Time: Thu Dec 04 05:31:56 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA28321
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:48:16 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26734;
	Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:54:15 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd026694; Thu Dec  4 04:53:45 1997
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 04:44:23 -0800
To: (Recipient list suppressed)
From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar]
Subject: SLS: America's subjection to Britain, in a nut shell -
  includes new information (fwd)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<snip>
>
>AMERICA'S SUBJECTION TO BRITAIN, IN A NUTSHELL
>
>
>     The below Compilation of facts were taken from my research
>papers and excerpts of my email responses to others.  I am trying
>to cut down on the size of the information and my commentary, to
>let the facts speak for themselves.  I am using old email since
>the facts remain the same, along with questions possessed to me.
>
>     To help in researching the below facts I have broken them
>into differnt topics.  You can do a text search of the following
>topics, or do a word search, using your word processor.
>
>1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS.
>2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS?
>3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS.
>4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM. 
>5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER.
>6. THE KING RULES BY VAGUE STATUTES.
>7. LAW OF MORTMAIN.
>8. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION WAS ABROGATED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
>
>
>1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS.
>
>     "The reason I guess no one has looked at the issue of the
>U.S. still being subject to Britain except for the Informer and
>myself up until now, can only be,  as a rule no one looks beyond
>what is a settled fact/belief or foregone conclusion.   In other
>words Independence from Britain was as settled in the minds of
>Americans as God Almighty sitting on the throne and His Son
>seated at His Right Hand." (quote from my email response)
>
>
>THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (PEACE TREATY of 1783):  
>  
>     "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.  
>  
>     It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the
>hearts  of the most serene and most potent Prince George the
>Third, by the grace of God, KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND
>IRELAND, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg,
>arch-treasurer and PRINCE ELECTOR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ETC.,
>and OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, to FORGET all past
>MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND DIFFERENCES that have unhappily interrupted
>the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish
>to RESTORE,...."
>
>"YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for
>the same, the yearly Rent of Twenty Marks of Lawful money of
>England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First
>payment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints
>which shall be in the year of Our Lord One thousand six hundred
>Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver
>Ore which, with the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time,
>happen to be found." 
>(Feast of All Saints occurred November 1 of each year.)  The
>Carolina Charter
>
>     The following quote is from section 25 of the 1776 North
>Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights.  Remember this when
>you read the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third section,
>(contained in this paper).
>
>"And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect
>the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming
>under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by
>the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords
>proprietors, or any of them."
>
>"But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title
>of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever
>claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original
>grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure
>under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to
>which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the
>lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion
>to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from
>tenants who never held under it?"
>MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70
>
> "SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion
>due to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same; and Saving
>also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our
>Subjects of the English Nation which are now Planted within the
>Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;..." The Carolina Charter,
>1663 
>
> "KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and
>mere motion, HAVE thought fit to Erect the same Tract of Ground,
>Country, and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullness of
>our Royal power and Prerogative, WE Do, for us, our heirs and
>Successors, Erect, Incorporate, and Ordain the same into a
>province, and do call it the Province of CAROLINA, and so from
>henceforth will have it called..." The Carolina Charter, 1663
>
>     "Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an
>Act of Assembly of this State passed  in 1787, to be law in this
>State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United
>States in 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the
>land.  The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part
>of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from
>each state, to whom were delegated by the articles of
>confederation, expressly, "the sole and exclusive right and power
>of entering into treaties and alliances"; and being ratified and
>made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and
>law of every state.
>     If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all
>necessary to make the treaty law here, it has been had and
>repeated. By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to
>be law in this State, and the courts of law and equity were
>enjoined to govern their decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was
>adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which
>declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under
>the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of
>the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound
>thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the
>contrary not withstanding.  Surely, then, the treaty is now law
>in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty
>interferes with it, is annulled."
>      "By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in
>April, 1777, it was, among other  things, enacted, "That all
>persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or
>who  shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded
>immediately to Great Britain or Ireland,  within ten years last
>past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or
>agents  here, or in any of the United States of America, for
>merchants residing in Great Britain or  Ireland, shall take an
>oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State."
