Time: Thu Dec 04 04:44:22 1997
To: 
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: America's subjection to Britain, in a nut shell - includes new information (fwd)
Cc: 
Bcc: sls
References: 

<snip>
>
>AMERICA'S SUBJECTION TO BRITAIN, IN A NUTSHELL
>
>
>     The below Compilation of facts were taken from my research
>papers and excerpts of my email responses to others.  I am trying
>to cut down on the size of the information and my commentary, to
>let the facts speak for themselves.  I am using old email since
>the facts remain the same, along with questions possessed to me.
>
>     To help in researching the below facts I have broken them
>into differnt topics.  You can do a text search of the following
>topics, or do a word search, using your word processor.
>
>1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS.
>2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS?
>3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS.
>4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM. 
>5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER.
>6. THE KING RULES BY VAGUE STATUTES.
>7. LAW OF MORTMAIN.
>8. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION WAS ABROGATED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
>
>
>1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS.
>
>     "The reason I guess no one has looked at the issue of the
>U.S. still being subject to Britain except for the Informer and
>myself up until now, can only be,  as a rule no one looks beyond
>what is a settled fact/belief or foregone conclusion.   In other
>words Independence from Britain was as settled in the minds of
>Americans as God Almighty sitting on the throne and His Son
>seated at His Right Hand." (quote from my email response)
>
>
>THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (PEACE TREATY of 1783):  
>  
>     "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.  
>  
>     It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the
>hearts  of the most serene and most potent Prince George the
>Third, by the grace of God, KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND
>IRELAND, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg,
>arch-treasurer and PRINCE ELECTOR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ETC.,
>and OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, to FORGET all past
>MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND DIFFERENCES that have unhappily interrupted
>the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish
>to RESTORE,...."
>
>"YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for
>the same, the yearly Rent of Twenty Marks of Lawful money of
>England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First
>payment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints
>which shall be in the year of Our Lord One thousand six hundred
>Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver
>Ore which, with the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time,
>happen to be found." 
>(Feast of All Saints occurred November 1 of each year.)  The
>Carolina Charter
>
>     The following quote is from section 25 of the 1776 North
>Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights.  Remember this when
>you read the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third section,
>(contained in this paper).
>
>"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."
>
>"But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title
>of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever
>claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original
>grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure
>under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to
>which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the
>lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion
>to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from
>tenants who never held under it?"
>MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70
>
> "SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion
>due to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same; and Saving
>also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our
>Subjects of the English Nation which are now Planted within the
>Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;..." The Carolina Charter,
>1663 
>
> "KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and
>mere motion, HAVE thought fit to Erect the same Tract of Ground,
>Country, and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullness of
>our Royal power and Prerogative, WE Do, for us, our heirs and
>Successors, Erect, Incorporate, and Ordain the same into a
>province, and do call it the Province of CAROLINA, and so from
>henceforth will have it called..." The Carolina Charter, 1663
>
>     "Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an
>Act of Assembly of this State passed  in 1787, to be law in this
>State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United
>States in 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the
>land.  The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part
>of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from
>each state, to whom were delegated by the articles of
>confederation, expressly, "the sole and exclusive right and power
>of entering into treaties and alliances"; and being ratified and
>made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and
>law of every state.
>     If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all
>necessary to make the treaty law here, it has been had and
>repeated. By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to
>be law in this State, and the courts of law and equity were
>enjoined to govern their decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was
>adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which
>declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under
>the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of
>the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound
>thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the
>contrary not withstanding.  Surely, then, the treaty is now law
>in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty
>interferes with it, is annulled."
>      "By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in
>April, 1777, it was, among other  things, enacted, "That all
>persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or
>who  shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded
>immediately to Great Britain or Ireland,  within ten years last
>past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or
>agents  here, or in any of the United States of America, for
>merchants residing in Great Britain or  Ireland, shall take an
>oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State."
>Treaties are the "Law of the Land"  HAMILTON v. EATEN, 1 N.C. 641
>(1796), HAMILTON v. EATEN.  2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court.
>(June Term, 1796.)
>
>     "The two main issues as I see them in British Colony are;
>one, the financial obligations of the 1213 Charter En #1, are
>still in effect, along with the Charters establishing America. 
