from the Continental Army surrounded the Congress and chastised and insulted its members. The governments of both Philadelphia and Pennsylvania proved themselves powerless to remedy this situation, so Congress was forced to flee first to Princeton, New Jersey, and finally to Annapolis, Maryland.[1] Thus, this clause was inserted into the Constitution to give jurisdiction to Congress over its capital, and such other places which Congress might purchase for forts, magazines, arsenals and other needful buildings wherein the State ceded jurisdiction of such lands to the federal government. Other than in these areas, this clause of the Constitution did not operate to cede further jurisdiction to the federal government, and jurisdiction over those areas which had not been so ceded remained within the States.

While there had been no real provisions in the Articles which permitted the Confederation Congress to acquire property and possess exclusive jurisdiction over that property, the above clause filled an essential need by permitting the federal government to acquire land for the seat of government and other purposes from certain of the States. These lands were deemed essential to enable the United States to perform the powers delegated by the Constitution, and a cession of lands by any particular State would grant exclusive jurisdiction of them to Congress. Perhaps the best explanations for this clause in the Constitution were set forth in Essay No. 43 of The Federalist:

  • “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity, but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government for protection in the exercise of their duty might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight as the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the stationary residence of the government would be both too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a single State, and would create so many obstacles to a removal of the government, as still further to abridge its necessary independence. The extent of this federal district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every jealousy of an opposite nature. And as it is to be appropriated to this use with the consent of the State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in the compact for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in the cession will be derived from the whole people of the State in their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to be obviated.

“The necessity of a like authority over forts, magazines, etc., established by the general government, is not less evident. The public money expended on such places, and the public property deposited in them, require that they should be exempt from the authority of the particular State. Nor would it be proper for the places on which the security of the entire Union may depend to be in any degree dependent on a particular member of it. All objections and scruples are here also obviated by requiring the concurrence of the States concerned in every such establishment.”

Since the ratification of the present U.S. Constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court and all lower courts have had many opportunities to construe and apply this clause of the Constitution. The essence of all these decisions manifests a legal principle that the States of this nation have exclusive jurisdiction of property and persons located within their borders, excluding such lands and persons residing thereon which have been ceded to the United States.

Perhaps one of the earliest decisions on this point was United States v. Bevans, 16 U.S. (3 Wheat.) 336 (1818), which involved a federal prosecution for a murder committed on board the Warship, Independence, anchored in the harbor of Boston, Massachusetts. The defense complained that only the state had jurisdiction to prosecute this crime and argued that the federal circuit courts had no jurisdiction of this crime supposedly committed within the federal government’s admiralty jurisdiction. In argument before the Supreme Court, counsel for the United States admitted as much:

  • “The exclusive jurisdiction which the United States have in forts and dock-yards ceded to them, is derived from the express assent of the states by whom the cessions are made. It could be derived in no other manner; because without it, the authority of the state would be supreme and exclusive therein,” Id., at 350-51.

In holding that the State of Massachusetts had jurisdiction over this crime, the Supreme Court of the United States held:

  • “What, then, is the extent of jurisdiction which a state possesses?
  • “We answer, without hesitation, the jurisdiction of a state is co-extensive with its territory; co-extensive with its legislative power,” Id., at 386-87.
  • “The article which describes the judicial power of the United States is not intended for the cession of territory or of general jurisdiction… Congress has power to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over this district, [Washington, D.C.] and over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings.

“It is observable that the power of exclusive legislation (which is jurisdiction) is united with cession of territory, which is to be the free act of the states. It is difficult to compare the two sections together, without feeling a conviction, not to be strengthened by any commentary on them, that, in describing the judicial power, the framers of our constitution had not in view any cession of territory; or, which is essentially the same, of general jurisdiction,” Id., at 388.

The Supreme Court in Bevans thus established a principle that federal jurisdiction extends only over the areas [of land within the states] wherein it possesses the power of exclusive legislation, and this is a principle incorporated into all subsequent decisions regarding the extent of federal jurisdiction. To hold otherwise would destroy the purpose, intent and meaning of the entire U.S. Constitution.