>Treaties are the "Law of the Land"  HAMILTON v. EATEN, 1 N.C. 641
>(1796), HAMILTON v. EATEN.  2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court.
>(June Term, 1796.)
>
>     "The two main issues as I see them in British Colony are;
>one, the financial obligations of the 1213 Charter En #1, are
>still in effect, along with the Charters establishing America. 
>Two, the last sentence of the 1689 Bill of Rights En #2, proves
>the following:"
>     "That the Charters of the Colonies could never be overturned
>by a Declaration of Independence, or the 1787 treaty, otherwise
>known as the Constitution, I'm talking about the real subject
>matter, financial obligation.  Title for the land was transferred
>to the states and then ceded by Charter to the federal government
>under Cestui que trust, but the contracted debt and obligation of
>the Colonial Charters, and the 1213 Charter could not be negated. 
>Rights could be granted to the citizens, subjects or combatants,
>which ever the case may be, but the financial obligation cannot,
>nor could not be affected, because it involves parties not yet
>born.  This why King Charles I said, the 1689 Bill of Rights
>would not free the kingdom from the obligation of the 1213
>Charter.  This is why the United States Bank was given right of
>Charter in America.  George Washington had no choice but to
>succumb to the Rothchilds point man, Hamilton.  Talk about deja
>vu, I mean does this not sound familiar.  Our Bill of Rights was
>given to us, to give us the illusion of freedom.  When the tax
>obligation of the Charters above marched along un-impeded and
>un-seen, by Americans and Britons alike. Read the Magna Carta
>again, they wanted the Pope's blessing for the 1215 Charter, this
>same Pope is the Pope in the 1213 Charter where England and
>Ireland were given to him.  He could not just give back his land,
>because of other parties not yet born.  The Pope let the barons
>presume they were free and gave his blessing to the 1215 Magna
>Carta, knowing to do so would in no way lawfully overturn the
>grant made to him in the 1213 Charter.  Also, it is apparent, it
>was recognized as law that you could not even create a Charter,
>wherein you declared a previous grant or Charter null in void
>unless the relevant parties agreed.  How can a Charter be made
>void if parties to the Charter will never cease to be born, an
>heir can always be found.  To prove this, again what did the new
>king Charles I do, even though the previous monarchy had come to
>an end, its obligations did not, this is why he had to included
>paragraph III, a clause to protect the other parties of an
>earlier Charter." (The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)
>
>Endnote #1
>
>Britannia: Sources of British History  (1213)
>KING JOHN's Concession of England and Ireland to the Pope
>
>In the matter of the election and installation of Stephen Langton
>as Archbishop of Canterbury, King John, in the words of Pope
>Innocent III, had by "impious persecution", tried to "enslave"
>the entire English Church. As a result, the pope laid on England
>an interdict (1208-14), a sort of religious "strike", wherein no
>religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or innocent.
>When this didn't work, the king, himself, was excommunicated.
>Caving-in under that pressure, John wrote a letter of concession
>to the pope, hoping to have the interdict and the excommunication
>lifted (1213). John's concession which, in effect, made England a
>fiefdom of Rome, worked like a charm. The satisfied pope lifted
>lifted the yoke he had hung on the people of England and their
>king. 
>
>John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke
>of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to all the faithful of
>Christ who shall look upon this present charter, greeting. 
>
>We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter,
>furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many
>ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are
>known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not
>offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to
>the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we,
>wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for
>us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not
>induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and
>spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do
>offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and
>Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord
>pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom
>of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights
>and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those
>of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now
>receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the
>Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph,
>subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope, we perform and
>swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent,
>and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to
>the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we
>shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to
>him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in
>similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall
>be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without
>demur. As a sign, moreover, of this our own, we will and
>establish perpetual obligation and concession we will establish
>that from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid
>kingdoms, for all the service and customs which we ought to
>render for them, saving in all things the penny of St. Peter, the
>Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling,
>namely at the feast of St. Michael five hundred marks, and at
>Easter five hundred marks, seven hundred, namely, for the kingdom
>of England, and three hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, saving
>to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of
>which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have
>perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our
>successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of
>our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be,
>unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses,
>be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our
>obligation and concession shall always remain firm.
