Time: Thu Dec 04 05:32:19 1997
	by primenet.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id EAA10377
	for <pmitch@smtp-local.primenet.com>; Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:49:51 -0700 (MST)
	by smtp03.primenet.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id EAA26855;
	Thu, 4 Dec 1997 04:55:36 -0700 (MST)
 via SMTP by smtp03.primenet.com, id smtpd026809; Thu Dec  4 04:55:01 1997
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 04:45:41 -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)

>not properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are
>entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their
>several provincial legislatures, where their right of
>representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation
>and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their
>sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and
>accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to
>the mutual interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY CONSENT TO
>FIDE, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce,
>OF ITS RESPECTIVE MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation,
>internal or ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the SUBJECTS IN
>AMERICA, without their consent." Declaration of Rights, from
>September 5, 1774 (The forefathers wanted the commercial benefits
>without paying the taxes that go hand in hand, it does not work
>that way Patriots.)
>"Resolved, 7. That these, His Majesty's colonies, are likewise
>confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their several
>codes of provincial laws." Declaration of Rights, from September
>5, 1774
>     "Need I say more, I have been ridiculed by some for what I
>have said, in respect to our continued subjection to England, and
>I am sure Al has to.  The above quote is further evidence that
>the king did not relinquish his contract/Charters and land
>grants/patents to the United States. Instead he preserved his
>ability to receive gain through his taxes for his investment.  
>     The below quotes will make you realize that the present tax
>system was put in place by the king and is completely British,
>and the way they chose to continue to receive the king's profit
>from his investment, as declared in his Charters."  
>(quote from my email response)
>    "Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it
>is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to
>taxes in general.
>    I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards
>the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in
>proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion
>to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection
>of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a
>great nation is like the expense of management to the joint
>tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in
>proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the
>observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the
>equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be
>observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the
>three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in
>so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following
>examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further
>notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases,
>confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by
>a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort
>of private revenue which is affected by it.
>    II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be
>certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of
>payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain
>to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is
>otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in
>the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax
>upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such
>aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The
>uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the
>corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even
>where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of
>what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so
>great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality,
>it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not
>near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.
>    III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the
>manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the
>contributor to pay it. A tax upon the rent of land or of houses,
>payable at the same term at which such rents are usually paid, is
>levied at the time when it is most likely to be convenient for
>the contributor to pay; or, when he is most likely to have
>wherewithal to pay. Taxes upon such consumable goods as are
>articles of luxury are all finally paid by the consumer, and
>generally in a manner that is very convenient for him. He pays
>them by little and little, as he has occasion to buy the goods.
>As he is at liberty, too, either to buy, or not to buy, as he
>pleases, it must be his own fault if he ever suffers any
>considerable inconveniency from such taxes.
>    IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out
>and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as
>possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury
>of the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the
>pockets of the people a great deal more than it brings into the
>public treasury, in the four following ways. First, the levying
>of it may require a great number of officers, whose salaries may
>eat up the greater part of the produce of the tax, and whose
>perquisites may impose another additional tax upon the people.
>Secondly, it may obstruct the industry the people, and discourage
>them from applying to certain branches of business which might
>give maintenance and unemployment to great multitudes. While it
>obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps
>destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to
>do so. Thirdly, by the forfeitures and other penalties which
>those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to
>evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an
>end to the benefit which the community might have received from
>the employment of their capitals. An injudicious tax offers a
>great temptation to smuggling. But the penalties of smuggling
>must rise in proportion to the temptation. The law, contrary to
>all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the
>temptation, and then punishes those who yield to it; and it
>commonly enhances the punishment, too, in proportion to the very
>circumstance which ought certainly to alleviate it, the
>temptation to commit the crime. Fourthly, by subjecting the
>people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the
>tax-gatherers, it may expose them to much unnecessary trouble,
>vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly
>speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at
>which every man would be willing to redeem himself from it. It is
>in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are
>frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are
>beneficial to the sovereign."
>NATIONS by Adam Smith
>    "It is not contrary to justice that both Ireland and America
>should contribute towards the discharge of the public debt of
>Great Britain. That debt has been contracted in support of the
>government established by the Revolution, a government to which
>the Protestants of Ireland owe, not only the whole authority
>which they at present enjoy in their own country, but every
>security which they possess for their liberty, their property,
>and their religion; a government to which several of the colonies
>of America owe their present charters, and consequently their
>present constitution, and to which all the colonies of America
>owe the liberty, security, and property which they have ever
>since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the
>defence, not of Great Britain alone, but of all the different
>provinces of the empire; the immense debt contracted in the late
>war in particular, and a great part of that contracted in the war
>before, were both properly contracted in defence of America."
>NATIONS by Adam Smith
>"The expense of the peace establishment of the colonies was,
>before the commencement of the present disturbances, very
>considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can
>be drawn from them ought certainly to be saved altogether. This
>constant expense in time of peace, though very great, is
>insignificant in comparison with what the defence of the colonies
>has cost us in time of war. The last war, which was undertaken
>altogether on account of the colonies, cost Great Britain, it has
>already been observed, upwards of ninety millions. The Spanish
>war of 1739 was principally undertaken on their account, in
>which, and in the French war that was the consequence of it,
>Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of
>which ought justly to be charged to the colonies. In those two
>wars the colonies cost Great Britain much more than double the
>sum which the national debt amounted to before the commencement
>of the first of them. Had it not been for those wars that debt
>might, and probably would by this time, have been completely
>paid; and had it not been for the colonies, the former of those
>wars might not, and the latter certainly would not have been
>undertaken. It was because the colonies were supposed to be
>provinces of the British empire that this expense was laid out
>upon them. But countries which contribute neither revenue nor
>military force towards the support of the empire cannot be
>considered as provinces. They may perhaps be considered as
>appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of the
>empire. But if the empire can no longer support the expense of
>keeping up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay it down; and
>if it cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense, it
>ought, at least, to accommodate its expense to its revenue. If
>the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal to submit to British
>taxes, are still to be considered as provinces of the British
>empire, their defence in some future war may cost Great Britain
>as great an expense as it ever has done in any former war. The
>rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past,
>amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a
>great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire,
>however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has
>hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of an empire; not a
>gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has
>cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same
>way as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense,
>without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the
>monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shown, are, to the
>great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit."
>NATIONS by Adam Smith
>Exchequer: "The English department of revenue.  A very ancient
>court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of
>the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of
>the crown, and to recover the king's debts and duties.  It was
>called exchequer, "scaccharium," from the checked cloth,
>resembling a chessboard, which covers the table."  Ballentine's
>Law Dictionary
>Exchequer: "That department of the English government which has
>charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury
>department."  Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.
>Exchequer: "In  English Law.  A department of the government
>which has  the management of the collection of the king's
>revenue."  Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
>Court of Exchequer: "56.The court of exchequer is inferior in
>rank not only to the court of king's bench, but to the common
>pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on
>account of its double capacity, as a court of law and a court of
>equity [44] also.  It is a very ancient court of record, set up
>by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, through
>regulated and reduced to its present order by King Edward I; and
>intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to
>recover the king's debts and duties.  It is called the exchequer,
>scaccharium, from the chequed cloth, resembling a chess-board,
>which covers the table there; and on which, when certain of the
>king's accounts are made up, the sums are marked and scored with
>counters.  It consists of two divisions; the receipt of the
>exchequer, which manages to royal revenue, and with which these
>Commentaries have no concern; and the court or judicial part of
>it, which is again subdivided into a court of equity, and a court
>of common law."
>Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554
>Court of Exchequer: "An English superior court with jurisdiction
>of matter of law and matters involving government revenue." 
>Ballentine's Law Dictionary
>Court of Exchequer: "A court for the correction and prevention of
>errors of law in the three superior common-law courts of the
>     A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31
>Edw. III. C. 12, to determine causes upon writs of error from the
>common-law side of the exchequer court.  It consisted of the
>chancellor, treasurer, and the "justices and other sage persons
>as to them seemeth."  The judges were merely assistants.  A
>second court of exchequer chamber was instituted by statute 27
>Eliz. C. 8, consisting of the justices of the common pleas and
>the exchequer, or any six of them, which had jurisdiction in
>error of cases in the king's bench.  In exchequer chamber
>substituted in their place as an intermediate court of appeal
>between the three common-law courts and Parliament.  It consisted
>of the judges of the two courts which had not rendered the
>judgement in the court below.  It is now merged in the High Court
>of Justice."  Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
>The equity court of the exchequer: "57. The court of equity is
>held in the exchequer chamber before the lord treasurer, the
>chancellor of the exchequer, the chief baron, and three puisne'
>ones.  These Mr. Selden conjectures to have been anciently made
>out of such as were barons of the kingdom, or parliamentary
>barons; and thence to have derived their name: which conjecture
>receives great strength form Bracton's explanation of magna
>carta, c.14, which directs that the earls and barons be amerced
>by their peers; that is, says he, by the barons of the exchequer. 
>The primary and original business  of this court is to call the
>king's debtors to account, by bill filed by the attorney general;
>and to recover any lands, tenements, or hereitaments, any goods,
>chattels, or other profits or benefits, belonging to the crown. 
>So that by their original constitution the jurisdiction of the
>courts of common pleas, king's bench, and exchequer, was entirely
>separate and distinct; the common pleas being intended to decide
>all controversies between subject and subject; the king's bench
>to correct all crimes and misdemeanors that amount to a breach of
>the peace, the king being then the plaintiff, as such offenses
>are in open derogation of the jura regalia (regal rights) of his
>crown; and the exchequer to adjust [45] and recover his revenue,
>wherein the king also is plaintiff, as the withholding and
>nonpayment thereof is an injury to his jura fiscalia (fisical
>rights).  But, as by a fiction almost all sorts of civil actions
>are now allowed to be brought in the king's bench, in like manner
>by another fiction all kinds of personal suits may be prosecuted
>in the court of exchequer.  For as all the officers and ministers
>of this court have, like those of other superior courts, the
>privilege of suing and being sued only in their own court; so
>exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead all manner of
>persons in the same court of equity that they themselves are
>called into.  They have likewise privilege to sue and implead one
>another, or any stranger, in the same kind of common-law actions
>(where the personalty only is concerned) as are prosecuted in the
>court of common pleas."
>Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554
>The common-law court of the exchequer: "58. This gives original
>to the common-law part of their jurisdiction, which was
>established merely for the benefit of the king's accountants, and
>is exercised by the barons only of the exchequer, and not the
>treasurer or chancellor.  The writ upon which the plaintiff
>suggests that he is the king's farmer or debtor, and that the
>defendant hath done him the injury or damage complained of; quo
>minus sufficient exist, by which he is the less able, to pay the
>king his debt or rent.  And these suits are expressly directed,
>by what is called the statute of Rutland, to be confined to such
>matters only as specially concern the king or his ministers of
>the exchequer.  And by the articuli super cartas it is enacted
>that no common pleas be thenceforth holden in the exchequer,
>contrary to the form of the great charter.  But not, by the
>suggestion of privilege, any person may be admitted to sue in the
>exchequer as well as the king's accountant.  The surmise of being
>debtor to the king  is therefore become matter of form and mere
>words of course, and the court is open to all the nation equally. 
>The same holds with regard to the equity side of the court: for
>there any person may file [46] a bill against another upon a bare
>suggestion that he is the king's accountant; but whether he is so
>or not is never controverted.  In this court, on the nonpayment
>of titles; in which case the surmise of being the king's debtor
>is no fiction, they being bound to pay him their first-fruits,
>and annual tenths.  But the chancery has of late years obtained a
>large share in this business."
>Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555
>     Definition of a legal fiction: For a discussion of fictions
>in law, see chapter II of Maine's Ancient Law, and Pollock's note
>D in his edition of the Ancient Law.  Blackstone gives
>illustrations of legal fictions on pages 43, 45, 153, 203 of this
>book.  Mr Justice Curtis (Jurisdiction of United States Courts,
>2d ed., 148) gives the following instance of a fiction in our
>     "A suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name
>may be presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the state
>which created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to
>the contrary is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the
>suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States. 
>     There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law,
>presumes all the members are citizens of the state which created
>the corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse that
>presumption'; and that is the law now.  (Authors note-by your
>residence you are incorporated) Under it, the courts of the
>United States constantly entertain suits by or against
>corporations. (Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 24 L. Ed. 207.)  It
>has been so frequently settled, that there is not the slightest
>reason to suppose  that it will ever be departed from by the
>court.  It has been repeated over and over again in subsequent
>decisions; and the supreme court seem entirely satisfied that it
>is the right ground to stand upon; and, as I am now going to
>state to you, they have applied it in some cases which go beyond,
>much beyond, these decisions to which I have referred.  So that
>when a suit is to be brought in a court of the United States by
>or against a corporation, by reason of the character of the
>parties, you have only to say that this corporation (after naming
>it correctly) was created by a law of the state; and that is
>exactly the same in its consequences as if you could allege, and
>did allege, that the corporation was a citizen of that state. 
>According to the present decisions, it is not necessary you
>should say that the members of that corporation are citizens of
>Massachusetts.  They have passed beyond that.  You have only to
>say that the corporation was created by a law of the state of
>Massachusetts, and has its principal place of business in that
>state; and that makes it, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the
>same as if it were a citizen of that state"  See Pound, Readings
>in Roman Law, 95n.
>Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553
>Statue of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540)
>    "You will have to read the below statute many times to
>understand what the king is saying.  It was obviously made to be
>vague and ambiguous, it contains two sentences, the first is 658
>words long, the second is 166 words long, not counting
>punctuation.  I have included the following commentary to help
>your understanding of the below statute.
>     The king is saying that some of the representatives of the
>Catholic Church and some of his subjects have received grants of
>land from the king.  The king is also saying they are in
>violation of certain provisions contained in the grants and land
>patents.  Portions of these grants and land patents were granted
>to 3rd party entities by his 1st party grantees, through the
>kings grants and charters, having been granted to them.  Because
>of contractual provisions contained in the grants and land
>patents being violated, the land was declared to revert back to
>the original grantees who received grants from the king.  
>     As stated in section 1, this statute deals with land twice
>removed from the king; to preserve the clarity of his grants and
>land patents, in conjunction with the law of mortmain.  You will
>see that the 1st party grantors, included ecclesiastical and
>religious persons, as well as secular.  This statute does not
>change grants between the king, and the 1st party grantees and
>land patentees.
>     #7, section I should make you think.  If any tax or rent
>due, (as declared in #5, section I), under the kings grants or
>Charters, are not paid, the land reverts back to the king, as if
>the Grants and Charters were never written.  This is the same
>language of intent, used in the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third
>section, and the 25 section, in the 1776 North Carolina Bill of
>Rights, of the North Carolina 1776 Constitution, which
>established the North Carolina Corporation.  
>     In section II, the king extends this statue to all grants
>made by him, now or in the future.  The key and purpose to this
>statute is contained in #2, section I, no stranger is to enjoy a
>benefit of any Grant or Charter, if they are not a grantee and
>benefactor, without paying a rent or tax, see #5, section I.  The
>main target of this statute was the Catholic Church, because they
>were not paying the tax due under the grants made to them. 
>However, as shown in previous email the Vatican owned the land
>they were being taxed for, under the 1213 Charter.  I am sure
>this is why the Vatican refused to pay a tax, because the owner
>of the land does not tax himself.  
>     Since the states were the benefactors from the 1783 Peace
>Treaty, not the inhabitants, and they later transferred their
>original Grant from the king to the United States
>Constitution/Corporation, making the inhabitants of the states
>strangers, maybe now you know how and why we are taxed, and when
>the tax is not paid, the land reverts back to the benefactor of
>the of the kings original land grants, the United States
>Corporation, the trustee administering the
>trust/Constitution/Charter." (quote from my email response) 
>Under The Statues of 32. Hen. VIII c. 84. (1540)
>(a) Parties
>St. 32 Hen. VIII. c. 84,--Where before this time divers, as well
>temporal as ecclesiastical and religious persons, have made
>sundry leases, demises and grants to divers other persons, of
>sundry manors, lordships, forms, meases, lands, tenements,
>meadows, pastures, or other hereditaments, for term of life or
>lives, or for term of years, by writing under their seal or
>seals, containing certain conditions, covenants and agreements to
>be performed, as well on the part and behalf of the said lessees
>and grantees, their executors and assigns, as on the behalf of
>the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and successors; (2)
>and forasmuch as by the common law of this realm, no stranger to
>any covenant, action or condition, shall take any advantage or
>benefit of the same, by any means or ways in the law, but only
>such as be parties or privies thereunto, by the reason whereof,
>as well all grantee of reversions, as also all grantees and
>patentees of the King our sovereign lord, of sundry manors,
>lordships, granges, forms, meases, lands tenements, meadows,
>pastures, or other hereditaments late belonging to monasteries,
>and other religious and ecclesiastical houses dissolved,
>suppressed, renounced, relinquished, forfeited, given up, or by
>other means come to the hands and possession of the King's
>majesty since the fourth day of February the seven and twentieth
>year of his most noble reign, be excluded to have any entry or
>action against the said lessees and grantees, their executors or
>assigns, which the lessors for the breach of any condition,
>covenant or agreement comprised in the indentures of their said
>leases, demises and grants: (3) be it therefore enacted by the
>King our sovereign lord, the lords spiritual and temporal, and
>the commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by
>authority of the same, That as well all and every person and
>persons, and bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns,
>which have or shall have any gift or grant of our said sovereign
>lord by his letters patents of any lordships, manors, lands,
>tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other
>hereditaments, or of any reversion or reversions of the same,
>which did belong or appertain to any of the said monasteries, and
>other religious and ecclesiastical houses, dissolved, suppressed,
>relinquished, forfeited, or by any other means come to the King's
>hands since the said fourth day of February the seven and
>twentieth year of his most noble reign, or which at any time
>heretofore did belong or appertain to any other person or
>persons, and after came to the hands of our said sovereign lord,
>(4) as also all other persons being grantees or assignees to or
>by our said sovereign lord the King, or to or by any other person
>or persons than the King's highness, and the heirs, executors,
>successors and assigns of every of them, (5) shall and may have
>and enjoy like advantage against the lessees, there executors,
>administrators and assigns, by entry for non-payment of the rent,
>or for doing of waste or other forfeiture; (6) and also shall and
>may have and enjoy all and every such like, and the same
>advantage, benefit and remedies by action only, for not
>performing of the other conditions, covenants or agreements
>contained and expressed in the indentures of their said lesses,
>demises or grants, against all and every the said lessees and
>farmers and grantees, their executors, administrators and
>assigns, as the said lessors or grantors themselves, or their
>heirs or successors, ought, should, or might have had and enjoyed
>at any time or times, (7) in like manner and form as if the
>reversion of such lands, tenements or hereditaments had not come
>to the hands of our said sovereign lord, or as our said sovereign
>lord, his heirs and successors, should or might have had and
>enjoyed in certain cases, by virtue of the act made at the first
>session of this present parliament, if no such grant by letters
>patent had been made by His Highness.
>     II. Moreover be it enacted by authority aforesaid, That all
>farmers, lessees and grantees of lordships, manors, lands,
>tenements, rents, parsonages, tithes, portions, or any other
>hereditaments for term of years, life or lives, their executors,
>administrators and assigns, shall and may have like action,
>advantage and remedy against all and every person and persons and
>bodies politic, their heirs, successors and assigns, which have
>or shall have any gift or grant of the King our sovereign lord,
>or of any other person or persons, of the reversion of the same
>manors, lands, tenements, and other hereitaments so letten, or
>any parcel thereof, for any condition, covenant or agreement
>contained or expressed in the indentures of their lesse or
>leases, as the same lessees, or any of them might and should have
>had against the said lessors and grantors, their heirs and
>successors; (2) all benefits and advantages of recoveries in
>value by reason of any warranty in deed or in law by voucher or
>otherwise only excepted.Fn#1
>     Footnote #1 "The Statute deals only with actions by the
>assignee of the reversion against the lessee or his assignee, and
>actions by the lessee or his assignee against the assignee of the
>reversion; and not with actions by the lessor against the
>assignee of the lessee, or e contra, which actions seem therefore
>to be governed by the common law." 1 Smith, L. C. (10th ed.) 74
>This statute, by King Edward I, was aimed at preventing land
>passing to the hands of immortal institutions, and thus out of
>the control and taxation system operated by the state. The Church
>was the main target.
>(Stubbs' "Charters," p. 457.)
>The king to his Justices of the Bench, greeting. Where as of late
>it was provided that religious men should not enter into the fees
>of any without the will and licence of the lords in chief of whom
>these fees are held immediately; and such religious men have,
>notwithstanding, later entered as well into their own fees as
>into those of others, appropriated, them to themselves, and
>buying them, and sometimes receiving them from the gift of
>others, whereby the services which are due of such fees, and
>which at the beginning, were provided for the defence of the
>realm, are unduly withdrawn, and the lords in chief do lose their
>escheats of the same; we, therefore, to the profit of our realm,
>wishing to provide a fit remedy in this matter, by advice of our
>prelates, counts and other subjects of our realm who are of our
>council, have provided, established, and ordained, that no
>person, religious or other, whatsoever presume to buy or sell any
>lands or tenements, , or under colour of gift or lease, or of any
>other term or title whatever to receive them from any one, or in
>any other craft or by wile to appropriate them to himself,
>whereby such lands and tenements may come into mortmain under
>pain of forfeiture of the same. We have provided also that if any
>person, religious or other, do presume either by craft or wile to
>offend against this statute it shall be lawful for us and for
>other immediate lords in chief of the fee so alienated, to enter
>it within a year from the time of such alienation and to hold it
>in fee as an inheritance. And if the immediate lord in chief
>shall -be negligent and be not willing to enter into such fee
>within the year, then it shall be lawful for the next mediate
>lord in chief, within the half year following, to enter that fee
>and to hold it, as has been said; and thus each mediate lord
>may do if the next lord be negligent in entering such fee as has
>been said. And if all such chief lords of such fee, who shall be
>of full age, and within the four seas and out of prison, shall be
>for one year negligent or remiss in this matter, we, straightway
>after the year is completed from the time when such purchases,
>gifts, or appropriations of another kind happen to have been
>made, shall take such lands and tenements into our hand, and
>shall enfeoff others therein by certain services to be rendered
>thence to us for the defence of our kingdom ; saving to the lords
>in chief of the same fees their wards, escheats and other things
>which pertain to them, and the services therefrom due and
>accustomed. And therefore we command you to cause the aforesaid
>statute to be read before you, and from henceforth firmly kept
>and observed. Witness myself at Westminster, the 15th day of
>November, the 7h year of our reign.
>>From Ernest F. Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the
>Middle Ages,
>(London: George Bell and Sons, 1910), 148-149
>     "The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among
>other things: 
>1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
>2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants
>of land; and so far is against the laws of mortmain.
>3. To make alien subscribers capable of holding lands; and so far
>is against the laws of alienage.
>4. To transmit these lands, on the death of a proprietor, to a
>certain line of successors; and so far changes the course of
>5. To put the lands out of the reach of forfeiture or escheat;
>and so far is against the laws of forfeiture and escheat.
>6. To transmit personal chattels to successors in a certain line;
>and so far is against the laws of distribution.
>7. To give them the sole and exclusive right of banking under the
>national authority; and so far is against the laws of monopoly.
>8. To communicate to them a power to make laws paramount to the
>laws of the States; for so they must be construed, to protect the
>institutions from the control of the State legislatures; and so,
>probably, they will be construed.
>     I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on
>this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States,
>by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
>reserved to the States or to the people."    To take a single
>step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers
>of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power,
>no longer susceptible of any definition.
>     The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this
>bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United
>States, by the Constitution.
>     Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a
>shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be
>authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of
>the several States; such as those against mortmain, the laws of
>alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the
>laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly?"
>WORDS THAT MADE AMERICAN HISTORY, p. 184, quoted in "A Country
>Defeated In Victory" part I
>     Thomas Jefferson argued against a United States Bank being
>chartered in this country, one reason was, it violated the laws
>of Mortmain.  Which proves Jefferson believed we were sovereigns
>equal to the king.  However, in one of the few court cases in
>this Country on Mortmain, the judge declares that the law of
>Mortmain never existed in this country.  The judge was saying by
>his decision, that, no sovereigns ever existed in this country,
>countering Jefferson's beliefs.  Jefferson makes it clear that to
>allow this Bank and those that control it (Rothchilds/England),
>will impoverish the American people and transfer the Lands of
>America into Banks hands, never to be obtained again by the
>American people, thus Jefferson's argument of Mortmain.  Was
>Jefferson right about the plight of the American people, read the
>below quote?  Also read "A Country Defeated In Victory", I prove
>that England was behind the United States Bank, also Englands
>involvment continued during the thirties, the time period of the
>below quote.  
>Congressman Lemke: "....This nation is bankrupt; every State in
>this Union is bankrupt; the people of the United States, as a
>whole, are bankrupt.  The public and private debts of this
>Nation, which are evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other
>written instruments about to about $250,000,000,000, and it is
>estimated that there is about $50,000,000,000 of which there is
>no record, making in all about $300,000,000,000 of public and
>private debts.  The total physical cash value of all the property
>in the United States is now estimated at about $70,000,000,000. 
>That is more than it would bring if sold at public auction.  In
>this we do not include debts or the evidence of debts, such as
>bonds, mortgages, and so fourth.  These are not physical
>property.  They will have to be paid out of the physical
>property.  How are we going to pay $300,000,000,000 with only
>$70,000,000,000?" Congressional Record, March 3, 1934
>     "The lawful de jure united States government which was
>created by the 1787 Constitution/Treaty, between the States, was
>made null and void by the fraudulent Congress, that passed the
>Fourteenth Amendment.  This is a bold and broad statement, but I
>will prove it." (The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)
>     "When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she
>entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of
>perpetual union, and all the guarantees of republican government
>in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which
>consummated her admission into the Union was something more than
>a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the
>political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the
>other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble
>as the union between the original States. There was no place for
>reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or
>through consent of the States." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @
>269, 20 U2d 403
>     "Considered therefore as transactions under the
>Constitution, the ordinance of secession, adopted by the
>convention and ratified by a majority of the citizens of Texas,
>and all the acts of her legislature intended to give effect to
>that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without
>operation in law. The obligations of the State, as a member of
>the Union, and of every citizen of the State, as a citizen of the
>United States, remained perfect and unimpaired. It certainly
>follows that the State did not cease to be a State, nor her
>citizens to be citizens of the Union.  If this were otherwise,
>the State must have become foreign, and her citizens foreigners.
>The war must have ceased to be a war for the suppression of
>rebellion, and must have become a war for conquest of
>subjugation." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403
>     "December 8, 1863 President Lincoln declared by
>proclamation, amnesty and reconstruction for the southerners so
>they could be readmitted into the Union.  This action along with
>what Lincoln was doing with the money is why Lincoln had to be
>killed.  The South could not be allowed back into the Union
>without their enfranchisement.  Compare the readmittance oath in
>President Lincoln's proclamation of 1863, to the following oath
>requirement required by Congress, under the Reconstruction Acts."
>(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)
>     "An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the
>rebel States, passed March second, eighteen hundred and
>sixty-seven, shall cause a registration to be made of the male
>citizens of the United States, twenty-one years of age and
>upwards, resident in each county or parish in the State or States
>included in his district, which registration shall include only
>those persons who are qualified to vote for delegates by the act
>aforesaid, and who shall have taken and subscribed the following
>oath or affirmation: "I, _____, do solemnly swear, (or affirm,)
>in the presence of Almighty God, that I am a citizen of the State
>of _____; that I have resided in said State for _____ months next
>preceding this day, and now reside in the county of _____, or the
>parish of _____, in said State, (as the case may be;) that I am
>twenty-one years old; that I have not been disfranchised for
>participation in any  rebellion or civil war against the United
>States, nor for felony committed against the laws of any State or
>of the United States; that I have never been a member of any
>State legislature, nor held any executive or judicial office in
>any State and afterwards engaged in insurrection or rebellion
>against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies
>thereof; that I have never taken an oath as a member of Congress
>of the United States, or as an officer of the United States, or
>as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or
>judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the
>United States, and afterwards engaged in insurrection or
>rebellion against the United States or given aid or comfort to
>the enemies thereof; that I will faithfully support the
>Constitution and obey the laws of the United States, and will, to
>the best of my ability, encourage others so to do, so help me
>God;" which oath or affirmation may be administered by any
>registering officer." Reconstruction Act of March 23, 1867,
>supplement to Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867.
