Updated September 28, 2010

An Essay about Suspension/Abrogation of the united States Constitution:

The Historical Timeline:

March 22, 1765 - Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Is Passed. The congress met for 12 days, including Sundays. There was no audience at the meetings, and no information about the deliberations was released during or after the congress. Their final product was called "The Declaration of Rights and Grievances", and was drawn up by delegate John Dickinson of Pennsylvania. This Declaration raised fourteen points of colonial protest. In addition protesting to the Stamp Act issue, it asserted that colonists possessed all the rights of Englishmen, and that since they had no voting rights over Parliament, Parliament could not represent the colonists. Only the colonial assemblies had a right to tax the colonies. They also asserted that trial by jury was a right that the recent Admiralty Courts abused.

It is significant that in addition to simply arguing for their rights as Englishmen, they also asserted that they had certain natural rights solely because they were human beings. Resolution 3 stated, "That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be imposed on them, but with their own consent, given personally, or by their representatives." Both Massachusetts and Pennsylvania in separate resolutions would bring forth the issue even more directly when they referred, respectively, to "the Natural rights of Mankind" and "the common rights of mankind".

1765. Boston Grand Jurors refused to indict the leaders of the Stamp Act riots, while in Williamsburg, Virginia, jurors assembled for the general court joined the mob that hanged the stamp master in effigy.

March 5, 1770. The Boston Massacre. The Boston Massacre was an incident that led to the deaths of five civilians at the hands of British troops on March 5, 1770, the legal aftermath of which helped spark the rebellion in some of the British American colonies, which culminated in the American Revolutionary War. A heavy British military presence in Boston led to a tense situation that boiled over into incitement of brawls between soldiers and civilians and eventually led to troops discharging their muskets after being attacked by a rioting crowd. Three civilians were killed at the scene of the shooting, eleven were injured, and two died after the incident.

In the year of 1770. Philadelphia’s Grand Jury took up the fight, and it went beyond the purely negative tactics of refusing to indict colonists and proposed a positive program of protest against the British tax on tea. The jurors denounced the use of the proceeds of the tea tax to pay salaries of royal officials in the colony. They declared their support of the non-importation agreement recently reached by the importers of Philadelphia and, in addition, recommended that Pennsylvania attempt to "promote union with the other colonies" in order to seek redress of their collective grievances. As a start for such co-operative action, the jurors pledged themselves to work for a united colonial program of non-consumption of British goods.

June 9, 1772 - The Gaspee Affair. HMS Gaspee and her hated commander, Lt. William Dudingston, were sent by King George III to Rhode Island waters in March of 1772 to enforce the trade laws and prevent smuggling. In a notorious act of defiance, American patriots attacked, boarded, looted, and torched the ship. This was a significant event in the lead-up to the American Revolution.

March 12, 1773. The Boston Tea Party

March 31, 1774. The Boston Port Act is passed by Parliament

May 20, 1774 - Administration of Justice and Massachusetts Government Acts are passed by Parliament

June 9, 1774 - Quartering Act is passed by Parliament

June 9, 1774 - First Continental Congress Convenes

October 7, 1774 - Quebec Act is passed by Parliament

October 14, 1774 - Declaration of Rights and Grievances is passed

October 20, 1774 - Articles of Association are signed

April 18, 1775 - American Revolutionary War (1775 - 1783)

May 10, 1775 - Second Continental Congress Convenes

June 7, 1776 - Richard Henry Lee Introduces Independence Resolution

July 21, 1775 - Ben Franklin Presents a Plan for Confederation

July 4, 1776 - Declaration of Independence Adopted

November 15, 1777 - Articles of Confederation Proposed

February 5, 1790 - Constitutional Convention See: Philadelphia Convention, US Supreme Court's third day of doing business. It was supposed to be a government of the people, so with the advice and consent of the Senate, the President had appointed Justices of the Supreme Court. No other Constitutional qualifications or limitations exist for those who would be a Judge. The Supreme Court had to accept any person whom President Washington had appointed to be a member of that Court. If Judges, nominees by the President, weren't required to be lawyers - those who practice before the Justices certainly did not have to be. The word lawyer and the qualification for them does not appear once in the Constitution. For good reason, the Constitution does not authorize the Courts to make rules for conducting its business. But as its first business, the Jay Court brazenly and unconstitutionally made and adopted Rules "as to the form of writs and as to the admission of counselors and attorneys."