>
>
>Endnote #2
>
>
>
>Britannia: Sources of British History
>BILL of RIGHTS, 1689
>
>An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and
>Settling the Succession of the Crown 
>
>     Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons
>assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing
>all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the
>thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand
>six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their
>Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of
>William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in
>their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by
>the said Lords and Commons in the words following, 
>
>     Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of 
>divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him,
>did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion
>and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
>
>By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and 
>suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of 
>Parliament;
>
>By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly 
>petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed
>power;
>
>By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the
>great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners
>for Ecclesiastical Causes;
>
>By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of 
>prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was 
>granted by Parliament;
>
>By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in
>time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering
>soldiers contrary to law;
>
>By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed 
>at the same time when papists were both armed and employed
>contrary to law;
>
>By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in 
>Parliament;
>
>By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and 
>
>causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other
>arbitrary and illegal courses;
>
>And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons 
>have been returned and served on juries in trials, and
>particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were
>not freeholders;
>
>And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in 
>criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the
>liberty of the subjects;
>
>And excessive fines have been imposed; And illegal and cruel
>punishments inflicted; And several grants and promises made of
>fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against
>the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;
>
>     All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known
>laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;
>
>     And whereas the said late King James the Second having
>abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his
>Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God
>to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from
>popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords
>Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the
>Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and
>Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several
>counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for
>the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right
>to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the
>two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six
>hundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment as
>that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in
>danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having
>been accordingly made;
>
>     And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and
>Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections,
>being now assembled in a full and free representative of this
>nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best
>means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as
>their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the
>vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties
>declare: 
>
>That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution 
>of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is
>illegal;
>
>That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution
>of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised
>of late, is illegal;
>
>That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners 
>for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts
>of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
>
>That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of 
>prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in
>other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
>
>That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and
>all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are
>illegal;
>
>That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in 
>time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is
>against law;
>
>That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their 
>defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
>
>That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
>
>That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in 
>Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court
>or place out of Parliament;
>
>That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines 
>imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
>
>That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors 
>which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be 
>freeholders;
>
>That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of 
>particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
>
>     And that for redress of all grievances, and for the
>amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments
>ought to be held frequently.
>
>     And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular
>the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no 
>declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice
>of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be
>drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of
>their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration
>of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for
>obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.
>
>     Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness
>the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced
>by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their
>rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts
>upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords
>Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do 
>resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be
>and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and
>the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal
>dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said
>prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the
>survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the
>regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange
>in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint
>lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity
>of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body
>of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the
>Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for
>default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince
>of Orange.  And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do
>pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.
>
>     And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all
>persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be
>required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of
>allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.
>
>I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful 
>and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and
>Queen Mary.  So help me God.
>
>I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and
>abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and
>position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or
>any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by
>their subjects or any other whatsoever.  And I do declare that no
>foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought
>to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or
>authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm.  So
>help me God.
>
>Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal 
>dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the 
>dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and
>desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said
>declaration.  And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the
>said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two
>Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their
>Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the
>settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom,
>so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of
>being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal
>and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly.
>
>     Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual
>and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the 
>ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and
>the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by
>the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do
>pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular
>the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said
>declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and
>liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be
>esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all
>and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly
>holden and observed as they are expressed in the said
>declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall 
>serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same
>in all time to come. 
>
>     And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons,
>seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his 
>marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to
>provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most
>happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for
>which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their
>humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in
>the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize,
>acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having
>abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the
>crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did
>become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this
>realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of 
>England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto
>belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state,
>crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles,
>titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and
>authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most
>fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united
>and annexed. 