The decision in Bevans was closely followed by decisions made in two state courts and one federal court within the next two years. In Commonwealth v. Young, Brightly, N.P. 302, 309 (Pa. 1818), the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania was presented with the issue of whether lands owned by the United States for which Pennsylvania had never ceded jurisdiction had to be sold pursuant to state law. In deciding that the law of Pennsylvania exclusively controlled this sale of federal land, the Court held:

  • “The legislation and authority of congress is confined to cessions by particular states for the seat of government, and purchases made by consent of the legislature of the state, for the purpose of erecting forts. The legislative power and exclusive jurisdiction remained in the several states, of all territory within their limits, not ceded to, or purchased by, congress, with the assent of the state legislature, to prevent the collision of legislation and authority between the United States and the several states.”

A year later, the Supreme Court of New York was presented with the issue of whether the State of New York had jurisdiction over a murder committed at Fort Niagara, a federal fort. In People v. Godfrey, 17 Johns. 225, 233 (N.Y. 1819), that court held that the fort was subject to the jurisdiction of the State since the lands therefore had not been ceded to the United States:

  • “To oust this state of its jurisdiction to support and maintain its laws, and to punish crimes, it must be shown that an offense committed within the acknowledged limits of the state, is clearly and exclusively cognizable by the laws and courts of the United States. In the case already cited, Chief Justice Marshall observed, that to bring the offense within the jurisdiction of the courts of the union,[federal courts] it must have been committed out of the jurisdiction of any state; it is not (he says,) the offence committed, but the place in which it is committed, which must be out of the jurisdiction of the state.”

The decisional authority upon which this court relied was United States v. Bevans, supra.

At about the same time that the New York Supreme Court rendered its opinion in Godfrey, a similar fact situation was before a federal court, the only difference being that the murder was committed on land which had been ceded to the United States. In United States v. Cornell, 25 Fed.Cas. 646, 648, No. 14,867 (C.C.D.R.I. 1819), the court held that the case fell within federal jurisdiction:

  • “But although the United States may well purchase and hold lands for public purposes, within the territorial limits of a state, this does not of itself oust the jurisdiction or sovereignty of such State over the lands so purchased. It remains until the State has relinquished its authority over the land either expressly or by necessary implication.

“When therefore a purchase of land for any of these purposes is made by the national government, and the State Legislature has given its consent to the purchase, the land so purchased by the very terms of the constitution ipso facto falls within the exclusive legislation of Congress, and the State jurisdiction is completely ousted.”

Almost 18 years later, the U.S. Supreme Court was again presented with a case involving the distinction between state and federal jurisdiction. In New Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662, 737 (1836), the United States claimed title to property in New Orleans likewise claimed by the city. After holding that title to the subject lands was owned by the city, the Court addressed the question of federal jurisdiction:

  • “Special provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from the States over places where the federal government shall establish forts or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in the territories of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction.”

In New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837), the question before the Court involved an attempt by the City of New York to assess penalties against the master of a ship for his failure to make a report regarding the persons his ship brought to New York. As against the master’s contention that the act was unconstitutional and that New York had no jurisdiction in the matter, the Court held:

  • “If we look at the place of its operation, we find it to be within the territory, and, therefore, within the jurisdiction of New York. If we look at the person on whom it operates, he is found within the same territory and jurisdiction,” Id., at 133.

“They are these: that a State has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things within its territorial limits, as any foreign nation, where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States. That, by virtue of this, it is not only the right, but the bounden and solemn duty of a State, to advance the safety, happiness and prosperity of its people, and to provide for its general welfare, by any and every act of legislation which it may deem to be conducive to these ends; where the power over the particular subject, or the manner of its exercise is not surrendered or restrained, in the manner just stated. That all those powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what may, perhaps, more properly be called internal police, are not thus surrendered or restrained; and that, consequently, in relation to these, the authority of a State is complete, unqualified and exclusive,” Id., at 139.

Some eight years later in Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S. (3 How.) 212 (1845), the question of federal jurisdiction was once again before the Court. This case involved a real property title dispute with one of the parties claiming a right to the contested property via a U.S. patent; the lands in question were situated in Mobile, Alabama, adjacent to Mobile Bay. In discussing the subject of federal jurisdiction, the Court held:

  • “We think a proper examination of this subject will show that the United States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of soil in and to the territory, of which Alabama or any of the new States were formed,” Id., at 221.

“[B]ecause, the United States have no constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction, sovereignty, or eminent domain, within the limits of a State or elsewhere, except in the cases in which it is expressly granted,” Id., at 223.

“Alabama is therefore entitled to the sovereignty and jurisdiction over all the territory within her limits, subject to the common law,” Id., at 228-29.

