Part I: Citizen of Which Kingdom?

       Hello, my name is David Gould, and I have prepared these papers because of the many requests I have received for an explanation of what is really going on in America. I have answered questions endlessly, and this has led to requests that I write everything down. Obviously, that is impossible; first, because I do not know everything, and secondly, because it would require more pages than I am willing to write, and probably more than you are willing to read! Believe me, there are enough pages and references in this set of papers to keep you busy for some time!

       There are a couple of things that need to be made clear before you begin. These papers were developed by a continuing project of answering the questions brought forth by the first readers of them. Therefore, they are unique in that they did not flow solely from me, but became almost a joint effort in my explaining to those with a desire to learn. When this started, I expected that four to six papers, maybe twenty-five to forty pages long would suffice. I actually said a kind of good-bye at the end of Part X, and now there are twenty parts. I do not think there will be more. You will find that the information becomes much deeper and more detailed after Part X, in response to more detailed and much better informed questions.

       I warn you, if you read all twenty parts, and it does not matter much how well informed you consider yourself, or how unimportant you think the first nine parts are in simply repeating what you think you know, your life will be changed. And I have had several snicker at this statement, but there has been no one who has read as far as part fourteen without admitting to me that they look at the world very differently now, and anyone who has finished through Part XVII has written to me and told me how they have been changed. Be forewarned; this experience can and will change you.

       That being said, please ask if you have questions. If I can not answer the question, I probably know where to get the answer. And please bear with me; as hard as it may for you to accept the information presented in Parts I and II, please continue. You will find facts and sources to confirm everything. God Bless, David


Part I: Citizenship of Which Kingdom?

       I know how difficult the following information is going to be for many of you. Believe me when I tell you that I went through the same thing you are facing -- and I did the soul searching, spent the sleepless nights, tossed and turned and refused to believe that what is revealed here could really be the truth.

       But I was faced with one inescapable fact, just as you are -- what is revealed here is not opinion. It is the result of over 15 years of research by myself and a number of other men -- research in government archives, and study of case law -- case law mostly of the Supreme Court. And, once you grasp the impact of this paper, and of the papers to follow, you begin to realize -- as I did -- that this is the only possible answer to all of the unexplainable in America.

       Like it or not, ladies and gentlemen, this is The Truth.


United States citizen, Yes or No?

Citizen: One who, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, or of a particular state, is a member of the political community, owing allegiance and being entitled to the enjoyment of full civil rights. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the state wherein they reside. U.S. Const., 14th Amend. See Citizenship.

       First, to begin to understand what the above definition means, you must define "United States." In the UNITED STATES Code, the UNITED STATES (United States) is defined as a corporation. Now, letís look at Citizenship.

Citizenship: The status of being a citizen. There are four ways to acquire citizenship: by birth in the United States, by birth in U.S. territories, by birth outside the U.S. to U.S. parents, and by naturalization.

       But all this is talking about is "born in the United States" or "born to United States citizen(s)." Is this the only choice anyone from America has? If you are born in the united States, are you automatically a United States citizen?

       (Author's Note: united States, as used in the Declaration of Independence, wherein the word united is an adjective describing the States; United States, where the word United is part of the name of the political community. Political community: An artificial creation of man for the purpose of establishing manís rule on earth. You are generally recognized as a member of a political community through two main devices; payment of taxes to the formed body, and by voting in the manner established by manís law, instead of by Godís Law.)

       Letís hear what the United States Supreme Court says about citizens.

       "It is quite clear then that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual." Slaughter House Cases, 83 US 395, 407.

       (Author's Note: It is not necessary to be a member of a "State" citizenship, either, despite what some so-called patriots claim. When you join any political community, you become subject to the rules thereof. There is case law, which says that the Constitution of a State does not apply to the common man. This is true only as long as you do not exercise the franchise established through the said Constitution, or contract into the said jurisdiction. This is why the Mennonites and other people of like mind have no trouble with the so-called government; they understand contracts and the nature of governments.)

       Does anyone besides me wonder why citizenship and the alternatives thereto are not explained in the "public" schools? Is there some reason why hospitals have been designated as "Ports of Entry" into the UNITED STATES? When you accept a "Birth Certificate" for a child, is there more to the story than you are being told? Is there some reason why the county transfers the "Birth Certificate" to the state, which then -- for a fee -- transfers the said "Birth Certificate" to the Department of Commerce in Washington, DC, where it is kept in the Human Resource file? The original Birth Certificates are printed on water marked paper -- as securities. Why? Ever heard of a Commerce Certificate for a human? Could this document, which exists for everyone who has a Birth Certificate on file in Washington, DC, be the Certificate of Title for a Human Being?