>
>     And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm
>by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for
>preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon
>which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation
>doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords 
>Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties
>that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown
>and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all
>and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining,
>shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of
>them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and
>that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and
>government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of
>both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their
>deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the
>heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue
>to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs
>of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords
>Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the
>people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves,
>their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise
>that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said
>majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown
>herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers
>with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that
>shall attempt anything to the contrary.
>
>     And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is
>inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant
>kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or
>queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal
>and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and
>every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to
>or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall
>profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be
>excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy
>the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the
>dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to
>have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction
>within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the
>people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their
>allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to
>time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being
>Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case
>the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or
>professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that
>every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter
>shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom
>shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament
>next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her
>throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and
>Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before
>such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath
>to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath
>(which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat
>the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth
>year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, "An Act
>for the more effectual preserving the king's person and
>government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of
>Parliament."
>
>     But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or
>her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age
>of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make,
>subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her
>coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first
>Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king
>or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years.  All
>which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be 
>declared, enacted and established by authority of this present 
>Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm
>for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with
>the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and
>Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same,
>declared, enacted and established accordingly.
>
>II.  And be it further declared and enacted by the authority 
>aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament
>no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any statute or any
>part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held
>void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in
>such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially
>provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during
>this present session of Parliament.
>
>III.  Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before 
>the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord
>one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached
>or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain
>of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this
>Act had never been made.
>
>
>2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS?
>
>
>
>"In May, 1775, Washington said: 'If you ever hear of me joining
>in any such measure [as separation from Great Britain], you have
>my leave to set me down for everything wicked'- He also said: 'It
>is not wish or interest of the government [meaning
>Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately
>or collectively, to set up for independence'" Ingersoll, North
>American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in
>Sources of the Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis
>Stevens, 1927, page 36.
>
>"Jay did not favor independence from Britain. His absence from
>the signing of the Declaration of Independence was noted by
>Thomas Jefferson."
>Copyright c 1995 by LeftJustified Publiks. All rights reserved.
>
>     "Mr. Chairman ... I rose yesterday to ask a question, which
>arose in my own mind.  When I asked the question.  I thought the
>meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this
>question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the
>States?  Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? 
>If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most
>clearly a consolidated government.  The question turns. Sir, on
>that poor little thing--the expression, We the people, instead of
>the States of America.  I need not take much pains to show, that
>the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious,
>impolitic and dangerous.  Is this a Monarchy, like England--a
>compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to
>secure the liberty of the latter?  is this a Confederacy, like
>Holland--an association of a number of independent States, each
>of which retain its individual sovereignty?...."
>Patrick Henry's speech of June 5, 1788
>
>REMEMBER THIS PREDICTION OR PATRICK HENRY, WHEN YOU SEE WHAT
>WASHINGTON DID BELOW AFTER CALLING OUT THE MILITIAS.
>
>     "....My great objection to this Government is, that it does
>not leave us the means of defending our rights: or, of waging war
>against tyrants: It is urged by some Gentlemen, that this new
>plan will bring us an acquisition of strength, an army, and the
>militia of the States: This is an idea extremely ridiculous:
>Gentlemen cannot be in earnest.  This acquisition will trample on
>your fallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that
>fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means
>of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the
>militia is put into the hands of Congress?"  
>Patrick Henry's speech of June 5, 1788
>
>     "That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is
>acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been
>a standing maxim for ages.  If it be demonstrated that the
>adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then,
>Sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow: But, Sir, if
>this be a truth that its adoption may entail misery on the free
>people of this country.  I then insist, that rejection ought to
>follow.  Gentlemen strongly urge its adoption will be a mighty
>benefit to us: But, Sir, I am made of such incredulous materials
>that assertions and declarations, do not satisfy me.  I must be
>convinced, Sir.  I shall retain my infidelity on that subject,
>till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly
>satisfactory to my understanding....."