The single most important case regarding the subject of federal jurisdiction appears to be Fort Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 531, 5 S.Ct. 995 (1885), which sets forth the law on this point fully. Here, the railroad company property which passed through the Fort Leavenworth federal enclave was being subjected to taxation by Kansas, and the company claimed an exemption from state taxation because its property was within federal jurisdiction and outside that of the state. In holding that the railroad company’s property could be taxed, the Court carefully explained federal jurisdiction within the States:

  • “The consent of the states to the purchase of lands within them for the special purposes named, is, however, essential, under the constitution, to the transfer to the general government, with the title, of political jurisdiction and dominion. Where lands are acquired without such consent, the possession of the United States, unless political jurisdiction be ceded to them in some other way, is simply that of an ordinary proprietor. The property in that case, unless used as a means to carry out the purposes of the government, is subject to the legislative authority and control of the states equally with the property of private individuals.”

Thus the cases decided within the 19th century clearly disclosed the extent and scope of both State and federal jurisdiction. In essence, these cases, among many others, hold that the jurisdiction of any particular State is co-extensive with its borders or territory, and all persons and property located or found therein are subject to that jurisdiction; this jurisdiction is superior. Federal jurisdiction results from a conveyance of state jurisdiction to the federal government for lands owned or otherwise possessed by the federal government, and thus federal jurisdiction is extremely limited in nature. There is no federal jurisdiction if there be no grant or cession of jurisdiction by the State to the federal government. Therefore, federal territorial jurisdiction exists only in Washington, D.C., the federal enclaves within the States, and the territories and insular possessions of the United States.

The above principles of jurisdiction established in the last century continue their vitality today with only one minor exception. In the last century, the cessions of jurisdiction by States to the federal government were by legislative acts which typically ceded full jurisdiction to the federal government, thus placing in the hands of the federal government the troublesome problem of dealing with and governing scattered, localized federal enclaves which had been totally surrendered by the States. With the advent in this century of large federal works projects and national parks, the problems regarding management of these areas by the federal government were magnified. During the last century, it was thought that if a State ceded jurisdiction to the federal government, the cession granted full and complete jurisdiction. But with the ever increasing number of separate tracts of land falling within the jurisdiction of the federal government in this century, it was obviously determined by both federal and state public officials that the States should retain greater control over these ceded lands, and the courts have acknowledged the constitutionality of varying degrees of state jurisdiction and control over lands so ceded.

One of the first cases to acknowledge the proposition that a State could retain some jurisdiction over property ceded to the federal government was Surplus Trading Co. v. Cook, 281 U.S. 647, 50 S.Ct. 455 (1930). Here, a state attempt to assess an ad valorem tax on Army blankets located within a federal army camp was found invalid and beyond the state’s jurisdiction. But in regards to the proposition that a State could make a qualified cession of jurisdiction to the federal government, the Court held:

  • “[T]he state undoubtedly may cede her jurisdiction to the United States and may make the cession either absolute or qualified as to her may appear desirable, provided the qualification is consistent with the purposes for which the reservation is maintained and is accepted by the United States. And, where such a cession is made and accepted, it will be determinative of the jurisdiction of both the United States and the state within the reservation,” Id., at 651-52.

Two cases decided in 1937 by the U.S. Supreme Court further clarify the constitutionality of a reservation of partial state jurisdiction over lands ceded to the jurisdiction of the United States. In James v. Dravo Contracting Company, 302 U.S. 134, 58 S.Ct. 208 (1937), the State of West Virginia sought to impose a tax upon the gross receipts of the company arising from a contract which it had made with the United States to build some dams. One of the issues involved in this case was the validity of the state tax imposed on the receipts derived by the company from work performed on lands to which the State had ceded “concurrent” jurisdiction to the United States. The Court held that a State could reserve and qualify any cession of jurisdiction for lands owned by the United States; since the State had done so here, the Court upheld this part of the challenged tax notwithstanding a partial cession of jurisdiction to the U.S. A similar result occurred in Silas Mason Co. v. Tax Commission of State of Washington, 302 U.S. 186, 58 S.Ct. 233 (1937). Here, the United States was undertaking the construction of several dams on the Columbia River in Washington, and had purchased the lands necessary for the project. Silas Mason obtained a contract to build a part of the Grand Coulee Dam, but filed suit challenging the Washington income tax when that State sought to impose that tax on the contract proceeds. Mason’s argument that the federal government had exclusive jurisdiction over both the lands and its contract was not upheld by either the Supreme Court of Washington or the U.S. Supreme Court. The latter Court held that none of the lands owned by the U.S. were within its jurisdiction and thus Washington clearly had jurisdiction to impose the challenged tax; see also Wilson v. Cook, 327 U.S. 474, 66 S.Ct. 663 (1946).