       When you sign up for Social Security, in section 3 of the Social Security Act, it says that now that you are a member of Social Security (which is totally voluntary) -- you are a taxpayer. Is there some intent behind all of these actions, not revealed to the common man?

       Why are there two Constitutions? And what are the meanings behind some of the "amendments" to the Constitution? For instance, the "anti-slavery" amendment, the thirteenth, what, exactly, does it mean, legally? What does the Supreme Court say about the Thirteenth Amendment?

       "The thirteenth amendment is a great extension of the powers of the national government." United States v. Morris, 125 Federal Reporter, page 322, 325.

       What does the Supreme Court say about the Fourteenth Amendment?

       "The amendment (fourteenth) reversed and annulled the original policy of the constitution," United States v. Rhodes, 27 Federal Cases, 785, 794.

       Do these amendments apply equally to everyone?

       "The rights of citizens of the state, as such, are not under consideration in the fourteenth amendment. They stand as they did before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and are fully guaranteed by other provisions." United States v. Anthony 24 Federal Cases 829, 830.

       "The rights of a citizen under one (state or United States citizenship) may be quite different from those which he has under the other..." Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US 404, 429.

       To understand just a little of what you are reading here, it is necessary to understand what the Constitution is: The Constitution is a document that only applies to those who serve in the so-called government and it acts as a restriction upon their actions. It is nothing else, and affords no protections or privileges for the common man in America. Lysander Spooner, in his 1869 treatise titled No Treason, said it very well:

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man."

       How does this pertain to the States?

       "...the first eight amendments have uniformly been held not be protected from state action by the privileges and immunities clause (of the fourteenth amendment)." Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, 520.

       Again, we must understand that there is a very different status in citizenship, and no one is going to give you the information needed for you to understand or reject the bad choice. This is up to you. It is called personal responsibility.

       "The rights of a citizen under one [state or United States citizenship] may be quite different from those which he has under the other..." Colgate v. Harvey, 296 US 404, 429.

       You need to read this case cite many times, so you understand that you are literally making a life choice every time you sign something from the "government." Let me be blunt, you are making a choice of how you will live for the rest of your life every time you sign anything, no matter how minor you believe it is, which is from any arm of the so-called government.

       But letís get down to the basic elements of being a United States citizen. What, exactly, does it mean? (Hint: you can not be a United States citizen unless you are contracted into the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress in the District of Columbia.)

       "The right to trial by jury in civil cases, guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment...and the right to bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment...have been distinctly held not to be privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment ...and in effect the same decision was made in respect of the guarantee against prosecution, except by indictment of a grand jury, contained in the Fifth Amendment...and in respect of the right to be confronted with witnesses, contained in the Sixth Amendment... it was held that the indictment, made indispensable by the Fifth Amendment, and the trial by jury guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, were no privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, as those words were used in the fourteenth Amendment. We conclude, therefore, that the exemption from compulsory self-incrimination is not a privilege or immunity of National citizenship guaranteed by this clause of the Fourteenth Amendment." Twining v. New Jersey, 211 US 78, 98-99.

       So an Esquire (lawyer) can bring charges against a United States citizen for any reason -- including personal animosity -- without the need of a grand jury, as long as he is acting as a member of the government -- no restrictions. Perhaps we are seeing here why grand juries have become nothing but a rubber stamp for the prosecution of "crimes." Perhaps there is a reason for everything we see happening around us.

       United States citizens have no Bill of Rights. There are no restrictions on the actions of those in government as regards United States citizens. They can -- and will -- do whatever they desire, to any United States citizen. If this means violating your "rights", then so be it -- because if you are a United States citizen, you have no rights! This will be explained to you in greater detail in Part Two.

       The following is interesting. It will show you that those in the so-called government understand exactly what is going on! Note carefully the word "reside."



       These questions were administered by Mr. Alberto Gutier, Deputy Administrator, Arizona Department of Transportation, at approximately two o'clock p.m. on August 24, 1989, after confirming that Mr. Cooper had met with Mr. Carl Davis, the Governor's Special Assistant Over Sate Agencies:

Mr. Gutier: "Before we go any further, I need to ask you our standard Screening Questions." --

Question No. 1. -- Mr. Gutier: "Are you a citizen of the United States?"

Mr. Cooper's answer: "No I am not."

Question No. 2. -- Mr. Gutier: "Are you a resident of Arizona?"

Mr. Cooper's Answer: "No, I am not. I was born in Phoenix. I have lived in Maricopa County all my life, but I am not a resident. I do not reside."

Question No. 3. -- Mr. Gutier: "Are you registered to vote?"

Mr. Cooper's Answer: "No, I am not."

Question No. 4. -- Mr. Gutier: "Do you have a driver's license?"

Mr. Cooper's answer: "No, I do not."

Question No. 5. -- Mr. Gutier: "Do you have any motor vehicles registered in Arizona?"

Mr. Cooper's answer: "No, I do not."

Question No. 6. -- Mr. Gutier: "Are you employed?"

Mr. Cooper's answer: No, I am not. I am not employed. I am not unemployed. I am not self-employed. I am not gainfully employed. In fact, I am not employable. But, I work. Besides, Arizona is a right to work State. [Mr. Gutier nodded his head in agreement and went on.]

Question No. 7. -- Mr. Gutier: "Do you pay state and federal resident income taxes?"

Mr. Cooper's answer: "No, I do not."

Question No. 8. -- Mr. Gutier: "Do you pay property taxes in Arizona?"

Mr. Cooper's answer: "No, I do not."

Question No. 9. -- Mr. Gutier: "Do you have a marriage license?"

Mr. Cooper's answer: "No, I do not."

Question No. 10. -- Mr. Gutier: "Do you have children enrolled in public school?"

Mr. Cooper's Answer: No, I do not. My children are home taught."

Mr. Gutier then said, "You've really done your homework!"

       From this little exchange, it is possible to begin to grasp the extent of "privileges" and "benefits" as the "government" defines them. It is very necessary to grasp these concepts in order to begin to understand "freedom." (I also suggest that you read the Fourteenth Amendment, and pay particular attention to the word reside, because it is the use of that word in that amendment which is the basis of the entire residency rules and statutes in use in the United States today.)

       If you must answer "yes" to any of the questions asked by Mr. Gutier, and are arguing and fighting over "not owing" the so-called income tax, or any other tax imposed by "government", then you are what is known as a "tax protester". There are a number of other questions that could be added to this list, and the most important two are:

       Do you have any license issued by any arm of the "government?" (There is only one government in America today, and all States, counties, and cities are arms of that government.)

       Do you have a Social Security Number?

       Any "yes" answer to either of these questions, or any of the questions posed by Mr. Gutier above, means you are a United States citizen.

       And this means that you owe the so-called income tax, because through the benefits and privileges of United States citizenship, you have contracted into the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress under the municipal code of Washington, DC.

       However, no matter what is said about freedom and the real intent behind law, many will only refuse the information. Perhaps if you understood the real intent behind the income tax... The following information comes from the on-line book titled The United States is Still a British Colony, which can be found at Ďwww.civil-liberties.comí.

       "As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master File, all taxpayers have one. To read one you have to be able to break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA - Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you won't find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288 form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. If you will check the OMB's paper - Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections, approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a.

       These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783."

       I strongly suggest that you read the entire on-line book, but do be careful, because the author of the work -- while his research is amazing and impeccable -- does not, in my opinion, fully understand the Constitution.

       I hope by now you are beginning to understand United States citizenship a little better.

       I mentioned, at the beginning of this paper, that there are two Constitutions. One -- the one you are familiar with -- is only for United States citizens living under the municipal code of Washington, DC. You can tell the difference by the "adoption" of amendments, rather than careful attention to the lawful ratification of amendments by the several states. I refer you in particular to the book The Law That Never Was by Red Beckman. This book contains very exhaustive detail that shows beyond any question that the several States never lawfully ratified the "Sixteenth Amendment". The point that is missed by the author of that work is that ratification is not necessary, because the 16th Amendment was only "adopted" by the United States as part of the corporate charter under the municipal code of Washington, DC! It does not apply to anyone except United States citizens.

       Also, in the same on-line book The United States is Still a Subject of Great Britain:

       "There was however, no measurable penalty for violation of the above Sections (of the Constitution), Congress saw this as a great threat to the freedom of Americans, and our Republican form of government. In January 1810 Senator Reed proposed the Thirteenth Amendment, and on April 26, 1810 was passed by the Senate 26 to 1 (1st-2nd session, p. 670) and by the House 87 to 3 on May 1, 1810 (2nd session, p. 2050) and submitted to the seventeen states for ratification. The Amendment reads as follows:

       'If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.'

       From An 'American Dictionary of the English Language, 1st Edition,' Noah Webster, (1828) defines nobility as: '3. The qualities which constitute distinction of rank in civil society, according to the customs or laws of the country; that eminence or dignity which a man derives from birth or title conferred, and which places him in an order above common men.'; and, '4. The persons collectively who enjoy rank above commoners; the peerage.'

       The fore-mentioned Sections in the Constitution for the united States, and the above proposed Thirteenth Amendment sought to prohibit the above definition, which would give any advantage or privilege to some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political power. Thirteen of the seventeen states listed below understood the importance of this Amendment.

Date admitted Date voted for Date voted against

to the Union the Amendment the Amendment

1788 Maryland Dec. 25, 1810

1792 Kentucky Jan. 31, 1811

1803 Ohio Jan. 31, 1811

1787 Delaware Feb. 2, 1811

1787 Pennsylvania Feb. 6, 1811

1787 New Jersey Feb. 13, 1811

1791 Vermont Oct. 24, 1811

1796 Tennessee Nov. 21, 1811

1788 Georgia Dec. 13, 1811

1789 North Carolina Dec. 23, 1811

1788 Massachusetts Feb. 27, 1812

1788 New Hampshire Dec. 10, 1812

1788 Virginia March 12, 1819

1788 New York March 12, 1811

1788 Connecticut May 1813

1788 South Carolina December 7, 1813

1790 Rhode Island September 15, 1814

       On March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280 (Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc." file, p. 299 for micro-film):

       'Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the laws of this Commonwealth in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution of the united States and the amendments thereto...'

       The official day of ratification was March 12, 1819, this was the date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code. Virginia ordered 4,000 copies, almost triple their usual order. Word of Virginia's 1819 ratification spread throughout the states and both Rhode Island and Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio published the new Amendment in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the new Amendment to be printed for use in the public schools, and again in 1831 for their Census Edition. Indiana published the new Amendment in the Indiana Revised Laws, of 1831 on P. 20. The Northwest Territories published the new Amendment in 1833; Ohio published the new Amendment again in 1831 and in 1833. Connecticut, one of the states that voted against the new Amendment published the new Amendment in 1835. Wisconsin Territory published the new Amendment in 1839; Iowa Territory published the new Amendment in 1843; Ohio published the new Amendment again, in 1848; Kansas published the new Amendment in 1855; and Nebraska Territory published the new Amendment six years in a row from 1855 to 1860. Colorado Territory published the new Amendment in 1865 and again 1867, in the 1867 printing, the present Thirteenth Amendment (slavery Amendment) was listed as the Fourteenth Amendment. The repeated reprinting of the Amended united States Constitution is conclusive evidence of its passage."

       The second, and older Constitution, contains only thirteen amendments. This is the Constitution which is real, and which affords protections to the common man by restricting the actions of those in government. Do those in government like this? Of course not! That is why it is up to you to secure for yourself and your family the blessings of liberty -- under the Laws of The One True God -- rather than under the iron hand of man. Choose this day whom you will serve -- God or mammon?

       Does God supply your needs -- or does mammon? What is Social Security, anyway?

       "The Social Security system may be accurately described as a form of Social Insurance, enacted pursuant to Congress' power to 'spend money in aid of the "general welfare",' Helvering vs. Davis [301 U.S., at 640]."

       "My judgment accordingly is, that policies of insurance are within... the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States." Federal Judge Story, in DELOVIO VS. BOIT, 7 Federal Cases, #3776, at page 444 (1815). (Author's Note: This case has never been overturned, because it is impossible to change this fact of law. All insurance is of Admiralty-Maritime jurisdiction under international law, and a policy of insurance is considered prima fascia evidence that you are a United States citizen. The benefit of passing off your liability for carelessness onto some one else through "insurance" is considered a privilege by the government.)

The following is the definition of tribute (tax):

       "A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677.

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

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

       Thereby making you obligated for the national debt, under the law of contracts. The Social Security system is one of the contractual nexus' between you and the king. Because you are involved in the kingís commerce and have asked voluntarily for his protection, you have accomplished the following:

       You have admitted that you are equally responsible for having caused the national debt and that you are a wrong doer, as defined by the above legal definition. You have admitted to being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, who only has civil rights granted by the king. By being a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, you have agreed that you do not have standing in court to question the national debt, or the collection thereon. This is the real meaning of being a United States citizen.