>Two, the last sentence of the 1689 Bill of Rights En #2, proves
>the following:"
>     "That the Charters of the Colonies could never be overturned
>by a Declaration of Independence, or the 1787 treaty, otherwise
>known as the Constitution, I'm talking about the real subject
>matter, financial obligation.  Title for the land was transferred
>to the states and then ceded by Charter to the federal government
>under Cestui que trust, but the contracted debt and obligation of
>the Colonial Charters, and the 1213 Charter could not be negated. 
>Rights could be granted to the citizens, subjects or combatants,
>which ever the case may be, but the financial obligation cannot,
>nor could not be affected, because it involves parties not yet
>born.  This why King Charles I said, the 1689 Bill of Rights
>would not free the kingdom from the obligation of the 1213
>Charter.  This is why the United States Bank was given right of
>Charter in America.  George Washington had no choice but to
>succumb to the Rothchilds point man, Hamilton.  Talk about deja
>vu, I mean does this not sound familiar.  Our Bill of Rights was
>given to us, to give us the illusion of freedom.  When the tax
>obligation of the Charters above marched along un-impeded and
>un-seen, by Americans and Britons alike. Read the Magna Carta
>again, they wanted the Pope's blessing for the 1215 Charter, this
>same Pope is the Pope in the 1213 Charter where England and
>Ireland were given to him.  He could not just give back his land,
>because of other parties not yet born.  The Pope let the barons
>presume they were free and gave his blessing to the 1215 Magna
>Carta, knowing to do so would in no way lawfully overturn the
>grant made to him in the 1213 Charter.  Also, it is apparent, it
>was recognized as law that you could not even create a Charter,
>wherein you declared a previous grant or Charter null in void
>unless the relevant parties agreed.  How can a Charter be made
>void if parties to the Charter will never cease to be born, an
>heir can always be found.  To prove this, again what did the new
>king Charles I do, even though the previous monarchy had come to
>an end, its obligations did not, this is why he had to included
>paragraph III, a clause to protect the other parties of an
>earlier Charter." (The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)
>
>Endnote #1
>
>Britannia: Sources of British History  (1213)
>KING JOHN's Concession of England and Ireland to the Pope
>
>In the matter of the election and installation of Stephen Langton
>as Archbishop of Canterbury, King John, in the words of Pope
>Innocent III, had by "impious persecution", tried to "enslave"
>the entire English Church. As a result, the pope laid on England
>an interdict (1208-14), a sort of religious "strike", wherein no
>religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or innocent.
>When this didn't work, the king, himself, was excommunicated.
>Caving-in under that pressure, John wrote a letter of concession
>to the pope, hoping to have the interdict and the excommunication
>lifted (1213). John's concession which, in effect, made England a
>fiefdom of Rome, worked like a charm. The satisfied pope lifted
>lifted the yoke he had hung on the people of England and their
>king. 
>
>John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke
>of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to all the faithful of
>Christ who shall look upon this present charter, greeting. 
>
>We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter,
>furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many
>ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are
>known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not
>offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to
>the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we,
>wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for
>us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not
>induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and
>spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do
>offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and
>Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord
>pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom
>of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights
>and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those
>of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now
>receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the
>Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph,
>subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope, we perform and
>swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent,
>and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to
>the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we
>shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to
>him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in
>similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall
>be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without
>demur. As a sign, moreover, of this our own, we will and
>establish perpetual obligation and concession we will establish
>that from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid
>kingdoms, for all the service and customs which we ought to
>render for them, saving in all things the penny of St. Peter, the
>Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling,
>namely at the feast of St. Michael five hundred marks, and at
>Easter five hundred marks, seven hundred, namely, for the kingdom
>of England, and three hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, saving
>to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of
>which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have
>perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our
>successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of
>our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be,
>unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses,
>be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our
>obligation and concession shall always remain firm.