March 1, 1781 - Articles Of Confederation Ratified. Now the Articles of Confederation which were declared in force March 1, 1781 States in Article 12: "All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."

January 22, 1783. Congress ratified a contract for the repayment. Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. King George funded both sides of the Revolutionary War. The Articles of Confederation acknowledge the debt owed to King George. Now after losing the Revolutionary War, even though the War was nothing more than a move to turn the people into debtors for the King, the conquest was not yet complete. Now the loans were coming due and so a meeting was convened in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the economic instability of the country under the Articles of Confederation. Only five States come to the meeting, but there is a call for another meeting to take place in Philadelphia the following year with the express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation On February 21, 1787 Congress gave approval of the meeting to take place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation. Something had to be done about the mounting debt. Little did the people know that the so called founding fathers were going to reorganize the United States because it was Bankrupt (chapter 11).

February 4, 1783 - English Declare Hostilities at an End

April 11, 1783 - America Declares Hostilities at an End

January 14, 1784 - Revolutionary War Ends (Treaty of Paris)

May 25, 1787 - Constitutional Convention Opens

September 17, 1787. Twelve State delegates approve the Constitution. The States have now become Constitutors.

Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt. Black’s Law Dictionary 6th Edition

The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote.

September 17, 1787 - Final Draft of the Constitution Sent To Congress

December 7, 1787 - STATEHOOD. Delaware

December 12, 1787 - STATEHOOD. Pennsylvania

December 18, 1787 - STATEHOOD - New Jersey

January 1, 1788 - The United States Is Officially Bankrupt. Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. King George funded both sides of the Revolutionary War.

See Also: January 22, 1783. Congress ratified a contract for the repayment.

January 2, 1788 - STATEHOOD. Georgia.

January 9, 1788 - STATEHOOD. Connecticut.

February 6, 1788 STATEHOOD. Massachusetts.

April 28, 1788 - STATEHOOD. Maryland.

May 23, 1788 - STATEHOOD - South Carolina.

June 21, 1788 - STATEHOOD - New Hampshire.

June 21, 1788 - united States Constitution Ratified.

June 25, 1788 - STATEHOOD. Virginia.

July 26, 1788V - STATEHOOD - New York.

March 4, 1789 - the united States Constitution circa 1789 goes into effect.

April 30, 1789 - George Washington President.

July 14, 1789 - French Revolution.

September 9, 1789 - Amendments 1-10, 27, one un-ratified amendment.

November 21, 1789 - STATEHOOD - North Carolina.

May 29, 1790 - STATEHOOD - Rhode Island became the 13th State as the last of the original colonies.

August 4, 1790 - Article 1 of the U.S. Statutes at Large, pages 138-178, abolished the States of the Republic and created federal districts. An act making provision for the payment of the debt of the united States was passed which was titled “An Act making provision for the payment of the Debt of the United States.” This can be found at United States Statutes at Large/Volume 1/1st Congress/2nd Session/Chapter 34. This Act for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don't believe it look it up. The Act set up Federal Districts. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is synonymous with subject.

There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction. You have been declared a fictional entity.

See: “American law and procedure. Jurisprudence and legal institutions. Vol. XIII” By James De Witt Andrews LL.B. (Albany Law School), LL.D. (Ruskin University) from La Salle University. This book explains in detail the nature and purpose of these corporations, you will be stunned at what you read.

September 1796. President George Washington’s Address

February 1803. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803). First decision of the Supreme Court of the United States to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional, thus establishing the doctrine of judicial review.

Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)is a landmark case in United States law. It formed the basis for the exercise of judicial review in the United States under Article III of the Constitution Marbury v. Madison was the first time the Supreme Court declared something "unconstitutional," and established the concept of judicial review in the U.S. (the idea that courts may oversee and nullify the actions of another branch of government). The landmark decision helped define the "checks and balances" of the American form of government.

This case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents, but the court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, denied Marbury's petition, holding that the part of the statute upon which he based his claim, the Judiciary Act of 1789, was unconstitutional.