Some few years later in 1943, the Supreme Court was again presented with similar taxation and jurisdiction issues; the facts in these two cases were identical with the exception that one clearly involved lands ceded to the jurisdiction of the United States. This single difference caused directly opposite results in both cases. In Pacific Coast Dairy v. Department of Agriculture of California, 318 U.S. 285, 63 S.Ct. 628 (1943), the question involved the applicability of state law to a contract entered into and performed on a federal enclave to which jurisdiction had been ceded to the United States. During World War II, California passed a law setting a minimum price for the sale of milk, and this law imposed penalties for sales made below the regulated price. Here, Pacific Coast Dairy consummated a contract on Moffett Field, a federal enclave within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, to sell milk to such federal facility at below the regulated price. When this occurred, California sought to impose a penalty for what it perceived as a violation of state law. But, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to permit the enforcement of the California law, holding that the contract was made and performed in a territory outside the jurisdiction of California and within the jurisdiction of the United States, a place where this law didn’t apply. Thus in this case, the existence of federal jurisdiction was the foundation for the decision. However, in Penn Dairies v. Milk Control Commission of Pennsylvania, 318 U.S. 261, 63 S.Ct. 617 (1943), an opposite result was reached on almost identical facts. Here, Pennsylvania likewise had a law which regulated the price of milk and penalized milk sales below the regulated price. During World War II, the United States leased some land from Pennsylvania for the construction of a military camp; since the land was leased, Pennsylvania did not cede jurisdiction to the United States. When Penn Dairies sold milk to the military facility for a price below the regulated price, the Commission sought to impose the penalty. In this case, since there was no federal jurisdiction, the Supreme Court found that the state law applied and permitted the imposition of the penalty. These two cases clearly show the different results which can occur with the presence or absence of federal jurisdiction.

A final point regarding federal jurisdiction concerns the question of when such jurisdiction ends or ceases. This issue was considered in S.R.A. v. Minnesota, 327 U.S. 558, 563-64, 66 S.Ct. 749 (1946), which involved the power of a State to tax the real property interest of a purchaser of land sold by the United States. Here, a federal post office building was sold to S.R.A. pursuant to a real estates sale contract which provided that title would pass only after the purchase price had been paid. In refuting the argument of S.R.A. that the ad valorem tax on its equitable interest in the property was really an unlawful tax on U.S. property, the Court held:

  • “In the absence of some such provisions, a transfer of property held by the United States under state cessions pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of the Constitution would leave numerous isolated islands of federal jurisdiction, unless the unrestricted transfer of the property to private hands is thought without more to revest sovereignty in the states. As the purpose of Clause 17 was to give control over the sites of governmental operations to the United States, when such control was deemed essential for federal activities, it would seem that the sovereignty of the United States would end with the reason for its existence and the disposition of the property. We shall treat this case as though the Government’s unrestricted transfer of property to non-federal hands is a relinquishment of the exclusive legislative power.”

Thus when any property within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States is no longer utilized by that government for governmental purposes, and the title or any interest therein is conveyed to private interests, the jurisdiction of the federal government ceases and jurisdiction once again reverts to the State.

The above principles regarding the distinction between State and federal jurisdiction continue today; see Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 83 S.Ct. 426 (1963), and United States v. State Tax Commission of Mississippi, 412 U.S. 363, 93 S.Ct. 2183 (1973). What was definitely decided in the beginning days of this Republic regarding the extent, scope, and reach of each of these two distinct jurisdictions remains unchanged and forms the foundation and basis for the smooth workings of state governmental systems in conjunction with the federal government. Without such jurisdictional principles which form a clear boundary between the jurisdiction of the States and the United States, our federal governmental system would have surely met its demise long before now.

In summary, the jurisdiction of the States is essentially the same as they possessed when they were leagued together under the Articles of Confederation. The confederated States possessed absolute, complete and full jurisdiction over property and persons located within their borders. It is hypocritical to assume or argue that these States, which had banished the centralized power and jurisdiction of the English Parliament and Crown over them by the Declaration of Ind