>
>
>Endnote #2
>
>
>
>Britannia: Sources of British History
>BILL of RIGHTS, 1689
>
>An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and
>Settling the Succession of the Crown 
>
>     Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons
>assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing
>all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the
>thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand
>six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their
>Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of
>William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in
>their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by
>the said Lords and Commons in the words following, 
>
>     Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of 
>divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him,
>did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion
>and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
>
>By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and 
>suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of 
>Parliament;
>
>By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly 
>petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed
>power;
>
>By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the
>great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners
>for Ecclesiastical Causes;
>
>By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of 
>prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was 
>granted by Parliament;
>
>By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in
>time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering
>soldiers contrary to law;
>
>By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed 
>at the same time when papists were both armed and employed
>contrary to law;
>
>By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in 
>Parliament;
>
>By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and 
>
>causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other
>arbitrary and illegal courses;
>
>And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons 
>have been returned and served on juries in trials, and
>particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were
>not freeholders;
>
>And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in 
>criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the
>liberty of the subjects;
>
>And excessive fines have been imposed; And illegal and cruel
>punishments inflicted; And several grants and promises made of
>fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against
>the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;
>
>     All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known
>laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;
>
>     And whereas the said late King James the Second having
>abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his
>Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God
>to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from
>popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords
>Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the
>Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and
>Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several
>counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for
>the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right
>to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the
>two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six
>hundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment as
>that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in
>danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having
>been accordingly made;
>
>     And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and
>Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections,
>being now assembled in a full and free representative of this
>nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best
>means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as
>their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the
>vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties
>declare: 
>
>That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution 
>of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is
>illegal;
>
>That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution
>of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised
>of late, is illegal;
>
>That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners 
>for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts
>of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
>
>That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of 
>prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in
>other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
>
>That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and
>all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are
>illegal;
>
>That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in 
>time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is
>against law;
>
>That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their 
>defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
>
>That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
>
>That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in 
>Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court
>or place out of Parliament;
>
>That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines 
>imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
>
>That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors 
>which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be 
>freeholders;
>
>That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of 
>particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
>
>     And that for redress of all grievances, and for the
>amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments
>ought to be held frequently.
>
>     And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular
>the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no 
>declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice
>of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be
>drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of
>their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration
>of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for
>obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.
>
>     Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness
>the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced
>by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their
>rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts
>upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords
>Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do 
>resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be
>and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and
>the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal
>dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said
>prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the
>survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the
>regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange
>in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint
>lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity
>of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body
>of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the
>Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for
>default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince
>of Orange.  And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do
>pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.
>
>     And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all
>persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be
>required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of
>allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.
>
>I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful 
>and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and
>Queen Mary.  So help me God.
>
>I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and
>abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and
>position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or
>any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by
>their subjects or any other whatsoever.  And I do declare that no
>foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought
>to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or
>authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.  So
>help me God.
>
>Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal 
>dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the 
>dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and
>desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said
>declaration.  And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the
>said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two
>Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their
>Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the
>settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom,
>so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of
>being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal
>and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly.
>
>     Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual
>and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the 
>ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and
>the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by
>the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do
>pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular
>the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said
>declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and
>liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be
>esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all
>and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly
>holden and observed as they are expressed in the said
>declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall 
>serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same
>in all time to come. 
>
>     And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons,
>seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his 
>marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to
>provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most
>happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for
>which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their
>humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in
>the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize,
>acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having
>abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the
>crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did
>become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this
>realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of 
>England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto
>belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state,
>crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles,
>titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and
>authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most
>fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united
>and annexed. 
>
>     And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm
>by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for
>preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon
>which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation
>doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords 
>Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties
>that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown
>and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all
>and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining,
>shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of
>them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and
>that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and
>government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of
>both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their
>deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the
>heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue
>to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs
>of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords
>Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the
>people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves,
>their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise
>that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said
>majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown
>herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers
>with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that
>shall attempt anything to the contrary.
>
>     And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is
>inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant
>kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or
>queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal
>and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and
>every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to
>or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall
>profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be
>excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy
>the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the
>dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to
>have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction
>within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the
>people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their
>allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to
>time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being
>Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case
>the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or
>professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that
>every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter
>shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom
>shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament
>next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her
>throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and
>Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before
>such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath
>to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath
>(which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat
>the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth
>year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, "An Act
>for the more effectual preserving the king's person and
>government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of
>Parliament."