       There have been men who understood what was to happen to America. The more I learn, the more I wonder if these types of words are a warning, or just a smug prediction?

       "All the armies of Europe, Asia and Africa combined could not, by force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousand years. At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be its author and finisher." Abraham Lincoln

       As I will explain in Part Two, the American BAR Association is actually the American "British Accreditation Regency" Association -- a private corporation under the Lawyers Guild of Great Britain, which is a closely held private stock company -- probably the majority of which is owned by the Bank of England (See "the City").

       When you wonder what is going on, remember who "legislates" all of the "laws" and "treaties" -- lawyers -- and do not forget, that under this "system", all judges are FIRST, lawyers of the BAR.

       And when you study the Civil War, think carefully about this case site:

"...[T]he United States may acquire territory by conquest or by treaty, and may govern it through the exercise of the power of Congress conferred by Section 3 of Article IV of the Constitution ...

       In exercising this power, Congress is not subject to the same constitutional limitations, as when it is legislating for the united States. ... And in general the guaranties of the Constitution, save as they are limitations upon the exercise of executive and legislative power when exerted for or over our insular possessions, extend to them only as Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power over territory belonging to the United States, has made those guarantees applicable." [Hooven & Allison & Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945).

Please carefully note how different this decision is from the limitations brought forth concerning the powers of Congress outside of Washington, D.C, in the Dred Scott case. It is easy to see how things changed after the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.

       And yes, many in the "judicial community" have understood where we are heading and did not like it.

       "The idea prevails with some indeed, it found expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise.

       I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism.

       It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution." [Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)]

       What this is referring to is legislation under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution, under which fully 95% and more of the legislation of today is done -- legislation which pertains only to the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress within Washington, D.C.


       Letís take just a moment to think about the title of Esquire, which all BAR attorneys proudly proclaim as their own.

       "Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641.

       So, in Blackís Law Dictionary, it is admitted that Esquire is of British law.

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

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

       To live idly -- an interesting concept, donít you think? Particularly interesting if you bother to read Scripture. Perhaps, if you wish to understand the world around you, you should study Scripture -- Start with S. Luke 11:46;

       He said, "and woe to you jurists! you load men with irksome burdens, and you will not put a single finger to their burdens...

       The word "jurists" in the King James Bible, is translated today as "lawyers". Is there any question in your mind as to what He means when he says "...and you will not put a single finger to their burdens..."? The law of man is simply a method whereby the parasites can force their daily bread out of the common man -- out of the producers in society -- nothing else. It always has been, and it always will be.

       Today, in the UNITED STATES, there are more police -- er, excuse me -- more jack booted thugs -- as a percentage of the population than in any other nation on the face of the earth, by a wide margin.

       Today, in the UNITED STATES, there are more prison beds as a percentage of the population than in any other nation on the face of the earth, by a wide margin. And they are very serious about building many more prisons.

       Today, in the UNITED STATES, there are more prisoners in prison as a percentage of population than in any other nation on the face of the earth, by a VERY wide margin -- and they intend to put a lot more in prison, soon. There are many more people in prison in America today as a percentage of population than there were in Russia at the height of the Gulags of Stalin -- many more, as a percentage of the population -- at least DOUBLE the number!

       Today, in the UNITED STATES, they have the best -- i.e., worst -- asset forfeiture laws in the world. The jack booted thugs now have the "right" to steal literally anything they wish to steal -- under any pretense they wish to use.

       Perhaps understanding comes through a little better with this. The purpose of United States citizenship is that the privileged few parasites can live without manual labor -- can live idly -- can force their daily bread out of the common man, through tribute -- sorry, through CON-tribute- ION -- contribution. Tribute is the root word of contribution. And if you wonít CON-tribute, they will steal what they wish. Why -- because they own it by your voluntary contract.

       So when Bill Clinton stands up and says; "Everyone should CON-tribute their fair share," now you know what he is really saying. Think about Bill Clinton as you read the following quote.

       "Our rulers will become corrupt, our people careless... the time for fixing every essential right on a legal basis is [now] while our rulers are honest, and ourselves united. From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget themselves, but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore, which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war, will remain on us long, will be made heavier and heavier, till our rights shall revive or expire in a convulsion. Thomas Jefferson

       Bill Clinton admits that the accumulative tax rate in America is now in excess of 65%, and will reach 85% by the year 2005. Think about this as you read this final quote, and think about all of the poorly paid "police officers" and others out there.