June 18, 1812 - War of 1812 Begins

August 24, 1814. The Burning of Washington was a battle that took place on August 24, 1814, during the War of 1812 between the British Empire and the United States of America. The British Army occupied Washington, D.C. and set fire to many public buildings following the American defeat at the Battle of Bladensburg. The facilities of the U.S. government, including the White House, were largely destroyed. They were destroying important documents pertaining to the united States Constitution.

December 24, 1814 - War Of 1812 Ends (Treaty of Ghent)

May 7, 1822 - Rhode Island Recognized the “Title of Nobility Act”

In 1832 President Andrew Jackson’s Opposition to the National Bank. In 1828 Andrew Jackson was elected President of the United States. The President wasted no time in making his feelings clear about central banking and promptly had the government’s money moved from the central bank into state banks.

The bank’s president Nicholas Biddle, went to Andrew Jackson asking permission to establish bank branches in some of the major cities. President Jackson responded by not only turning Biddle down, but by telling him that such a thing was a menace to the nation, and that he would do anything in his power to stop the establishment of the bank branches and fight the charter renewal bill when it came up.

Biddle responded by telling the President Jackson that he and other bankers would finance the campaign against him for the presidency. These events lead to one of the bitterest elections in American history. Andrew Jackson still won by the majority even though Nicholas Biddle and other bankers gave the opposing campaign three million dollars. During the campaign, Andrew Jackson once said “If Congress has the right under the Constitution to issue paper money; it was given to them to be used by themselves, not to be delegated to individuals or corporations.” So simple yet so true. The bankers were still able to “convince” enough Congressmen to get this renewal bill passed; however, they could not overrule President Jackson’s veto.

1837-1862 The Free Banking Era. Andrew Jackson would do everything in his power to stop the establishment of the bank branches and fight the charter renewal bill when it came up. This is what led us to the Free Banking Era (1837-1862). The Free Banking Era simply meant that only state chartered banks existed. The bank would be able to issue paper money against gold and silver, but the states regulated reserve requirements and interest rates for loans and deposits. The nation was thriving until the bankers resorted to their old tactics of cornering the gold and silver bullion market causing a depression.

1845 Congress Allows Common Law to Be Usurped. Congress passed legislation that would ultimately allow Common Law to be usurped by Admiralty Law. Before 1845, Americans were considered sovereign individuals who governed themselves under Common Law. The addition of the yellow fringed flag on display in our courtrooms means that our Constitutional Republic is no more. Our system of law was changed without the public's knowledge. It was kept secret. This is fraud. The American people were allowed to believe this was just a decoration. Because the law changed from Common Law (God's Law) to Admiralty Law (the Kings law) your status also changed from sovereign to subject; and from being able to own property (allodial title) to not owning property (tenet on the land). If you think you own your property, stop paying taxes, it will be taken by the county tax man. The yellow fringe around the outside of the courts flags shows this is still true.

See Also: admiralty.html

December 19, 1860 Constitution for the united States of America Republic, circa 1787 as amended through December 19, 1860

December 20, 1860. South Carolina votes to secede.

January 1861 The South Secedes. When Abraham Lincoln, a known opponent of slavery, was elected president, the South Carolina legislature perceived a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union known as the United States of America. The secession of South Carolina was followed by the secession of six more states. Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas, and the threat of secession by four more. Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America.

February 1861 The South Creates a Government. At a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, the seven seceding states created the Confederate Constitution, a document similar to the United States Constitution, but with greater stress on the autonomy of each state. Jefferson Davis was named provisional president of the Confederacy until elections could be held.

February 1861 The South Seizes Federal Forts. When President Buchanan. Lincoln's predecessor refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.

April 12, 1861 the south attacked Fort Sumter which was eventually was surrendered to South Carolina.

March 4, 1861 Lincoln's Inauguration. At Lincoln's inauguration on March 4, 1861 the new president said he had no plans to end slavery in those states where it already existed, but he also said he would not accept secession. He hoped to resolve the national crisis without warfare.

March 27, 1861 The End of the American Republic: the Shadow Government is Born.

March 27, 1861 Congress was adjourned Sine Die (pronounced see-na dee-a; literally "without day") Lincoln could not legally reconvene Congress.

When the Southern states walked out of Congress on March 27, 1861, the quorum to conduct business under the Constitution was lost. The only votes that Congress could lawfully take, under Parliamentary Law, were those to set the time to reconvene, take a vote to get a quorum, and vote to adjourn and set a date, time, and place to reconvene at a later time, but instead, Congress abandoned the House and Senate without setting a date to reconvene. Under the parliamentary law of Congress, when this happened, Congress became Sine Die (pronounced see-na dee-a; literally “without day”) and thus when Congress adjourned sine die, it ceased to exist as a lawful deliberative body, and the only lawful, constitutional power that could declare war was no longer lawful, or in session.

The Southern states, by virtue of their secession from the Union, also ceased to exist sine die, and some state legislatures in the Northern bloc also adjourned sine die, and thus, all the states which were parties to creating the Constitution ceased to exist. President Lincoln executed the first executive order written by any President on April 15, 1861, Executive Order 1, see here: http://historyplace.com/lincoln, and the nation has been ruled by the President under executive order ever since. When Congress eventually did reconvene, it was reconvened under the military authority of the Commander-in-Chief and not by Rules of Order for Parliamentary bodies or by Constitutional Law; placing the American people under martial rule ever since that national emergency declared by President Lincoln. The Constitution for the United States of America temporarily ceased to be the law of the land, and the President, Congress, and the Courts unlawfully presumed that they were free to remake the nation in their own image, whereas, lawfully, no constitutional provisions were in place which afforded power to any of the actions which were taken which presumed to place the nation under the new form of control.

President Lincoln knew that he had no authority to issue any executive order, and thus he commissioned General Orders No. 100 (April 24, 1863) as a special field code to govern his actions under martial law and which justified the seizure of power, which extended the laws of the District of Columbia, and which fictionally implemented the provisions of Article I, Section 8, Clauses 17-18 of the Constitution beyond the boundaries of Washington, D.C. and into the several states. General Orders No. 100, also called the Lieber Instructions and the Lieber Code, extended The Laws of War and International Law onto American soil, and the United States government became the presumed conqueror of the people and the land.

Martial rule was kept secret and has never ended, the nation has been ruled under Military Law by the Commander of Chief of that military; the President, under his assumed executive powers and according to his executive orders. Constitutional law under the original Constitution is enforced only as a matter of keeping the public peace under the provisions of General Orders No. 100 under martial rule. Under Martial Law, title is a mere fiction, since all property belongs to the military except for that property which the Commander-in-Chief may, in his benevolence, exempt from taxation and seizure and upon which he allows the enemy to reside.

President Lincoln was assassinated before he could complete plans for reestablishing Constitutional government in the Southern States and end the martial rule by executive order, and the 14th Article in Amendment to the Constitution created a new citizenship status for the new expanded jurisdiction. New laws for the District of Columbia were established and passed by Congress in 1871, supplanting those established Feb. 27, 1801 and May 3, 1802. The District of Columbia was re-incorporated in 1872, and all states in the Union were reformed as Franchisees of the Federal Corporation so that a new Union of the United States could be created. The key to when the states became Federal Franchisees is related to the date when such states enacted the Field Code in law.

The Field Code was a codification of the common law that was adopted first by New York and then by California in 1872, and shortly afterwards the Lieber Code was used to bring the United States into the 1874 Brussels Conference and into the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.

April 12, 1861 The Civil War Begins (49 years after the War of 1812 ends)

April 1861 Four More States Join the Confederacy. The attack on Fort Sumter prompted four more states (Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) to join the Confederacy. With Virginia's secession, Richmond was named the Confederate capitol.

June 1861 West Virginia Is Born. Residents of the western counties of Virginia did not wish to secede along with the rest of the state. This section of Virginia was admitted into the Union as the state of West Virginia on June 20, 1863.

June 1861 Four Slave States Stay in the Union. Despite their acceptance of slavery, Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri did not join the Confederacy. Although divided in their loyalties, a combination of political maneuvering and Union military pressure kept these states from seceding. July 1861 First Battle of Bull Run. Public demand pushed General-in-Chief Winfield Scott to advance on the South before adequately training his untried troops. Scott ordered General Irvin McDowell to advance on Confederate troops stationed at Manassas Junction, Virginia. McDowell attacked on July 21, and was initially successful, but the introduction of Confederate reinforcements resulted in a Southern victory and a chaotic retreat toward Washington by federal troops.