>Patrick Henry's speech of June 7, 1788
>
>"....Consider how the only remaining defence we have left is
>destroyed in this manner; Besides the expences of maintaining the
>Senate and other House in as much splendor as they please, there
>is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive
>powers: the powers of a King: He is to be supported in
>extravagant magnificence: So that the whole of our property may
>be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they
>please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and
>suspending our laws at their pleasure: I might be thought too
>inquisitive.
>     For I never will give up the power of direct taxation, but
>for a scourge:  But I beseech Gentlemen, at all hazards, not to
>give up this unlimited power of taxation:
>Patrick Henry's speech of June 7, 1788
>
>     In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I,
>1789-1897 I discovered the following:
>Gentlemen of the Senate:
>
>     Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An
>act repealing after the last day of June next the duties
>heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and
>laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled
>within the United States, and for appropriating the same," I have
>thought fit to divide the United States into the following
>districts, namely:
>     The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of
>New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the
>State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and
>Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island
>and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to
>consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to
>consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to
>consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to
>consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania,
>to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of
>Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of
>Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of
>Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of
>North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the
>district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to
>consist of the State of the State of Georgia."Page 99 March 4,
>1791
>
>     In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he
>declares the district of Columbia to be created and it's borders
>established, he says further:
>     "And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of
>the present month of March have given further authority to the
>President of the United States...."
>
>THE FOLLOWING IS EMAIL THAT WENT WITH THE ABOVE QUOTE:
>
>     This replaced the States in Union with the District States
>in Union formally known as the States of ......This was also
>necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States,
>February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of......, but is
>actually the District State.  Subjection of the States of.....
>was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of
>war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke
>statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license
>requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied
>territory.
>     Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as
>Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now
>overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes
>the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the
>Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to
>the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place
>if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded
>by the Charter/Constitution.
>     The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress
>only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme
>authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. 
>Washington extend this District without Constitutional authority. 
>Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the
>District States.   As a result of the military rule imposed by
>Washington, District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to
>enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying
>the laws of the United States.  THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE
>WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED.
>     The Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of
>1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him
>additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the
>federal government could use the militias to crush the tax
>protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington's order.  Since the
>Judicial Districts already existed, why did they recreate them? 
>Washington said he was dividing the United States into District
>States.  He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE
>STATES, not creating districts in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES
>into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you would not DIVIDE THEM,
>because the states were already divided.  How can you DIVIDE,
>SEPARATE the states, made by the state and federal
>Charters/Constitutions?  Why do this when Congress already had
>the power to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S.
>Constitution?  This was an excuse to DIVIDE the states into
>DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of
>Columbia/Congress and delegating to the President, authority
>given to Congress to suppress insurrection, under Art. I, sec. 8. 
>
>Second, the use of any military power before Congress declares
>war, by direction of the President is done by him as
>Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stop
>the President unless they impeach him, or when they declare war
>they can stop the President with their power of the purse, unless
>the President were to then declare a national emergency, as
>Commander-in-Chief, overriding Congress, in effect declaring
>himself king, or in our case anyone holding that office, which we
>now have.  I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergency powers
>claimed by the President, but unless the Judiciary declares the
>President out of line, you or I cannot change this, unless you or
>I were elected President, and declared this power
>un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to
>protect public policy.  Around and Around it goes.  Again this
>power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction,
>insular capacity, see  DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901),
>which was allowed by the Judiciary, beginning with what
>Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare
>what Congress was doing as un-Constitutional, and up to
>Washington to not take power delegated to Congress. This power
>was affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the
>1850's by the insular cases.  This created precedent for Congress
>to continue to cede power to the President, delegated to them in
>the Constitution.
>
>Third, the Districts Washington created answered directly to the
>Commander-in-Chief, not Congress.  In order for these Districts
>to be created by the President, Congress had to give the
>President power outside of the Constitution, as declared by
>Washington himself.  Martial law can be used as soon as the
>military is called upon to put down insurrection or fight a war. 