       "...And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, and give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have not time to think, no means of calling the mismanager's to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow sufferers..." (Thomas Jefferson) THE MAKING OF AMERICA, p. 395



       1. All members of the BAR are British subjects, and as such, are bound to enforce the codes and proclamations of Washington, DC. Since all BAR members in the united States are United States citizens, and since the tax code of the United States is for the benefit of "the Crown", it is easy to understand that all United States citizens are also subjects of the Crown. Therefore, arguing about the "Kingís taxes" makes you two things -- a disobedient slave, and a tax protester.

The following is an excerpt from an article which appeared in the Anti-Shyster October,

1991 as written by Alfred Adask regarding the 13th Amendment. This particular section

is entitled ...


"In Colonial America, attorneys trained attorneys but most had no 'title of nobility' of 'honor'. There was no requirement that one be a lawyer to hold the position of district attorney, attorney general, or judge; a citizen's 'counsel of choice' was not restricted to a lawyer; there were no state bar associations. The only organization that certified lawyers was the International Bar Association (IBA), chartered by the King of England, headquarted in London, and closely associated with the international banking system. Lawyers admitted to the IBA received the rank 'Esquire' -- a 'title of nobility'.

'Esquire' was the principal title of nobility which the 13th Amendment sought to prohibit from the United States. Why? Because the loyalty of 'Esquire' lawyers was suspect. Bankers and lawyers with an 'Esquire' behind their names were agents of the monarchy, members of an organization whose principle purposes were political, not economic, and regarded with the same wariness that some people today reserve for members of the KGB or the CIA.

Article 1, Sect. 9 of the Constitution sought to prohibit the International Bar Association (or any other agency that granted titles of nobility) from operating in America. But the Constitution neglected to specify a penalty, so the prohibition was ignored, and agents of the monarchy continued to infiltrate and influence the government (as in the Jay Treaty and the US Bank charter incidents). Therefor, a 'title of nobility' amendment that specified a penalty (loss of citizenship) was proposed in 1789, and again in 1810. The meaning of the amendment is seen in its intent to prohibit persons having titles of nobility and loyalties to foreign governments and bankers from voting, holding public office, or using their skills to subvert the government."

       2. All "laws" in the United States, be they city, county, state or federal, are privately copyrighted (Donít argue with me, just go look at the fly leaf of the darn code books!). Think about that. If you attempt to use the Kingís Rules against him, without having permission to quote and use the rules -- unless the King licenses you to so quote and use the rules -- what do you think are the chances of you winning your case? Perhaps, if you consider this fact of private copyrighting of the laws you must live under as a United States citizen, you will begin to understand just what an Esquire really is!

       3. Who are the real enemies? If the private copyrights could be traced, they would lead back to "the Crown", which is the London financial district. This is where all of the "municipal corporations" in the United States spring from as well. However, these "money kings" have no real power and authority on their own. Their numbers are much too small, so they absolutely depend upon chosen minions to carry out their work and the subjection of the targeted people. If these "chosen minions" can be identified, are they not the real enemy? And donít point fingers at the police or the federal agents. They are just cannon fodder for the real enemies -- human targets to shield the real problem creators. And I have already given you the answer; they are called Esquire -- men, and women, too lazy to work, and who must bleed their daily bread from the commoners (uh, thatís you and I, by the way). In Scripture, we are told not to enter their courts, and I hope that I have given you some inkling of why we are told that. But, without the Esquires, these same courts can not operate! The police have no where to take their "revenue". The federal agents have no where to look for guidance, and protection, when they "follow orders" and violate the Law written in their hearts.

       4. Read Part Two. The UNITED STATES was established as a Crown Colony in order to reestablish the authority of the British King over the states, which had successfully thrown off the yoke of feudalism in the Americas. Feudalism is back, ladies and gentlemen, and United States citizens are in that feudal state as subjects of the King every bit as much as are Esquires.

       Please, I ask you, think of these things I have written of before you go see an Esquire, and before you admit to being a United States citizen. Think -- if not for yourself -- then for the children you will leave this once great nation too!

Ladies and Gentleman, I submit to you that we, as a People, can not begin to right the wrongs we have been subjected to until we identify the source of the problem. I hope this essay makes your job of identification a little easier.

A last parting thought: What are 1000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

A start, nothing but a start.

Now that you have finished Part I, please proceed to Part II. I hope you are ready for Part II, because it concerns the Constitution.  -- David Gould


Return to Table of Contents for

David Gould