July 1861 General McDowell Is Replaced. Suddenly aware of the threat of a protracted war and the army's need for organization and training, Lincoln replaced McDowell with General George B. McClellan.

July 1861 A Blockade of the South. To blockade the coast of the Confederacy effectively, the federal navy had to be improved. By July, the effort at improvement had made a difference and an effective blockade had begun. The South responded by building small, fast ships that could outmaneuver Union vessels.

Port Royal, South Carolina. 1861-1862. On November 7, 1861, Captain Samuel F. Dupont's warships silenced Confederate guns in Fort Walker and Fort Beauregard. This victory enabled General Thomas W. Sherman's troops to occupy first Port Royal and then all the famous Sea Islands of South Carolina, where Timothy H. O'Sullivan recorded them making themselves at home.

January 1863 Emancipation Proclamation. In an effort to placate the slave-holding Border States, Lincoln resisted the demands of radical Republicans for complete abolition. Yet some Union generals, such as General B. F. Butler, declared slaves escaping to their lines "contraband of war," not to be returned to their masters. Other generals decreed that the slaves of men rebelling against the Union were to be considered free. Congress, too, had been moving toward abolition. In 1861, Congress had passed an act stating that all slaves employed against the Union were to be considered free. In 1862, another act stated that all slaves of men who supported the Confederacy were to be considered free. Lincoln, aware of the public's growing support of abolition, issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, declaring that all slaves in areas still in rebellion were, in the eyes of the federal government, free.

March 1863 The First Conscription Act. Because of recruiting difficulties, an act was passed making all men between the ages of 20 and 45 liable to be called for military service. Service could be avoided by paying a fee or finding a substitute. The act was seen as unfair to the poor, and riots in working-class sections of New York City broke out in protest. A similar conscription act in the South provoked a similar reaction.

April 24th, 1863, Martial Law is declared by President Lincoln with General Orders No. 100; under martial law authority, Congress and President Lincoln institute continuous martial law by ordering the states (people) either conscribe troops and or provide money in support of the North or be recognized as enemies of the nation; this martial law Act of Congress is still in effect today. This martial law authority gives the President (with or without Congress) the dictatorial authority to do anything that can be done by government in accord with the Constitution of the United States of America. This conscription act remains in effect to this very day and is the foundation of Presidential Executive Orders authority; it was magnified in 1917 with The Trading with the Enemy Act (Public Law 65-91, 65th Congress, Session I, Chapters 105, 106, October 6, 1917). and again in 1933 with the Emergency War Powers Act, which is ratified and enhanced almost every year to this date by Congress. Today these Acts address the people of the United States themselves as their enemy.

Neither Mr. Lincoln nor any future President ever repealed the martial law instituted during the Civil War.

June-July 1863 The Gettysburg Campaign. Confederate General Lee decided to take the war to the enemy. On June 13, he defeated Union forces at Winchester, Virginia, and continued north to Pennsylvania. General Hooker, who had been planning to attack Richmond, was instead forced to follow Lee. Hooker, never comfortable with his commander, General Halleck, resigned on June 28, and General George Meade replaced him as commander of the Army of the Potomac.

On July 1, 1863 a chance encounter between Union and Confederate forces began the Battle of Gettysburg. In the fighting that followed, Meade had greater numbers and better defensive positions. He won the battle, but failed to follow Lee as he retreated back to Virginia. Militarily, the Battle of Gettysburg was the high-water mark of the Confederacy; it is also significant because it ended Confederate hopes of formal recognition by foreign governments. On November 19, President Lincoln dedicated a portion of the Gettysburg battlefield as a national cemetery, and delivered his memorable "Gettysburg Address."

1863 Leiber Code was established taking away your property and your rights. See Also: liebercode.htm

1864 through 1867 Several Reconstruction Acts were passed forcing the states to ratify the 14th amendment which made everyone slaves.

May 1864 Grant's Wilderness Campaign. The Wilderness Campaign was a group of battles and skirmishes in Virginia. The Union forces used their vast numbers to crush the Confederates under their sheer mass. In May 1864, Gen. Grant, now in command of the Union armies, attacked the Army of Northern Virginia, led by Gen. Lee. Gen. Meade, under Grant, attacked with more than 100,000 Union troops. Lee, with less than 70,000 soldiers, met the first Union attack in a wooded area called the Wilderness about 50 miles north of Richmond. Fighting on May 5-6 ended up with about 18,000 Union soldiers dead, but Grant ignored the losses and ordered Meade to march south toward the Spotsylvania Court House. More than 14,000 Union soldiers were killed there from May 8 to May 18, but Grant kept moving toward Lee's right flank, going south to Cold Harbor. Fighting there lost 13,000 Union lives from June 3 to June 12, and there were about 12,000 Union casualties in a short 8-minute period on June 3. From the Wilderness to Cold Harbor the Union army suffered about 20,000 casualties. The North was appalled at the losses, but Grant's strategy was succeeding; he kept on getting reinforcements, and Lee could find no more. Overall, the Union lost about 60,000 troops, almost equal to the strength of the entire Confederate army, which only lost between 25,000 and 30,000. Grant, however, was still moving toward Richmond. Bibliography: Catton, B., Grant Takes Command (1968); Scott, R. G., Into the Wilderness with the Army of the Potomac, rev. ed. (1992); Steere, E., The Wilderness Campaign (1960; repr. 1987).

See Also: wildernesscampaign.html

July 1864 Confederate Troops Approach Washington, D.C. Confederate General Jubal Early led his forces into Maryland to relieve the pressure on Lee's army. Early got within five miles of Washington, D.C., but on July 13, he was driven back to Virginia.

November 1864 Abraham Lincoln Is Re-Elected. The Republican Party nominated President Abraham Lincoln as its presidential candidate, and Andrew Johnson for vice-president. The Democratic Party chose General George B. McClellan for president, and George Pendleton for vice-president. At one point, widespread war-weariness in the North made a victory for Lincoln seem doubtful. In addition, Lincoln's veto of the Wade-Davis Bill requiring the majority of the electorate in each Confederate state to swear past and future loyalty to the Union before the state could officially be restored lost him the support of Radical Republicans who thought Lincoln too lenient. However, Sherman's victory in Atlanta boosted Lincoln's popularity and helped him win re-election by a wide margin.

January 1865 The Fall of the Confederacy. Transportation problems and successful blockades caused severe shortages of food and supplies in the South. Starving soldiers began to desert Lee's forces, and although President Jefferson Davis approved the arming of slaves as a means of augmenting the shrinking army, the measure was never put into effect. February 1865 Sherman Marches through North and South Carolina. Union General Sherman moved from Georgia through South Carolina, destroying almost everything in his path.

February 1865 A Chance for Reconciliation Is Lost. Confederate President Jefferson Davis agreed to send delegates to a peace conference with President Lincoln and Secretary of State William Seward, but insisted on Lincoln's recognition of the South's independence as a prerequisite. Lincoln refused, and the conference never occurred.

April 1865 Richmond Evacuated. On March 25, General Lee attacked General Grant's forces near Petersburg, but was defeated. Attacking and losing again on April 1. On April 2, Lee evacuated Richmond, the Confederate capital, and headed west to join with other forces. 1865 The Defenses of Washington. The Lincoln administration was determined to make the capital safe from attack by ringing the city with a chain of forts manned by substantial garrisons of artillerists and other troops.

April 1865; Surrender at Appomattox Courthouse. General Lee's troops were soon surrounded, and on April 7, Grant called upon Lee to surrender. On April 9, the two commanders met at Appomattox Courthouse, and agreed on the terms of surrender. Lee's men were sent home on parole; soldiers with their horses, and officers with their side arms. All other equipment was surrendered.

April 14, 1865; The Assassination of President Lincoln. On April 14, 1865, as President Lincoln was watching a performance of "Our American Cousin" at Ford's Theater in Washington, D.C., he was shot by John Wilkes Booth, an actor from Maryland obsessed with avenging the Confederate defeat. Lincoln died the next morning. Booth escaped to Virginia. Eleven days later, cornered in a burning barn, Booth was fatally shot by a Union soldier. Nine other people were involved in the assassination; four were hanged, four imprisoned, and one acquitted.

Just before President Lincoln was assassinated he declared his new monetary policy: The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principles, the taxpayers will be saved immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master and become the servant of humanity…. The privilege of creating and issuing money is not only the supreme prerogative of government, but it is the governments' greatest opportunity.

Had it been implemented, it would have ushered in a worldwide economic renewal. America would have found its way out of its war debts. Just five days after General Lee surrendered and Mr. Lincoln won his War, he was shot.

Unfortunately, a few weeks after its introduction, Lincoln was assassinated because he defied the bankers in proposing to print interest free money to pay the war debt. Thus, the government continued to operate fully under the authority of private law dictated by the creditor.

In 1865, the capital was moved to Washington, D.C., a separate country, not a part of the united States of America.

April-May 1865 Final Surrenders among Remaining Confederate Troops. Remaining Confederate troops were defeated between the end of April and the end of May. Jefferson Davis was captured in Georgia on May 10.

Reconstruction Acts from March 2, 1867

1867 Reconstruction Act. Nearly two years following the end of the Civil War, Congress finally forged a complete plan for reconstruction. Three measures were passed in 1867 as well as additional legislation the following year. The measures main points included:

1) Creation of five military districts in the seceded states (not including Tennessee, which had ratified the 14th Amendment and was readmitted to the Union).

2) Each district was to be headed by a military official empowered to appoint and remove state officials.

3) Voters were to be registered; all freedmen were to be included as well as those white men who took an extended loyalty oath.

4) State constitutional conventions, comprising elected delegates, were to draft new governing documents providing for black male suffrage.

5) States were required to ratify the 14th Amendment prior to readmission.

See Also: 1851-1875/reconstruction/veto.htm

March 2, 1867. Faced with ratification failure, Congress passed over President Johnson's vetoes three "Reconstruction Acts from March 2, 1867 through July 19, 1867 declaring the southern State governments to be illegal. Following are excerpts of President Johnson's veto message to Congress regarding its first Reconstruction Act.

“The military is being used to coerce the people into adopting principles and measures that they are opposed to, and which they have an undeniable right to exercise their own judgment.”

“The bill is without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the Constitution, and utterly destructive to those principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed much blood and expended so much treasure.”

“The purpose and object of the bill is to change the entire structure and character of the State governments and to compel them by force to the adoption of organic laws [14th amendment], and regulations, which they are unwilling to accept if left to themselves. If they do not form a constitution with prescribed articles in it and afterwards elect a legislature, which will act upon certain measures in a prescribed way [subjugation], neither blacks nor whites can be relieved from the slavery, which the bill imposes upon them.

Note: The Tulane Law Review Vol. 28 of 1953 (see: civil-liberties.com) in the article entitled The Dubious Origin of the 14th Amendment by Walter J. Suthon, Jr., former President of the Louisiana State bar Association, states;

“The most extreme and amazing feature of the Act (Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867) as the requirement that each excluded state must ratify the 14th Amendment, in order to again enjoy the status and rights of a State, including representation in Congress, Section 3 of the Act sets forth this compulsive coercion thus imposed upon the Southern States.”

The most apt characterization of this compulsive provision, placing these States under military authority, there to remain until they comply, inter alia with this requirement of ratifying the rejected 14th Amendment, is found in a speech of Senator Doolittle of Wisconsin, a Northerner and a Conservative Republican. During the floor debate on the bill he said;

"My friend has said what has been said all around me, what is said everyday; the people of the South have rejected the constitutional amendment, and therefore we will march upon them and force them to adopt at the point of a bayonet, and establish military over them until they do adopt it.:

Congressional Globe 39th Congress 2nd Session, Part 3, at 1644(1867).

“Surely, the authors of our Constitution never contemplated or understood that ratification of a constitutional amendment proposal by a State could lawfully be compelled “at the point of a bayonet, and by subjecting all aspects of civil life in the recalcitrant State to continue military rule, until said State recanted its heresy in rejecting the proposed amendment and yielded the desired ratification to the duress of continued and compelling force.”

The constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts went before the US Supreme Court in Mississippi v. Johnson, 4 Wallace, 475. The court dismissed the case on the technical ground that the court had “no jurisdiction of a bill to enjoin the President in the performance of his official duties…”

The constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts went to the Supreme Court a 2nd time in the case of Georgia v. Stanton, 6 Wallace, 50. The court found an equally good technical reason for declining jurisdiction by holding that the case concerned purely political matters, instead of personal and property rights. held that "A bill to restrain the defendants, who represent the executive authority of the government, from carrying into execution certain Acts of Congress, in as much as such execution would annul and totally abolish the existing State Government of Georgia, is not within the jurisdiction of this court.’