>
>     But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or
>her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age
>of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make,
>subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her
>coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first
>Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king
>or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years.  All
>which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be 
>declared, enacted and established by authority of this present 
>Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm
>for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with
>the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and
>Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same,
>declared, enacted and established accordingly.
>
>II.  And be it further declared and enacted by the authority 
>aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament
>no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any statute or any
>part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held
>void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in
>such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially
>provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during
>this present session of Parliament.
>
>III.  Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before 
>the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord
>one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached
>or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain
>of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this
>Act had never been made.
>
>
>2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND 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 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.
>
>"Jay did not favor independence from Britain. His absence from
>the signing of the Declaration of Independence was noted by
>Thomas Jefferson."
>Copyright c 1995 by LeftJustified Publiks. All rights reserved.
>
>     "Mr. Chairman ... I rose yesterday to ask a question, which
>arose in my own mind.  When I asked the question.  I thought the
>meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this
>question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the
>States?  Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? 
>If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most
>clearly a consolidated government.  The question turns. Sir, on
>that poor little thing--the expression, We the people, instead of
>the States of America.  I need not take much pains to show, that
>the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious,
>impolitic and dangerous.  Is this a Monarchy, like England--a
>compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to
>secure the liberty of the latter?  is this a Confederacy, like
>Holland--an association of a number of independent States, each
>of which retain its individual sovereignty?...."
>Patrick Henry's speech of June 5, 1788
>
>REMEMBER THIS PREDICTION OR PATRICK HENRY, WHEN YOU SEE WHAT
>WASHINGTON DID BELOW AFTER CALLING OUT THE MILITIAS.
>
>     "....My great objection to this Government is, that it does
>not leave us the means of defending our rights: or, of waging war
>against tyrants: It is urged by some Gentlemen, that this new
>plan will bring us an acquisition of strength, an army, and the
>militia of the States: This is an idea extremely ridiculous:
>Gentlemen cannot be in earnest.  This acquisition will trample on
>your fallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that
>fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means
>of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the
>militia is put into the hands of Congress?"  
>Patrick Henry's speech of June 5, 1788
>
>     "That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is
>acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been
>a standing maxim for ages.  If it be demonstrated that the
>adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then,
>Sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow: But, Sir, if
>this be a truth that its adoption may entail misery on the free
>people of this country.  I then insist, that rejection ought to
>follow.  Gentlemen strongly urge its adoption will be a mighty
>benefit to us: But, Sir, I am made of such incredulous materials
>that assertions and declarations, do not satisfy me.  I must be
>convinced, Sir.  I shall retain my infidelity on that subject,
>till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly
>satisfactory to my understanding....."
>Patrick Henry's speech of June 7, 1788
>
>"....Consider how the only remaining defence we have left is
>destroyed in this manner; Besides the expences of maintaining the
>Senate and other House in as much splendor as they please, there
>is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive
>powers: the powers of a King: He is to be supported in
>extravagant magnificence: So that the whole of our property may
>be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they
>please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and
>suspending our laws at their pleasure: I might be thought too
>inquisitive.
>     For I never will give up the power of direct taxation, but
>for a scourge:  But I beseech Gentlemen, at all hazards, not to
>give up this unlimited power of taxation:
>Patrick Henry's speech of June 7, 1788
>
>     In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I,
>1789-1897 I discovered the following:
>Gentlemen of the Senate:
>
>     Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An
>act repealing after the last day of June next the duties
>heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and
>laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled
>within the United States, and for appropriating the same," I have
>thought fit to divide the United States into the following
>districts, namely:
>     The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of
>New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the
>State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and
>Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island
>and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to
>consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to
>consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to
>consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to
>consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania,
>to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of
>Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of
>Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of
>Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of
>North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the
>district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to
>consist of the State of the State of Georgia."Page 99 March 4,
>1791
>
>     In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he
>declares the district of Columbia to be created and it's borders
>established, he says further:
>     "And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of
>the present month of March have given further authority to the
>President of the United States...."