>Washington created District States, not state districts, and the
>military occupied the Pennsylvania District until the insurgents
>went home, Washington said these Districts were created for
>putting down the rebellion, however they were never disbanded
>when the rebellion ended."  END EMAIL
>
>
>3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS
>
>     (Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of
>Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781),
>declared "That he should not answer the trust committed to the
>sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either
>to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and
>relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the
>maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and
>security of the country must forever depend."  The determined
>language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the
>American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and
>Commons.
>     In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of
>Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be
>their opinion "That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans
>to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the
>true interests of Great Britain."
>The History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 617-9
>
>     "If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your
>duties here, and gives you, at the same time, a surplus by a
>foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these
>objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to the
>British revenue.  But with regard to her own internal
>establishments, she may, I doubt not she will, contribute in
>moderation.  I say in moderation, for she ought not to be
>permitted to exhaust herself.  She ought to be reserved to a war,
>the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to
>have, must be considerable in her quarter of the globe.  There
>she may serve you, and serve you essentially.
>     For that service - for all service, whether of revenue,
>trade, or empire - my trust is in her interest in the British
>Constitution.  My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection
>which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar
>privileges, and equal protection.  These are ties which, through
>light as air, are as strong as links of iron.  Let the Colonists
>always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your
>government, they will cling and grapple to you, and no force
>under heaven will be of power to tear them from their
>allegiance."
>Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March
>22, 1775
>
>"But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the aggregate of
>many states under one common head, whether this head be a monarch
>or a presiding republic."
>Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March
>22, 1775
>
>     "What was it Franklin said, when asked what government have
>you given us, in reply he said a Republic.  Our fore fathers were
>protecting their ass-ets and seeking to remain subject to the
>king in a hidden way. For which they were to receive further
>privileges.  I would love to be able to look into the old English
>records and see if their personal land holdings in England
>increased, after the 1783 Peace Treaty and the 1787
>Constitution/Charter were approved, by an unsuspecting public."
>(quote from my email response)
>
>"Men may lose little in property by the act which takes away all
>their freedom.  When a man is robbed of a trifle on the highway,
>it is not the two-pence lost that constitutes the capital
>outrage."
>Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March
>22, 1775
>
>"The people heard, indeed, from the beginning of these disputes,
>one thing continually dinned in their ears, that reason and
>justice demanded that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be
>compelled to contribute."
>Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March
>22, 1775
>
>"Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American
>empire.  English privileges have made it all that it is; English
>privileges alone will make it all it can be."
>Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March
>22, 1775
>
>     Adam Smith also gives incite into the kings mind set
>in regards to the colonies paying for the benefits they receive
>from him, and as to the contributions they should pay and how it
>is to be done.
>
>"Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was
>sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance
>of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any
>expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in
>every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the
>improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment
>of our own people."
>1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF
>NATIONS by Adam Smith
>
>OUR FORE FATHERS WANTED THE BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES WITHOUT
>PAYING THE TAX TO THE KING.
>
>"Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all
>free government, is a right in the people to participate in their
>legislative council: and as the English colonists are not
>represented, and from their local and other circumstances, can
>

[continued ...]

===========================================================================
Paul Andrew Mitchell, Sui Juris      : Counselor at Law, federal witness 01
B.A.: Political Science, UCLA;   M.S.: Public Administration, U.C.Irvine 02
tel:     (520) 320-1514: machine; fax: (520) 320-1256: 24-hour/day-night 03
email:   [address in tool bar]       : using Eudora Pro 3.0.3 on 586 CPU 04
website: http://supremelaw.com       : visit the Supreme Law Library now 05
ship to: c/o 2509 N. Campbell, #1776 : this is free speech,  at its best 06
             Tucson, Arizona state   : state zone,  not the federal zone 07
             Postal Zone 85719/tdc   : USPS delays first class  w/o this 08
_____________________________________: Law is authority in written words 09
As agents of the Most High, we came here to establish justice.  We shall 10
not leave, until our mission is accomplished and justice reigns eternal. 11
======================================================================== 12
[This text formatted on-screen in Courier 11, non-proportional spacing.] 13

      


Return to Table of Contents for

Supreme Law School:   E-mail