>     "You will note that in the above oath Congress creates legal
>residence for anyone taking the oath and that this is done by
>registering to vote, and made a requirement in order to vote. 
>The same legal disability still takes place today when you
>register to vote.  Today you still have voting districts in every
>county in the America.
>     You will also notice that, the oath makes you declare that
>you were not disenfranchised, by taking part in the Civil War. 
>Which means that, before the Civil War Americans were franchised
>citizens, incorporated.  I covered this in part 1; by the States
>adoption of the Constitution, those that lived in the States
>became legal residents, incorporated/enfranchised, instead of Sui
>Juris freemen.  Which was granted to them by the Declaration of
>Independence, and in North Carolina, for North Carolinians this
>was reaffirmed by the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, see
>British Colony part 2."
>(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)
>     The following is the oath given to those that wanted to
>serve in the United States government.
>An act to prescribe an oath of office. July 2, 1862
>     "Be it enacted, That hereafter every person elected or
>appointed to any office of honor or profit under the Government
>of the United States either in the civil, military, or naval
>departments of the public service, excepting the President of the
>United States, shall, before entering upon the duties of such
>office, and before being entitled to any of the salary or other
>emoluments thereof, take and subscribe the following oath or
>affirmation: "I, A B, do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I have
>never voluntarily borne arms against the United States since I
>have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no
>aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in
>armed hostility thereto; that I have never sought nor accepted
>nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatever,
>under any authority or pretended authority, in hostility to the
>United States; that I have not yielded a voluntary support to any
>pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within
>the United States, hostile or inimical thereto; and I do further
>swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability,
>I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States,
>against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear 
>true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this
>obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of
>evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties
>of the office on which I am about to enter; so help me God;"
>which said oath, so taken and signed, shall be preserved among
>the files of the Court, House of Congress, or Department to which
>the said office may appertain. And any person who shall falsely
>take the said oath shall be guilty of perjury, and on conviction,
>in addition to the penalties now prescribed for that offense,
>shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable forever
>after, of holding any office or place under the United States."
>     When the war was over President Johnson declared the States
>readmitted to the Union and hostilities to be over.
>Furthermore; on April 2, 1866, President Andrew Johnson issued
>a "Proclamation" that:
>     "The insurrection which heretofore existed in the States of
>Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee,
>Alabama, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi and Florida is at an
>end, and is henceforth to be so regarded."
>Presidential Proclamation No. 153,
>General Records of the United States,
>G.S.A. National Archives and Records Service.
>     On August 20, 1866 (14 Stat. 814); the President proclaimed
>that the insurrection in the State of Texas had been completely
>ended and his "Proclamation"continued:
>     "The insurrection which heretofore existed in the State of
>Texas is at an end, and is to be henceforth so regarded in that
>State, as in the other States before named in which the said
>insurrection was proclaimed to be at an end by the aforesaid
>proclamation of the second day of April, one thousand, eight
>hundred and sixty-six.
>     And I do further proclaim that the said insurrection is at
>an end, and that peace, order, tranquility, and civil authority
>now exist, in and throughout the whole of the united States of
>President Johnson vetoed the Acts because they were
>unconstitutional.  Below are some excerpts from his veto message.
>     "It is plain that the authority here given to the military
>officer amounts to absolute despotism.  But to make it still more
>unendurable, the bill provides that it may be delegated to as
>many subordinates as he chooses to appoint, for it declares that
>he shall 'punish or cause to be punished'.  Such a power has not
>been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred

[continued ...]

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