>
>THE FOLLOWING IS EMAIL THAT WENT WITH THE ABOVE QUOTE:
>
>     This replaced the States in Union with the District States
>in Union formally known as the States of ......This was also
>necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States,
>February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of......, but is
>actually the District State.  Subjection of the States of.....
>was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of
>war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke
>statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license
>requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied
>territory.
>     Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as
>Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now
>overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes
>the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the
>Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to
>the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place
>if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded
>by the Charter/Constitution.
>     The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress
>only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme
>authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. 
>Washington extend this District without Constitutional authority. 
>Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the
>District States.   As a result of the military rule imposed by
>Washington, District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to
>enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying
>the laws of the United States.  THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE
>WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED.
>     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? 
>Washington said he was dividing the United States into District
>States.  He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE
>STATES, not creating districts in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES
>into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you would not DIVIDE THEM,
>because the states were already divided.  How can you DIVIDE,
>SEPARATE the states, made by the state and federal
>Charters/Constitutions?  Why do this when Congress already had
>the power to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S.
>Constitution?  This was an excuse to DIVIDE the states into
>DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of
>Columbia/Congress and delegating to the President, authority
>given to Congress to suppress insurrection, under Art. I, sec. 8. 
>
>Second, the use of any military power before Congress declares
>war, by direction of the President is done by him as
>Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stop
>the President unless they impeach him, or when they declare war
>they can stop the President with their power of the purse, unless
>the President were to then declare a national emergency, as
>Commander-in-Chief, overriding Congress, in effect declaring
>himself king, or in our case anyone holding that office, which we
>now have.  I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergency powers
>claimed by the President, but unless the Judiciary declares the
>President out of line, you or I cannot change this, unless you or
>I were elected President, and declared this power
>un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to
>protect public policy.  Around and Around it goes.  Again this
>power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction,
>insular capacity, see  DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901),
>which was allowed by the Judiciary, beginning with what
>Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare
>what Congress was doing as un-Constitutional, and up to
>Washington to not take power delegated to Congress. This power
>was affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the
>1850's by the insular cases.  This created precedent for Congress
>to continue to cede power to the President, delegated to them in
>the Constitution.
>
>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."  END EMAIL
>
>
>3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS
>
>     (Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of
>Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781),
>declared "That he should not answer the trust committed to the
>sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either
>to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and
>relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the
>maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and
>security of the country must forever depend."  The determined
>language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the
>American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and
>Commons.
>     In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of
>Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be
>their opinion "That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans
>to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the
>true interests of Great Britain."
>The History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 617-9
>
>     "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."
>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
>
>     "What was it Franklin said, when asked what government have
>you given us, in reply he said a Republic.  Our fore fathers were
>protecting their ass-ets and seeking to remain subject to the
>king in a hidden way. For which they were to receive further
>privileges.  I would love to be able to look into the old English
>records and see if their personal land holdings in England
>increased, after the 1783 Peace Treaty and the 1787
>Constitution/Charter were approved, by an unsuspecting public."
>(quote from my email response)
>
>"Men may lose little in property by the act which takes away all
>their freedom.  When a man is robbed of a trifle on the highway,
>it is not the two-pence lost that constitutes the capital
>outrage."
>Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March
>22, 1775
>
>"The people heard, indeed, from the beginning of these disputes,
>one thing continually dinned in their ears, that reason and
>justice demanded that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be
>compelled to contribute."
>Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March
>22, 1775
>
>"Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American
>empire.  English privileges have made it all that it is; English
>privileges alone will make it all it can be."
>Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March
>22, 1775
>
>     Adam Smith also gives incite into the kings mind set
>in regards to the colonies paying for the benefits they receive
>from him, and as to the contributions they should pay and how it
>is to be done.
>
>"Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was
>sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance
>of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any
>expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in
>every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the
>improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment
>of our own people."
>1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF
>NATIONS by Adam Smith
>
>OUR FORE FATHERS WANTED THE BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES WITHOUT
>PAYING THE TAX TO THE KING.
>
>"Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all
>free government, is a right in the people to participate in their
>legislative council: and as the English colonists are not
>represented, and from their local and other circumstances, can
>

[continued ...]
      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail