Time: Thu Dec 04 04:45:39 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> > >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 > > "Need I say more, I have been ridiculed by some for what I >have said, in respect to our continued subjection to England, and >I am sure Al has to. The above quote is further evidence that >the king did not relinquish his contract/Charters and land >grants/patents to the United States. Instead he preserved his >ability to receive gain through his taxes for his investment. > The below quotes will make you realize that the present tax >system was put in place by the king and is completely British, >and the way they chose to continue to receive the king's profit >from his investment, as declared in his Charters." >(quote from my email response) > > >4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM. > > "Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it >is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to >taxes in general. > I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards >the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in >proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion >to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection >of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a >great nation is like the expense of management to the joint >tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in >proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the >observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the >equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be >observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the >three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in >so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following >examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further >notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, >confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by >a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort >of private revenue which is affected by it. > II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be >certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of >payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain >to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is >otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in >the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax >upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such >aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The >uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the >corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even >where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of >what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so >great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, >it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not >near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty. > III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the >manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the >contributor to pay it. A tax upon the rent of land or of houses, >payable at the same term at which such rents are usually paid, is >levied at the time when it is most likely to be convenient for >the contributor to pay; or, when he is most likely to have >wherewithal to pay. Taxes upon such consumable goods as are >articles of luxury are all finally paid by the consumer, and >generally in a manner that is very convenient for him. He pays >them by little and little, as he has occasion to buy the goods. >As he is at liberty, too, either to buy, or not to buy, as he >pleases, it must be his own fault if he ever suffers any >considerable inconveniency from such taxes. > IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out >and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as >possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury >of the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the >pockets of the people a great deal more than it brings into the >public treasury, in the four following ways. First, the levying >of it may require a great number of officers, whose salaries may >eat up the greater part of the produce of the tax, and whose >perquisites may impose another additional tax upon the people. >Secondly, it may obstruct the industry the people, and discourage >them from applying to certain branches of business which might >give maintenance and unemployment to great multitudes. While it >obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps >destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to >do so. Thirdly, by the forfeitures and other penalties which >those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to >evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an >end to the benefit which the community might have received from >the employment of their capitals. An injudicious tax offers a >great temptation to smuggling. But the penalties of smuggling >must rise in proportion to the temptation. The law, contrary to >all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the >temptation, and then punishes those who yield to it; and it >commonly enhances the punishment, too, in proportion to the very >circumstance which ought certainly to alleviate it, the >temptation to commit the crime. Fourthly, by subjecting the >people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the >tax-gatherers, it may expose them to much unnecessary trouble, >vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly >speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at >which every man would be willing to redeem himself from it. It is >in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are >frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are >beneficial to the sovereign." >1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF >NATIONS by Adam Smith > > "It is not contrary to justice that both Ireland and America >should contribute towards the discharge of the public debt of >Great Britain. That debt has been contracted in support of the >government established by the Revolution, a government to which >the Protestants of Ireland owe, not only the whole authority >which they at present enjoy in their own country, but every >security which they possess for their liberty, their property, >and their religion; a government to which several of the colonies >of America owe their present charters, and consequently their >present constitution, and to which all the colonies of America >owe the liberty, security, and property which they have ever >since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the >defence, not of Great Britain alone, but of all the different >provinces of the empire; the immense debt contracted in the late >war in particular, and a great part of that contracted in the war >before, were both properly contracted in defence of America." >1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF >NATIONS by Adam Smith > >"The expense of the peace establishment of the colonies was, >before the commencement of the present disturbances, very >considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can >be drawn from them ought certainly to be saved altogether. This >constant expense in time of peace, though very great, is >insignificant in comparison with what the defence of the colonies >has cost us in time of war. The last war, which was undertaken >altogether on account of the colonies, cost Great Britain, it has >already been observed, upwards of ninety millions. The Spanish >war of 1739 was principally undertaken on their account, in >which, and in the French war that was the consequence of it, >Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of >which ought justly to be charged to the colonies. In those two >wars the colonies cost Great Britain much more than double the >sum which the national debt amounted to before the commencement >of the first of them. Had it not been for those wars that debt >might, and probably would by this time, have been completely >paid; and had it not been for the colonies, the former of those >wars might not, and the latter certainly would not have been >undertaken. It was because the colonies were supposed to be >provinces of the British empire that this expense was laid out >upon them. But countries which contribute neither revenue nor >military force towards the support of the empire cannot be >considered as provinces. They may perhaps be considered as >appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of the >empire. But if the empire can no longer support the expense of >keeping up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay it down; and >if it cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense, it >ought, at least, to accommodate its expense to its revenue. If >the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal to submit to British >taxes, are still to be considered as provinces of the British >empire, their defence in some future war may cost Great Britain >as great an expense as it ever has done in any former war. The >rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, >amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a >great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, >however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has >hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of an empire; not a >gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has >cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same >way as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense, >without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the >monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shown, are, to the >great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit." >1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF >NATIONS by Adam Smith > > >5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER. > >Exchequer: "The English department of revenue. A very ancient >court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of >the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of >the crown, and to recover the king's debts and duties. It was >called exchequer, "scaccharium," from the checked cloth, >resembling a chessboard, which covers the table." Ballentine's >Law Dictionary > >Exchequer: "That department of the English government which has >charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury >department." Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed. > >Exchequer: "In English Law. A department of the government >which has the management of the collection of the king's >revenue." Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed. > >Court of Exchequer: "56.The court of exchequer is inferior in >rank not only to the court of king's bench, but to the common >pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on >account of its double capacity, as a court of law and a court of >equity [44] also. It is a very ancient court of record, set 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 hereitaments, 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 surmise of being the king's debtor >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 > > >6. THE KING RULES BY VAGUE STATUTES. > >Statue of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540) > > "You will have to read the below statute many times to >understand what the king is saying. It was obviously made to be >vague and ambiguous, it contains two sentences, the first is 658 >words long, the second is 166 words long, not counting >punctuation. I have included the following commentary to help >your understanding of the below statute. > The king is saying that some of the representatives of the >Catholic Church and some of his subjects have received grants of >land from the king. The king is also saying they are in >violation of certain provisions contained in the grants and land >patents. Portions of these grants and land patents were granted >to 3rd party entities by his 1st party grantees, through the >kings grants and charters, having been granted to them. Because >of contractual provisions contained in the grants and land >patents being violated, the land was declared to revert back to >the original grantees who received grants from the king. > As stated in section 1, this statute deals with land twice >removed from the king; to preserve the clarity of his grants and >land patents, in conjunction with the law of mortmain. You will >see that the 1st party grantors, included ecclesiastical and >religious persons, as well as secular. This statute does not >change grants between the king, and the 1st party grantees and >land patentees. > #7, section I should make you think. If any tax or rent >due, (as declared in #5, section I), under the kings grants or >Charters, are not paid, the land reverts back to the king, as if >the Grants and Charters were never written. This is the same >language of intent, used in the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third >section, and the 25 section, in the 1776 North Carolina Bill of >Rights, of the North Carolina 1776 Constitution, which >established the North Carolina Corporation. > In section II, the king extends this statue to all grants >made by him, now or in the future. The key and purpose to this >statute is contained in #2, section I, no stranger is to enjoy a >benefit of any Grant or Charter, if they are not a grantee and >benefactor, without paying a rent or tax, see #5, section I. The >main target of this statute was the Catholic Church, because they >were not paying the tax due under the grants made to them. >However, as shown in previous email the Vatican owned the land >they were being taxed for, under the 1213 Charter. I am sure >this is why the Vatican refused to pay a tax, because the owner >of the land does not tax himself. > Since the states were the benefactors from the 1783 Peace >Treaty, not the inhabitants, and they later transferred their >original Grant from the king to the United States >Constitution/Corporation, making the inhabitants of the states >strangers, maybe now you know how and why we are taxed, and when >the tax is not paid, the land reverts back to the benefactor of >the of the kings original land grants, the United States >Corporation, the trustee administering the >trust/Constitution/Charter." (quote from my email response) > > >Under The Statues of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540) >(a) Parties > >St. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 84,--Where before this time divers, as well >temporal as ecclesiastical and religious persons, have made >sundry leases, demises and grants to divers other persons, of >sundry manors, lordships, forms, meases, lands, tenements, >meadows, pastures, or other hereditaments, for term of life or >lives, or for term of years, by writing under their seal or >seals, containing certain conditions, covenants and agreements to >be performed, as well on the part and behalf of the said lessees >and grantees, their executors and assigns, as on the behalf of >the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and successors; (2) >and forasmuch as by the common law of this realm, no stranger to >any covenant, action or condition, shall take any advantage or >benefit of the same, by any means or ways in the law, but only >such as be parties or privies thereunto, by the reason whereof, >as well all grantee of reversions, as also all grantees and >patentees of the King our sovereign lord, of sundry manors, >lordships, granges, forms, meases, lands tenements, meadows, >pastures, or other hereditaments late belonging to monasteries, >and other religious and ecclesiastical houses dissolved, >suppressed, renounced, relinquished, forfeited, given up, or by >other means come to the hands and possession of the King's >majesty since the fourth day of February the seven and twentieth >year of his most noble reign, be excluded to have any entry or >action against the said lessees and grantees, their executors or >assigns, which the lessors for the breach of any condition, >covenant or agreement comprised in the indentures of their said >leases, demises and grants: (3) be it therefore enacted by the >King our sovereign lord, the lords spiritual and temporal, and >the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by >authority of the same, That as well all and every person and >persons, and bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, >which have or shall have any gift or grant of our said sovereign >lord by his letters patents of any lordships, manors, lands, >tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other >hereditaments, or of any reversion or reversions of the same, >which did belong or appertain to any of the said monasteries, and >other religious and ecclesiastical houses, dissolved, suppressed, >relinquished, forfeited, or by any other means come to the King's >hands since the said fourth day of February the seven and >twentieth year of his most noble reign, or which at any time >heretofore did belong or appertain to any other person or >persons, and after came to the hands of our said sovereign lord, >(4) as also all other persons being grantees or assignees to or >by our said sovereign lord the King, or to or by any other person >or persons than the King's highness, and the heirs, executors, >successors and assigns of every of them, (5) shall and may have >and enjoy like advantage against the lessees, there executors, >administrators and assigns, by entry for non-payment of the rent, >or for doing of waste or other forfeiture; (6) and also shall and >may have and enjoy all and every such like, and the same >advantage, benefit and remedies by action only, for not >performing of the other conditions, covenants or agreements >contained and expressed in the indentures of their said lesses, >demises or grants, against all and every the said lessees and >farmers and grantees, their executors, administrators and >assigns, as the said lessors or grantors themselves, or their >heirs or successors, ought, should, or might have had and enjoyed >at any time or times, (7) in like manner and form as if the >reversion of such lands, tenements or hereditaments had not come >to the hands of our said sovereign lord, or as our said sovereign >lord, his heirs and successors, should or might have had and >enjoyed in certain cases, by virtue of the act made at the first >session of this present parliament, if no such grant by letters >patent had been made by His Highness. > II. Moreover be it enacted by authority aforesaid, That all >farmers, lessees and grantees of lordships, manors, lands, >tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other >hereditaments for term of years, life or lives, their executors, >administrators and assigns, shall and may have like action, >advantage and remedy against all and every person and persons and >bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, which have >or shall have any gift or grant of the King our sovereign lord, >or of any other person or persons, of the reversion of the same >manors, lands, tenements, and other hereitaments so letten, or >any parcel thereof, for any condition, covenant or agreement >contained or expressed in the indentures of their lesse or >leases, as the same lessees, or any of them might and should have >had against the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and >successors; (2) all benefits and advantages of recoveries in >value by reason of any warranty in deed or in law by voucher or >otherwise only excepted.Fn#1 > Footnote #1 "The Statute deals only with actions by the >assignee of the reversion against the lessee or his assignee, and >actions by the lessee or his assignee against the assignee of the >reversion; and not with actions by the lessor against the >assignee of the lessee, or e contra, which actions seem therefore >to be governed by the common law." 1 Smith, L. C. (10th ed.) 74 > > >7. LAW OF MORTMAIN. > >This statute, by King Edward I, was aimed at preventing land >passing to the hands of immortal institutions, and thus out of >the control and taxation system operated by the state. The Church >was the main target. > >(Stubbs' "Charters," p. 457.) > >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 has >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 be >for one year negligent or remiss in this matter, we, straightway >after the year is completed from the time when such purchases, >gifts, or appropriations of another kind happen to have been >made, shall take such lands and tenements into our hand, and >shall enfeoff 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. > >>From Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the >Middle Ages, >(London: George Bell and Sons, 1910), 148-149 > > "The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among >other things: >1. To form the subscribers into a corporation. >2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants >of land; and so far is against the laws of mortmain. >3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far >is against the laws of alienage. >4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a >certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of >descents. >5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat; >and so far is against the laws of forfeiture and escheat. >6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line; >and so far is against the laws of distribution. >7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the >national authority; and so far is against the laws of monopoly. >8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the >laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the >institutions from the control of the State legislatures; and so, >probably, they will be construed. > I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on >this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, >by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are >reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single >step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers >of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, >no longer susceptible of any definition. > The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this >bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United >States, by the Constitution. > Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a >shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be >authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of >the several States; such as those against mortmain, the laws of >alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the >laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly?" >WORDS THAT MADE AMERICAN HISTORY, p. 184, quoted in "A Country >Defeated In Victory" part I > > Thomas Jefferson argued against a United States Bank being >chartered in this country, one reason was, it violated the laws >of Mortmain. Which proves Jefferson believed we were sovereigns >equal to the king. However, in one of the few court cases in >this Country on Mortmain, the judge declares that the law of >Mortmain never existed in this country. The judge was saying by >his decision, that, no sovereigns ever existed in this country, >countering Jefferson's beliefs. Jefferson makes it clear that to >allow this Bank and those that control it (Rothchilds/England), >will impoverish the American people and transfer the Lands of >America into Banks hands, never to be obtained again by the >American people, thus Jefferson's argument of Mortmain. Was >Jefferson right about the plight of the American people, read the >below quote? Also read "A Country Defeated In Victory", I prove >that England was behind the United States Bank, also Englands >involvment continued during the thirties, the time period of the >below quote. > >Congressman Lemke: "....This nation is bankrupt; every State in >this Union is bankrupt; the people of the United States, as a >whole, are bankrupt. The public and private debts of this >Nation, which are evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other >written instruments about to about $250,000,000,000, and it is >estimated that there is about $50,000,000,000 of which there is >no record, making in all about $300,000,000,000 of public and >private debts. The total physical cash value of all the property >in the United States is now estimated at about $70,000,000,000. >That is more than it would bring if sold at public auction. In >this we do not include debts or the evidence of debts, such as >bonds, mortgages, and so fourth. These are not physical >property. They will have to be paid out of the physical >property. How are we going to pay $300,000,000,000 with only >$70,000,000,000?" Congressional Record, March 3, 1934 > > >8. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION WAS ABROGATED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT. > > "The lawful de jure united States government which was >created by the 1787 Constitution/Treaty, between the States, was >made null and void by the fraudulent Congress, that passed the >Fourteenth Amendment. This is a bold and broad statement, but I >will prove it." (The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III) > > "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she >entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of >perpetual union, and all the guarantees of republican government >in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which >consummated her admission into the Union was something more than >a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the >political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the >other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble >as the union between the original States. There was no place for >reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or >through consent of the States." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ >269, 20 U2d 403 > > "Considered therefore as transactions under the >Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the >convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas, >and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to >that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without >operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of >the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the >United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly >follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her >citizens to be citizens of the Union. If this were otherwise, >the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners. >The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of >rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest of >subjugation." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403 > > "December 8, 1863 President Lincoln declared by >proclamation, amnesty and reconstruction for the southerners so >they could be readmitted into the Union. This action along with >what Lincoln was doing with the money is why Lincoln had to be >killed. The South could not be allowed back into the Union >without their enfranchisement. Compare the readmittance oath in >President Lincoln's proclamation of 1863, to the following oath >requirement required by Congress, under the Reconstruction Acts." >(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III) > > "An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the >rebel States, passed March second, eighteen hundred and >sixty-seven, shall cause a registration to be made of the male >citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age and >upwards, resident in each county or parish in the State or States >included in his district, which registration shall include only >those persons who are qualified to vote for delegates by the act >aforesaid, and who shall have taken and subscribed the following >oath or affirmation: "I, _____, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) >in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a citizen of the State >of _____; that I have resided in said State for _____ months next >preceding this day, and now reside in the county of _____, or the >parish of _____, in said State, (as the case may be;) that I am >twenty-one years old; that I have not been disfranchised for >participation in any rebellion or civil war against the United >States, nor for felony committed against the laws of any State or >of the United States; that I have never been a member of any >State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in >any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion >against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies >thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress >of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or >as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or >judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the >United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or >rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to >the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support the >Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will, to >the best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so help me >God;" which oath or affirmation may be administered by any >registering officer." Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867, >supplement to Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867. > > "You will note that in the above oath Congress creates legal >residence for anyone taking the oath and that this is done by >registering to vote, and made a requirement in order to vote. >The same legal disability still takes place today when you >register to vote. Today you still have voting districts in every >county in the America. > You will also notice that, the oath makes you declare that >you were not disenfranchised, by taking part in the Civil War. >Which means that, before the Civil War Americans were franchised >citizens, incorporated. I covered this in part 1; by the States >adoption of the Constitution, those that lived in the States >became legal residents, incorporated/enfranchised, instead of Sui >Juris freemen. Which was granted to them by the Declaration of >Independence, and in North Carolina, for North Carolinians this >was reaffirmed by the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, see >British Colony part 2." >(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III) > > The following is the oath given to those that wanted to >serve in the United States government. > >An act to prescribe an oath of office. July 2, 1862 > > "Be it enacted, That hereafter every person elected or >appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government >of the United States either in the civil, military, or naval >departments of the public service, excepting the President of the >United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such >office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or other >emoluments thereof, take and subscribe the following oath or >affirmation: "I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have >never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I >have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no >aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in >armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought nor accepted >nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever, >under any authority or pretended authority, in hostility to the >United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any >pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within >the United States, hostile or inimical thereto; and I do further >swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, >I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States, >against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear >true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this >obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of >evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties >of the office on which I am about to enter; so help me God;" >which said oath, so taken and signed, shall be preserved among >the files of the Court, House of Congress, or Department to which >the said office may appertain. And any person who shall falsely >take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction, >in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense, >shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever >after, of holding any office or place under the United States." > > When the war was over President Johnson declared the States >readmitted to the Union and hostilities to be over. > >Furthermore; on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued >a "Proclamation" that: > > "The insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of >Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, >Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida is at an >end, and is henceforth to be so regarded." > >Presidential Proclamation No. 153, >General Records of the United States, >G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service. > > On August 20, 1866 (14 Stat. 814); the President proclaimed >that the insurrection in the State of Texas had been completely >ended and his "Proclamation"continued: > > "The insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of >Texas is at an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that >State, as in the other States before named in which the said >insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid >proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand, eight >hundred and sixty-six. > And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at >an end, and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority >now exist, in and throughout the whole of the united States of >America." > >President Johnson vetoed the Acts because they were >unconstitutional. Below are some excerpts from his veto message. > > "It is plain that the authority here given to the military >officer amounts to absolute despotism. But to make it still more >unendurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as >many subordinates as he chooses to appoint, for it declares that >he shall 'punish or cause to be punished'. Such a power has not >been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred > [continued ...]
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail