equality before the law

"From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only want to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either the one or the other, but not both at the same time."

- F.A. Hayek in THE CONSTITUTION OF LIBERTY, as quoted by Joan Kennedy Taylor in 7 Libertarian Review 30, at 33 (December, 1978).

Let us examine a favorite Patriot factual setting to see what happens when legal equality is forced on objects that belong, out in the practical setting, in their own class, free to commingle with other similar objects sharing the same approximate attributes, orientation, velocity, and dimensions. Why are bicycles, pedestrians, and buggies discouraged from using interstate highways where automobiles and huge semi's reign supreme at accelerated velocities? Because as a matter of practical concern, although, ARGUENDO, each form of transportation is legally entitled to some right-of-way access, in the practical setting each form of transportation operates best in its own protected path and status, free from each other's unique requirements. Do railroads really belong on automobile highways?

Even though both are particular forms of transportation that carry freight and people, by their nature they belong on separate tracks or paths. To have all forms use the same highway path, by legally forcing non-discrimination in effect between different forms of transportation ("It just isn't fair that I cannot use my bike on that highway!"), although initially it sounds legally impressive to get rid of discrimination, this actually creates hard damages out in the practical setting when high velocity vehicles weave their way around buggies and bicycles that non-discrimination legislation has forced into using the same track or status; bicycles and pedestrians belong on their own bicycle/pedestrian paths, sharing that path with transportation forms that operate under similar characteristics, and under similar velocity parameters. Not all particular forms of the same general classification belong in the same status or path, and when forced to cross over and commingle with each other, then damages occur.

Customized legislation (or DISCRIMINATION as some would characterize it by trying to cast an illicit derogatory inference on the subject even before the substance is addressed on its merits), providing for each particular form of transportation to operate in its own ideal tract and setting, at its own maximum velocity, prevents the damages that are caused by reason of improvidently commingling different particular forms. Correct PRINCIPLES OF NATURE, however invisible, operate across all factual settings, transparent to the particular application vicissitudes then under discussion.

And just as men and women were designed by their Creator to operate at different velocities and accomplish different objectives down here, although both are mammalian vertebrates and share similar dimensions, forcing both particular genders into the same track and status to accomplish legal equality will actually secondarily create hard damages out in the practical setting.

"The two sexes differ in structure of body, in the functions to be performed by each, in the amount of physical strength, in the capacity for long-continued labor, particularly when done standing, the influence vigorous health upon the future well-being of the race, the self-reliance which enables one to assert full rights, and in the capacity to maintain the struggle for subsistence. This difference justifies a difference in legislation and upholds that which is designed to compensate for some of the burdens which rest upon her."
- MULLER VS. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412, at 422 (1907).

"...history discloses the fact that women have always been dependent upon man. He established his control at the outset by superior physical strength, and this control in various forms, with diminishing intensity, has continued to the present. As minors, though not to the same extent, she has been looked upon in the courts as needing special care that her rights may be preserved... Though limitations upon personal and contractual rights may be removed by legislation, there is that in her disposition and habits of life which will operate against a full assertion of those rights... Differentiated by these matters from the other sex, she is properly placed in a class by herself, and legislation designed for her protection may be sustained, even when like legislation is not necessarily for men, and could not be sustained."
- MULLER VS. OREGON, 208 U.S. 412, at 421 (1907).

"A doctrinaire equality, then, is the theme of the [Equal Rights] Amendment. And so women must be admitted to West Point on a parity with men; women must be conscripted for military service equally with men... girls must be eligible for the same athletic teams as boys in the public schools and state universities; Boston Boys' Latin School and Girls' Latin School must merge (not simply be brought into parity); life insurance commissioners may not continue to approve lower life insurance premiums for women (based on greater life expectancy) -- all by command of the Federal Constitution."

- Paul Freund of Harvard University in HEARINGS BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE #4 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, page 611, 92nd Congress, First Session [Discussing House Joint Resolutions 35 and 208 "The ERA"] (March and April, 1971).

[Source: Mercier - Invisible Contracts]

money and fictions

An obligation to pay money generally is enforced by an action of assumpsit, and to that extent is referred to a contract, even though it be one existing only by fiction of law. But such obligations when imposed upon the members of a corporation may very very largely. The incorporation may create a chartered partnership the members of which are primary contractors, or it may go no farther than to impose a penalty; or again, it may create a secondary remedy for a debt treated as that of the corporation alone, like the right to attach the corporation's real estate; or the liability may be inseparable from the local procedure; or the law may be so ambiguous as to leave it doubtful whether the liability is matter of remedy, and local, or creates a contract on the part of the members that will go with them wherever they are found (McClaine v. Rankin). In the present case we think that there can be no doubt of the meaning of the California statute. It reads: 'Each stockholder of a corporation is individually and personally liable for such proportion of its debts and liabilities,' etc., as we have stated, and supposes the action against him to be brought 'upon such debt.' Civil Code, 322. This means that by force of the statute, if the corporation incurs a debt within the juris- [232 U.S. 221, 236] diction, the stockholder is a party to it, and joins in the contract in the proportion of his shares.

A fiction of law is stated from Lectric Law Library on the net as follows:
The assumption that a certain thing is true, and which gives to a person or thing a quality which is not natural to it, and consequently establishes, a certain disposition, which, without the fiction, would be repugnant to reason and to truth. It is an order of things which does not exist, but which the law prescribes or authorizes. It differs from presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true.

The law never feigns what is impossible. Fiction is like art; it imitates nature, but never disfigures it. It aids truth, but it ought never to destroy it. It may well suppose that what was possible, but which does not exist; but it will never feign that what was impossible actually is.

Fictions were invented by the Roman praetors who, not possessing the power to abrogate the law, were nevertheless willing to derogate from it under the pretense of doing equity. Fiction is the resource of weakness which, in order to obtain its object, assumes as a fact what is known to be contrary to truth: when the legislator desires to accomplish his object, he need not feign, he commands. Fictions of law owe their origin to the legislative usurpations of the bench.

It is said that every fiction must be framed according to the rules of law, and that every legal fiction must have equity for its object. To prevent their evil effects, they are not allowed to be carried further than the reasons which introduced them necessarily require.

The law abounds in fictions. That an estate is in abeyance; the doctrine of remitter, by which a party who has been disseised of his freehold and afterwards acquires a defective title, is remitted to his former good title; that one thing done today, is considered as done at a preceding time by the doctrine of relation; that because one thing is proved, another shall be presumed to be true, which is the case in all presumptions; that the heir, executor, and administrator stand by representation in the place of the deceased are all fictions of law.

Now notice that Assumption is the word used to describe how fiction operates. The word presumption is the opposite, see opening paragraph for this sentence "It differs from presumption because it establishes as true, something which is false; whereas presumption supplies the proof of something true."

Now lets use this material from Black's 3rd Edition Law book and a case to wit:
Fiction. Derived from Fictio in Roman Law, a fiction is defined as a false averment on the part of the Plaintiff which the defendant is not allowed to traverse, the object being to give the court jurisdiction. Black's Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. (1969)

[Source: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/gov037.htm]

oaths of office

[...] you , when calling yourself a "state citizen" are an integral part of a corporate body and you yourself take on the character of a legal entity called a "person". All statutes are private corporate law and they all address a "person" and not a man. [...] Now you know why they refer to you as person.

[...] What was the American before he "resided" in a State? Wasn't he a "free white person?" See Works of John Adams, 213 and Thayer, Cases on Constitutional Law,note on page 459, stated in part:

"The proper english meaning of the term `citizen' imported membership of a borough or local municipal corporation. The usual word for a man's political relation to the monarch of the state was `subject'. . . . The word `citizen' is not found in any of our state constitutions before that of Massachusetts (1780); . . . In the Declaration of Independence (1776), we read it once, `He has restrained our fellow citizens,' etc. and once in the Articles of Confederation."

[...] The oath thus states in part; I, ......... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution ...

Now we go to the paper called the Constitution of the United States. The two main parts that this oath apply are Article VI and the 14th Amendment Paragraph three. Remember that the oath is to a contract that they have to abide by and nothing else. You are not involved nor mentioned in the oath and with good reason. So let's see what they are abiding with.

First is the oath to Article VI. United States Article VI protects the debt owed to the creditor King by each debtor colony.

Article VI, U.S. Constitution.

1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid as against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. [The King's money and debt is protected and this is their solemn oath they take.]

2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made [the treaty of 1606 and 1782 made with the King], or which shall be made [Jay's treaty of 1792 with the King], under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; [despite anything to the contrary Treaties are part of the Constitution and reign supreme]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

To prove these treaties are the "Law of the Land" here is what the HAMILTON v. EATON, 1 N.C. 641 (1796), HAMILTON v. EATON. 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.), had to say.

"[...] 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."

Evidence what was stated by the same court; that those that join the State are "SUBJECTS" not sovereigns:

"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."

[...]So lets go to the 14th Amendment and see if they are following their oaths to obey and defend the contract of the corporations (state and federal).

But before we do we must set the stage for the reason the judges are only following their oath to the contract, which is in no way directed to you as you are not a party to the contract and never were. I will get to the Bill of Rights later.

Bouviers Law Dictionary defines Insurgent as, "One who is concerned in an insurrection. He differs from a rebel in this, that rebel is always understood in a bad sense, or one who unjustly opposes the constituted authorities; insurgent may be one who justly opposes the tyranny of constituted authorities. The colonists who opposed the tyranny of the English government were insurgents, not rebels."

As a side note , the 1933 trading with the enemy Act did not, I repeat, DID NOT make you the enemy of the United States despite what anyone says or writes about it. What it did was make you the enemy of the banks and that's why the banks were closed for 6 days so the President could issue them licenses to deal with the enemy, A.K.A. the American people. Your ancestors were already the enemy starting 1863, therefore, you too are the enemy and there is nothing you can do about that unless you want to declare war against this government who is the conqueror. [...]

Now we go to Article 149 of the Lieber Code or General Order 100 of President Lincoln, who, prior to this, through 12 Stat 319, made you the enemy of the "State". That 1863 statute was never repealed and exists in Title 50 Sections 212, 213 and 215 as well as in Title 28 sections 2461 to 2465 seizure. If you do not believe me go and pull those Title 50 sections and go to the source law. Also note what Title 50 is named. So they still, unbeknownst to you, operate under this General Order 100. This is the part that they use against us today because remember, WE ARE STILL THE ENEMY INSURGENTS when attacking any laws of government. Read carefully.

The Lieber Code of 1863, SECTION X.--Insurrection-- Civil war--Rebellion.

"149. Insurrection is the rising of people in arms against their government, or portion of it, or against one or more of its laws, or against an officer or officers of the government. It may be confined to mere armed resistance, or it may have greater ends in views."

Now, "when we go against one or more of its laws", and that is the income tax laws, the Registration laws, the Driver license laws or any one of the multitude of laws they make, we are in insurrection because we are, remember, the enemy. When we defy an officer collecting revenue by any means then we are going "against an officer or officers" and are therefore considered dangerous and an insurrectionist.

In comes the 14th amendment paragraph to which the judge took his oath to obey. It states- "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, 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, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

Please note the passage "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". This is a key part because the judges are bound by oath to obey Article VI as to the debts to be paid and this paragraph three. You might see that paragraph four states that we cannot question the debt. We are a declared enemy under 12 Stat 319 and a declared enemy of the banks under section 5 b of the Trading with the Enemy Act that was not repealed with the rest of the act. Then if the judge, in ruling in the enemy's favor in any revenue laws, would be violating his oath of office. So you cannot complain that they are not following the oath of office. If ruling against the IRS they would then be violating their oath to protect the status quo of the corporation.

[Source: http://www.atgpress.com/inform/gov066.htm]

Social Security

Social Security
I fail to understand how the American people could have been so dumbed down as to not see that the Social Security system is fraudulent and that it is based on socialism, which is the redistribution of wealth, right out of the communist manifesto. The Social Security system first, is fraud, it is insolvent and was never intended to be. It is used for a national identification number, and a requirement to receive benefits from the conquers (king).

The Social Security system is made to look and act like insurance, all insurance is governed by admiralty law, which is the kings way of binding those involved with commerce with him. "The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of Social Insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress' power to "spend money in aid of the 'general welfare'," Helvering vs. Davis [301 U.S., at 640]

"My judgment accordingly is, that policies of insurance are within... the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States." Federal Judge Story, in DELOVIO VS. BOIT, 7 Federal Cases, #3776, at page 444 (1815).

You need to know and understand what contribution means in F.I C. A., Federal Insurance Contribution Act. Read the following definition.

Contribution. Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of "contribution," a tort-feasor against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort- feasor whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (cite omitted) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer's share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)

Thereby making you obligated for the national debt. The Social Security system is one of the contractual nexus' between you and the king. Because you are involved in the kings commerce and have asked voluntarily for his protection, you have accomplished the following. You have admitted that you are equally responsible for having caused the national debt and that you are a wrong doer, as defined by the above legal definition. You have admitted to being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, who only has civil rights granted by the king. By being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, you have agreed that you do not have standing in court to question the national debt. Keep in mind this is beyond the status of our country and people, which I covered earlier in this paper. We are in this system of law because of the conquest of our country.

Congress has transferred its Constitutional obligation of coining money to the federal reserve, the representatives of the king, this began after the Civil War and the overturning of the U.S. Constitution, as a result of CONQUEST. You have used this fiat money without objection, which is a commercial benefit, supplied by the kings bankers. Fiat money has no real value, other than the faith in it, and you CANNOT pay a debt with fiat money, because it is a debt instrument. A federal reserve note is a promise to pay and is only evidence of debt. The benefit you have received is you are allowed to discharge your debt, which means you pass on financial servitude to someone else. The someone else is our children.

When you go to the grocery store and hand the clerk a fifty dollar federal reserve note you have stolen the groceries and passed fifty dollars of debt to the seller. Americans try to acquire as much of this fiat money as they can. If Americans were aware of this; it wouldn't matter to them, because they don't care if the merchandise is stolen as long as it is legal. But what happens if the system fails? Those with the most fiat money or real property, which was obtained with fiat money will be forfeited to the king, everything that was obtained with this fiat money reverts back to the king temporary, I will explain in the conclusion of this paper. Because use of his fiat money is a benefit, supplied by the king's bankers; it all transfers back to the king. The king's claim to the increase in this country comes from the original Charter of 1606. But, it is all hidden, black is white and white is black, wealth is actually debt and financial slavery.

For those that do not have a Social Security number or think they have rescinded it, you are no better off. As far as the king is concerned you are subject to him also. Why? Well, just to list a couple of reasons other than conquest. You use his money and as I said before, this is discharging debt, without prosecution. You use the goods and services that were obtained by this fiat money, to enrich your life style and sustain yourself. You drive or travel, which ever definition you want to use, on the king's highways and roads for pleasure and to earn a living; meaning you are involved in the king's commerce. On top of these reasons which are based on received benefits, this country HAS BEEN CONQUERED!

I know a lot of patriots won't like this. Your (our) argument has been that the government has and is operating outside of the law (United States Constitution). Believe me I don't like sounding like the devils advocate, but as far as international law goes; and the laws that govern War between countries, the king/queen of England rule this country, first by financial servitude and then by actual Conquest and Military Occupation. The Civil War was the beginning of the Conquest, as evidenced by the Fourteenth Amendment. This Amendment did several things, as already mentioned. It created the only citizenship available to the conquered and declared that these citizens had no standing in any court to challenge the monetary policies of the new government. Why? So the king would always receive his gain from his Commercial venture. The Amendment also eliminated your use of natural rights and gave the Conquered civil rights. The Conquered are governed by public policy, instead of Republic of self-government. Your argument that this can't be, is frivolous and without merit, the evidence is conclusive.
Nothing has changed since before the Revolutionary War.

All persons whose activities in King's Commerce are such that they fall under this marine-like environment, are into an invisible Admiralty Jurisdiction Contract. Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING'S COMMERCE of the High Seas, and if the King is a party to the sea-based Commerce (such as by the King having financed your ship, or the ship is carrying the King's guns), then that Commerce is properly governed by the special rules applicable to Admiralty Jurisdiction. But as for that slice of Commerce going on out on the High Seas without the King as a party, that Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and so Maritime is the private Commerce that transpires in a marine environment. At least, that distinction between Admiralty and Maritime is the way things once were, but no more. George Mercier, Invisible Contracts, 1984. [...]


You would probably say that [ the Social Security Act ] is a Insurance plan for your old age retirement. Is it? Let's examine what takes place. Money is taken out of your wage reimbursement and is supposedly put into a trust fund until you retire. What actually happens is that this money is placed into the treasury as your payment on the national debt and an IOU for this amount goes into the trust fund. When you make a claim for your Social Security benefits, the money is then borrowed from the bankers, thereby perpetually increasing the national debt your children will have to pay. This was part of the new deal, the United States agreed to borrow every dollar the government uses from these same bankers. When you receive a Social Security payment from the government you have not received your money, you have received further benefit from the government. If you'll look on your wage check stub, you will find the initials F.I.C.A., which is the amount that you pay for your supposed Social Security insurance. What does F.I.C.A mean? It means Federal Insurance Contribution Act. What about the word Contribution. Through your public school training and the context in which this word is used you would think it means your payment for your insurance. Does it? What do lawyers, judges and the federal government say Contribution means? You can find their definition in Blacks Law Dictionary, it reads as follows:

Contribution. Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear. Under principle of "contribution," a tort-feasor against whom a judgement is rendered is entitled to recover proportional shares of judgement from other joint tort-feasor whose negligence contributed to the injury and who were also liable to the plaintiff. (cite omitted) The share of a loss payable by an insure when contracts with two or more insurers cover the same loss. The insurer's share of a loss under a coinsurance or similar provision. The sharing of a loss or payment among several. The act of any one or several of a number of co-debtors, co-sureties, etc., in reimbursing one of their number who has paid the whole debt or suffered the whole liability, each to the extent of his proportionate share. (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)

So you see when you went to the Social Security office and asked for your Social Security number and you then signed the Social Security application you said that you were a tortfeasor and that you were equally responsible with the other tortfeasors for the national debt. The bankers, in 1933 increased their return on their money in several ways. First, what was just covered, the Social Security scam. The money you pay out is a tax, payment on the national debt. Second, once the gold was removed in 1933 and the silver in 1967, the only money printed was the bankers fiat money. The definition of fiat is as follows:

"Money composed of otherwise essentially valueless things that neither have a commercial use nor constitute a claim against anyone, but do have a special legal qualification. The money is not the material bearing the stamp as authority but the stamp alone." (Blacks Law Dictionary 6th ed.)

When the bankers did this they further enslaved you. The bankers have a total monopoly on the commerce in this country. They have given you the privilege of discharging your debt without actually paying your debts. Here is the definition of discharge:

"Settlement of a debt is discharged and the debtor is released when the creditor has received something from him. It may be money or its equivalent. (Barrons Law Dictionary)

Contribution: "Right of one who has discharged a common liability to recover of another also liable, the aliquot portion which he ought to pay or bear." (Blacks Law 6th ed.)

The loss of your sovereign status has all been done by contract. A contract can override any pre-existing law including the Constitution of the United States. Your rights and your sovereign status have been lost through the contracts you've been involved in (in relation to your status) with these bankers. Contracts do not have to be written down on paper. The contracts you have been involved in (in relation to your status) for the most part have been silent contracts. You can have a silent contract as long as you have the three components of a contract present, offer, acceptance and consideration. The bankers have offered you fiat money which has no value. The benefit you receive is that you can buy real property with this fiat money without being put in jail for stealing. The bankers offered this money through the government, you accepted and used this money without objection, which proves your consideration. Because of your acceptance and consideration of this silent contract (without your objection), the bankers have a right to compel you to preform to any stipulations that they might add to protect their investment. Since you are the collateral (your labor) which is the surety for the contract, they have a right to protect you. That's why all these laws and acts of Congress came about after 1933. Why do you think you have to have car insurance, drivers license, building permits, seat belt regulations and the coming Health Plan?

These regulations are compelled performance, because you have to comply as long as you receive the benefit of discharging your debt, and if you refuse you can be locked away in jail for the public welfare. Why? Because you might damage another tort-feasor. This is just one benefit (silent contract) there are many others that are offered through the government. I've covered one which was the Social Security benefit. The benefits offered by government serve another purpose, but to the same end. They have been offered to remove any claim you might have had to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This began when the Fourteenth Amendment was passed.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

You would say that this was done to emancipate the Negro. That's what you've been told, but that is not the only reason. Joseph Seligman told us one reason, which was to increase the national debt. Another reason was to create a federal citizen. The Negroes were given their United States citizenship by Congress's enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment. Anything that is created by government, can be regulated and controlled by government, through its insular capacity. Another reason was that part of the Fourteenth Amendment made it illegal for a United States citizen to challenge the Validity of the national debt. The government's part in this was to offer benefits to the American people. Thereby, making it possible for the American Citizen to become a citizen of the United States. The acceptance of these benefits changed your status from a large C Citizen (proper noun), to a small c citizen, which made you subject to the government. If you'll look at the Constitution you'll see that prior to the Fourteenth Amendment, Citizen was a large C and after the Fourteenth Amendment this changed to a small c. Another way your status changed was by your signing government forms that used the metaphor United States citizen. For example on your 1040 form or W2 form or passport etc., you were asked if you were a citizen of the United States (the word of in law means belonging to) small c, because you didn't know the words United States was a metaphor, you said sure and signed the forms. Even if you hadn't received any benefits from the government you were now a small c citizen and subject to the government, because of the declaration you made when you signed these forms. As I said earlier there are a multitude of benefits offered by the government. These include all of the Social programs, being a registered voter, having bank accounts, having insurance, working for government created corporations, the benefit of police protection etc.. just to name a few. What this means is that you no longer have the same status as our forefathers. The Constitution before the Fourteenth Amendment no longer applies to you. The only rights you have are those granted to you by your king (government). Any rights that are granted to Fourteenth Amendment citizens can be taken away. For example, the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms. Because of public policy this right is going to be taken away to protect the tortfeasors (co-sureties for the national debt). Have you noticed how the government has said that this is a health issue? The bankers are losing to many co-sureties, and the tax money they pay in. The bankers required all of these entitlements and enacted these laws to protect their subjects and to increase the amount of taxes being collected.

[...]Because you are a registered voter and receiving monetary benefit from the government, which is provided by the bankers, you are obligated to abide by any statute that Congress might pass in favor of the bankers. When you use federal reserve notes you are involved in a silent contract between you and the bankers. The bankers are the suppliers, the government and the United States citizens are the receivers. Anyone around the world that has received this fiat money for payment or is involved with the banking system's are also receivers of this benefit. This fiat money creates increased perpetual debt with its use, the bankers hidden interest is for you and the government to never be able to pay off your debt. They loan this money out with the understanding that the debt can be paid off. This is impossible because you cannot pay off a debt with fiat money which is discharging the debt and passing it to someone else. Have you been reimbursed for your labor when you are paid with fiat money? No. What do you receive when you receive fiat money? Don't you receive a debt note? A tax is required on the valueless money you were paid for your labor, just as if you were paid real money. The difference being you can't pay a debt (tax) with fiat money. Your labor and your property are being transferred for the payment of these taxes. Your labor is being required to pay a tax for the use of money that has no value. So don't you go in the hole every time you receive and accept fiat money for payment for your labor? Sure you do, think about it, this is the most ingenious scam ever devised. Just as soon as people start refusing to accept the federal reserve notes the whole system would crumble. It is only your faith in the security of the dollar that gives it its buying power. The debt cannot be paid off and the fact that it's in the bankers interest to loan out more fiat money, because they receive real property in return, the bankers will do anything to continue this fraud. When you no longer have enough labor to satisfy the debt, your property is then transferred through bankruptcy. This is a classic no-interest contract, it is illegal and the bankers and anyone in government that are involved should be jailed. What completes this trap? The government has made it law, that the only money that can be used is the fiat money the bankers print and distribute. Thereby, you are being forced to be a party to a silent contract where your consideration is based on coercion.

You might ask, do I have a remedy? You bet. Can you be compelled to enter a contract? No. Can you be bound by a contract where there is fraud involved? No. So what's your remedy? Study these issues and study, study and study some more. Then! Quit receiving voluntarily, government benefits that you are not compelled (forced) to. Learn how to object to these benefits when you are compelled by government to accept them, thereby, reserving your common law right under God to be a freeman and a freeholder of your property while maintaining your Sui Juris status. Here is the definition of Sui Juris:

"Possessing all the rights to which a freeman is entitled; not being under the power of another, as a slave, a minor, and the like." (Bouviers Law Dictionary 1914 ed.)

[Source: James Franklin Montgomery - full text is available on http://www.atgpress.com/kifap/indexjm.htm]

The Civil War

Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of nobility or honor.

The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815. [...]

After the War of 1812 was concluded the Treaty of Ghent was signed and ratified. In Article 4 of the Treaty, the United States gained what was already given in the Treaty of Paris 1783, namely islands off the U.S. Coast. Also, two men were to be given the power to decide the borders and disagreements, if they could not, the power was to be given to an outside sovereign power and their decision was final and considered conclusive. In Article 9 it is admitted there are citizens and subjects in America. As you have seen, the two terms are interchangeable, synonymous. In Article 10 you will see where the idea for the overthrow of this country came from and on what issue. The issue raised by England was slavery and it was nurtured by the king's emissaries behind the scenes. This would finally lead to the Civil War, even though the Supreme Court had declared the states and their citizens property rights could not be infringed on by the United States government or Congress. This was further declared by the following Presidential quotes, where they declared to violate the states rights would violate the U.S. Constitution. Also, history shows that slavery would not have existed much longer in the Southern states, public sentiment was changing and slavery was quickly disappearing. The Civil War was about destroying property rights and the U.S. Constitution which supported these rights.

[...] In this divisive issue, the true attack was on our natural rights and on the Constitution. The core of the attack was on our right to possess allodial property. Our God given right to own property in allodial was taken away by conquest of the Civil War. If you are free this right cannot be taken away. The opposite of free is slave or subject, we were allowed to believe we were free for about 70 years. Then the king said enough, and had the slavery issue pushed to the front by the northern press, which so formed northern public opinion, that they were willing to send their sons to die in the Civil War.

The southern States were not fighting so much for the slave issue, but for the right to own property, any property. These property rights were granted by the king in the Treaty of 1783, knowing they would soon be forfeited by the American people through ignorance. Do you think you own your house? If you were to stop paying taxes, federal or state, you would soon find out that you were just being allowed to live and pay rent for this house. The rent being the taxes to the king, who supplied the benefit of commerce. A free man not under a monarch, democracy, dictatorship or socialist government, but is under a republican form of government would not and could not have his property taken. [...]

Civil War and The Conquest that followed

The government and press propaganda that the War was to free the black people from slavery is ridiculous, once you understand the Civil War Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The black people are just as much slaves today as before the Civil War just as the white people are, and also we find ourselves subjects of the king/queen of England. The only thing that changed for black people is they changed masters and were granted a few rights, which I might add can be taken away anytime the government chooses. Since the 1930's the black people have been paid reparations to buy off their silence, in other words, keep the slaves on the plantation working.

[...] All Americans are feudal tenants on the land, allowed to rent the property they live on as long as the king gets his cut. What about self-determination, or being able to own allodial title to property, which means the king cannot take your property for failure to pay a tax. Which means you did not own it to begin with. The king allows you to use the material goods and land. Again this is financial servitude.

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called `ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933.
The king controlled the government by the time the North won the Civil War, through the use of lawyers that called the shots behind the scenes, just as they do now and well placed subjects in the United States government. This would not have been possible if not for England destroying our documents in 1812 and the covering up of state documents of the original 13th Amendment.

According to International law, what took place when the North conquered the South? First, you have to understand the word "conquest" in international law. When you conquer a state you acquire the land; and those that were subject to the conquered state, then become subject to the conquers. The laws of the conquered state remain in force until the conquering state wishes to change all or part of them. At the time of conquest the laws of the conquered state are subject to change or removal, which means the law no longer lies with the American people through the Constitution, but lies with the new sovereign. The Constitution no longer carries any power of its own, but drives its power from the new sovereign, the conqueror. The reason for this is the Constitution derived its power from the people, when they were defeated, so was the Constitution.

The following is the definition of Conquest:

"The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to submission to its empire."
"The intention of the conqueror to retain the conquered territory is generally manifested by formal proclamation of annexation, and when this is combined with a recognized ability to retain the conquered territory, the transfer of sovereignty is complete. A treaty of peace based upon the principle of uti possidetis (q.v.) is formal recognition of conquest."

"The effects of conquest are to confer upon the conquering state the public property of the conquered state, and to invest the former with the rights and obligations of the latter; treaties entered into by the conquered state with other states remain binding upon the annexing state, and the debts of the extinct state must be taken over by it. Conquest likewise invests the conquering state with sovereignty over the subjects of the conquered state. Among subjects of the conquered state are to be included persons domiciled in the conquered territory who remain there after the annexation. The people of the conquered state change their allegiance but not their relations to one another." Leitensdorfer v. Webb, 20 How. (U.S.) 176, 15 L. Ed. 891.

"After the transfer of political jurisdiction to the conqueror the municipal laws of the territory continue in force until abrogated by the new sovereign." American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. (U.S.) 511, 7 L. Ed. 242. Conquest, In international Law. - Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

What happened after the Civil War? Did not U.S. troops force the southern states to accept the Fourteenth Amendment? The laws of America, the Constitution were changed by the conquering government. Why? The main part I want you to see, as I said at the beginning of this paper, is watch the money and the commerce. The Fourteenth Amendment says the government debt can not be questioned. Why? Because now the king wants all the gold, silver and copper and the land. Which can easily be done by increasing the government debt and making the American people sureties for the debt. This has been done by the sleight of hand of lawyers and the bankers.

The conquering state is known as a Belligerent, read the following quotes.

Belligerency, is International Law
"The status of de facto statehood attributed to a body of insurgents, by which their hostilities are legalized. Before they can be recognized as belligerents they must have some sort of political organization and be carrying on what is international law is regarded as legal war. There must be an armed struggle between two political bodies, each of which exercises de facto authority over persons within a determined territory, and commands an army which is prepared to observe the ordinary laws of war. It is not enough that the insurgents have an army; they must have an organized civil authority directing the army."

"The exact point at which revolt or insurrection becomes belligerency is often extremely difficult to determine; and belligerents are not usually recognized by nations unless they have some strong reason or necessity for doing so, either because the territory where the belligerency is supposed to exist is contiguous to their own, or because the conflict is in some way affecting their commerce or the rights of their citizens...One of the most serious results of recognizing belligerency is that it frees the parent country from all responsibility for what takes place within the insurgent lined; Dana's Wheaton, note 15, page 35." Bouvier's Law Dictionary

Belligerent, In International Law.
"As adj. and noun. Engaged in lawful war; a state so engaged. In plural. A body of insurgents who by reason of their temporary organized government are regarded as conducting lawful hostilities. Also, militia, corps of volunteers, and others, who although not part of the regular army of the state, are regarded as lawful combatants provided they observe the laws of war; 4 H. C. 1907, arts, 1, 2." Bouvier's Law Dictionary.

According to the International law no law has been broken. Read the following about military occupation, notice the third paragraph. After the Civil War, title to the land had not been completed to the conquers, but after 1933 it was. I will address this in a moment. In the last paragraph, it says the Commander-in- Chief governs the conquered state. The proof that this is the case today, is the U.S. flies the United States flag with a yellow fringe on three sides. According to the United States Code, Title 4, Sec. 1, the U.S. flag does not have a fringe on it. The difference being one is a Constitutional flag, and the fringed flag is a military flag. The military flag means you are in a military occupation and are governed by the Commander-in-Chief in his executive capacity, not under any Constitutional authority. Read the following.

Military Occupation
"This at most gives the invader certain partial and limited rights of sovereignty. Until conquest, the sovereign rights of the original owner remain intact. Conquest gives the conqueror full rights of sovereignty and, retroactively, legalizes all acts done by him during military occupation. Its only essential is actual and exclusive possession, which must be effective."

"A conqueror may exercise governmental authority, but only when in actual possession of the enemy's country; and this will be exercised upon principles of international law; MacLeod v. U.S., 229 U.S. 416, 33 Sup. Ct 955, 57 L. Ed. 1260."
"The occupant administers the government and may, strictly speaking, change the municipal law, but it is considered the duty of the occupant to make as few changes in the ordinary administration of the laws as possible, though he may proclaim martial law if necessary. He may occupy public land and buildings; he cannot alienate them so as to pass a good title, but a subsequent conquest would probably complete the title..."

"Private lands and houses are usually exempt. Private movable property is exempt, though subject to contributions and requisitions. The former are payments of money, to be levied only by the commander-in-chief...Military necessity may require the destruction of private property, and hostile acts of communities or individuals may be punished in the same way. Property may be liable to seizure as booty on the field of battle, or when a town refuses to capitulate and is carried by assault. When military occupation ceases, the state of things which existed previously is restored under the fiction of postliminium (q.v.)"

"Territory acquired by war must, necessarily, be governed, in the first instance, by military power under the direction of the president, as commander-in-chief. Civil government can only be put in operation by the action of the appropriate political department of the government, at such time and in such degree as it may determine. It must take effect either by the action of the treaty- making power, or by that of congress. So long as congress has not incorporated the territory into the United States, neither military occupation nor cession by treaty makes it domestic territory, in the sense of the revenue laws. Congress may establish a temporary government, which is not subject to all the restrictions of the constitution. Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 21 Sup Ct. 770, 45 L. Ed. 1088, per Gray, J., concurring in the opinion of the court." Bouvier's Law Dictionary

Paragraph 1-3 of the definition of Military Occupation describes what took place during and after the Civil War. What took place during the Civil War and Post Civil War has been legal under international law. You should notice in paragraph 3, that at the end of the Civil War, title to the land was not complete, but the subsequent Conquest completed the title. When was the next Conquest? 1933, when the American people were alienated by our being declared enemies of the Conquer and by their declaring war against all Americans. [...]

The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate.

Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.

In Title 12, in section 95b you'll find the following codification of the emergency war powers: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended (12 USCS, 95a), are hereby approved and confirmed. (March 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, 1, 48 Stat. 1)

It is clear that the Bankrupt, defacto government of the united States, which is operating under the War Powers Act and Executive Orders; not the Constitution for the united States, has in effect issued under its Admiralty Law, Letters of Marque (piracy) to its private agencies IRS, ATF, FBI and DEA, with further enforcement by its officers in the Courts, local police and sheriffs, waged war against the American People and has classed Americans as enemy aliens.

The following definition is from BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY (P. 1934) of Letters of Marque, it says: "A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, or of the citizens or subjects of such state, as a reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. A vessel to a friendly port, but armed for its own defence in case of attack by an enemy, is also called a letter of marque."
Words and Phrases, Dictionary

By the law of nations, an enemy is defined to be "one with whom a nations at open war." When the sovereign ruler of a state declares war against another sovereign, it is understood the whole nation declares war against that other nation. All the subjects of one are enemies to all the subjects of the other, and during the existence of the war they continue enemies, in whatever country they may happen to be, "and all persons residing within the territory occupied by the belligerents, although they are in fact foreigners, are liable to be treated as enemies." Grinnan v. Edwards, 21 W.Va. 347, 357, quoting Vatt. Law.Nat.bk. 3, c. 69-71.
So we find ourselves enemies in our own country and subjects of a king that has conquered our land, with heavy taxation and no possibility of fair representation.
The government has, through the laws of forfeiture, taken prize and booty for the king; under the Admiralty Law and Executive powers as declared by the Law of the Flag. None of which could have been done with the built in protection contained in the true Thirteenth Amendment, which has been kept from the American People. The fraudulent Amendments and legislation that followed the Civil War, bankrupted the American People and put the privateers (banksters) in power, and enforced by the promise of prize and booty to their partners in crime (government).

The following is the definition of a tyrant.
Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary defines tyrant as follows: "1. An absolute ruler; one who seized sovereignty illegally; a usurper. 2. a cruel oppressive ruler; a despot. 3. one who exercises his authority in an oppressive manner, a cruel master."[...]

So we pick up with paragraph 4, which describes the taxation under Military Occupation and that you are under Executive control and are bound under admiralty law by the contracts we enter, including silent contracts and by Military Occupation.

Notice the last sentence in paragraph 5, Congress may establish a temporary government, which is not subject to all the restrictions of the Constitution. See also Harvard Law Review - the Insular Cases. This means you do not have a Constitutional government, you have a military dictatorship, controlled by the President as Commander-in-Chief.[...]

A Military Flag

And to further confirm and understand the significance of what I have told you, you need to understand the fringe on the United States flag. Read the following.
First the appearance of our flag is defined in Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C..

"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field." (my note - of course when new states are admitted, new stars are added.)
A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says: "Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy." 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.

The president, as military commander, can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. Read the following.

"Pursuant to U.S.C. Chapter 1, 2, and 3; Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE, bordered on three sides. The President of the United states designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF of the Armed forces."

From the National Encyclopedia, Volume 4:
"Flag, an emblem of a nation; usually made of cloth and flown from a staff. From a military standpoint flags are of two general classes, those flown from stationary masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name flags. The latter are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and Standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk with a knotted Fringe of Yellow on three sides...use of the flag. The most general and appropriate use of the flag is as a symbol of authority and power."

"...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
Don't be thrown by the fact they are talking about the sea, and that it doesn't apply to land. Admiralty law came on land in 1845 with the Act of 1845 by Congress. Next a court case:

"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA 181, 76 AM.

I have had debates with folks that take great issue with what I have said, they dogmatically say the constitution is the law and the government is outside the law. I wish they were right, but they fail to see or understand that the American people have been conquered, unknowingly, but conquered all the same. That is why a judge will tell you not to bring the Constitution into his court, or a law dictionary, because he is the law, not the Constitution.

You have only to read the previous Senates report on National Emergency, to understand the Constitution and our Constitutional form of government no longer exists.

[Source: James Franklin Montgomery - full text is available on http://www.atgpress.com/kifap/indexjm.htm]

The United States is still a British Colony

The United States is still a British Colony

The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place and it can be changed to fit someone's belief and/or traditions, or it can be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the contrary. [...] I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I'm going to discuss a few documents [...]. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606. In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition for license is as follows.

"In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British subjects. So you can better understand what I'm going to tell you, here are the definitions for subject and citizen.

"In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

"Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government." Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.

I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better understand what definition of citizen is really being used in American law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law.

"The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, "In right of the crown," Black's forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total loss.

If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods (commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of the king's declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of 1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which was not ceded to America.

This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief, separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the militias.

The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War.

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.

An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions.

"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..

Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.

In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War?

If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.

[...]Cornwallis surrendered at Yorktown, but the document read, Capitulation at Yorktown. Did Cornwallis surrender, or did they just quit fighting because the king, made the necessary capitulations to the colonist demands? Well, did Cornwallis surrender his arms, in other words, did he and his troops lay down their arms and leave unarmed? No. Did Cornwallis surrender his colors, the king's flag? No. Anyone that knows anything about War andConquest, knows the flag of the surrendering enemy has to be Surrendered; if not, you just fought a battle, and did not win the war. Was Cornwallis and his army allowed to return to England armed and with their colors? Yes. Were British subjects allowed to retain their lands and possessions in America? Yes Was the king removed from his throne and his laws defeated, by his removal? No. Tell me again America, we won the Revolutionary War?

[...]All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture.[...]

A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.

(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." [...]. What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper.

The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of "A Country Defeated In Victory," go into detail about how this was done and exposes some of the main players.

Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American Charters.

The following is the definition of tribute (tax).

"A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state.

A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677. [...]

Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay's Treaty of 1794. If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of 1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794 he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy among the American people about this Treaty.

In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone forgot to tell the king of England. In Article 6, the king is still dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe. In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time concerning where and with who the United States could trade. In Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War?

[..]Now, to the so-called 1783 Paris Treaty, wherein the king's possessions were turned over to us without his losing the War. Benjamin Franklin spent almost the entire war traveling back and forth from France and England working out the terms of the Treaty, excuse me GRANT, from the king of England. Let me see, we did not win the War, we did not dictate the terms of surrender, the king's barrister's along with the esquires chosen from America, Franklin, Jay and Adams, wrote the document. A document wherein the king's law remained in force, and he GRANTED lands to his new Corporation, the United States. However, he did not grant to his Corporation the rights to the minerals existing and all to be found in the future. As I have said before, he declared in his Charters, ownership to all minerals, and that he was to receive a portion of the gain/profit in this country forever. Also, how can the king do anything else but give fee simple title, when his law provides for only him to have allodial title. Did he change his law? NO. Could he change the un-revocable Trust his Charters established for all his heirs and successors? No. No, and could not, without destroying his throne, his Crown (corporation) and his law, thereby conquesting himself. You see that is the only way under the king's law to own land by allodial title, via conquest, as the conqueror. This is why no country has defeated the king of England and his Crown, because if his law exists wherein the Corporate Charter was created, and the king and his heirs remain, the king's Crown and Charters remain in force.

[Source: James Franklin Montgomery - full text is available on http://www.atgpress.com/kifap/indexjm.htm]