A third time, in Ex Parte McCardle, 6 Wallace, 318.The US Supreme Court assumed jurisdiction on the constitutionality of the Reconstruction Acts and were argued before the Supreme Court.

Before the Supreme Court could enter a judgment the Radical Republicans, in control of Congress, rushed thru a bill repealing the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Act of 1867 (which McCardle used, as authority for the court to assume jurisdiction) prohibiting the Supreme Court from preceding on any appeal already before it. The arguments in the McCardle case had been finished while the bill was still pending. The court waited until the bill was passed and then postponed further consideration of the matter until the next term. In McCardle Chief Justice Chase stated, “This court cannot proceed to pronounce judgment…for it has no longer jurisdiction of the appeal; and judicial duty is not less fitly performed by declining un-granted jurisdiction then in exercising firmly that which the constitution and the laws confer.” In the biggest battle between Congress and the Supreme Court in this nation’s history, for the first and only time removed the court’s jurisdiction to hear a case.

Note: US v. Kline 1872 Supreme Court ruling held that Congress “may not limit the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to control the results of a particular case”.

June 30, 1868. Governor Jonathan Worth was removed from North Carolina Governors office because he opposed Reconstruction Acts, the 14th Amendment and Military Rule. From 1865 until his removal in1868 Governor Jonathan Worth fought against the programs of Reconstruction emerging from Washington D.C. He loathed the 14th Amendment and the Reconstruction Acts, passed early in 1867, which provided for military rule, a new state constitution and elections to replace the existing government.

June 30, 1868. General Canby of the US Army issued general orders #120 which states in part “to facilitate the organization of the new state Government, the following appointments are made: to be governor of NC, W.W. Holden, Governor elect, Vice Jonathan Worth removed…to take effect July 1, 1868 on the meeting of the General Assembly of North Carolina.

In 1868, the 41st Congress convened and formed the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (all capital letters) corporation. This Corporation’s only jurisdictional rights are within the District of Columbia.

The UNITED STATES Corporation has acted unlawfully as a federal government by operating within the fifty Republics (STATES) and not within its rightful jurisdiction, the District of Columbia.

The UNITED STATES Corporation wrote a new constitution called the
Constitution of the United States rather than continuing the use of the original Constitution for the United States, thus usurping the rights of the People.

This corporate government fiction known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERIA, has used its perceived powers to deceive the American People into thinking that it was our true form of government.

It has also formed sub corporations such as the STATE OF CALIFORNIA. Over the last 142 years, it has subverted all fifty Republics into all capital letter STATES. Such as the STATE OF CALIFORNIA verses what it truly is, the California Republic. All Californians unknowingly bind themselves through adhesion contracts into said corporate jurisdiction through birth certificates, drivers licenses, bank accounts, and marriage licenses. These contracts all have language on the applications which give up Republic rights of the People.

With a new constitution and a new corporate government, and the original constitutional government was vacated to become dormant, but it was never terminated. The new constitution had to be ratified by the people according to the original constitution, but it never was. The whole process occurred behind closed doors. The people are the source of financing for this new government.

The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a “municipal corporation” to govern the District of Columbia. Considering the fact that the municipal government itself was incorporated in 1808, an “Organic Act” (first Act) using the term “municipal corporation” in 1871 can only mean a private corporation owned by the municipality. Hereinafter we will call that private corporation, “Corp. U.S.” By consistent usage, Corp. U.S. trademarked the name, “United States Government” referring to themselves. The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 places Congress in control (like a corporate board) and gives the purpose of the act to form a governing body over the municipality; this allowed Congress to direct the business needs of the government under the existent martial law and provided them with corporate abilities they would not otherwise have. This was done under the constitutional authority for Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of the District of Columbia. Follow this link to see the effect of the District of Columbia Act of 1871.

In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United States of America) except that it was missing the national constitution’s 13th Amendment and the national constitution's 14th, 15th and 16th amendments are respectively numbered 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the Corp. U.S. Constitution. At this point take special notice and remember this Corp. U.S. method of adopting their own Constitution, they will add to it in the same manner in 1913.

Corp. U.S. began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay their debts so the 7 families that bought up the bonds demanded payment and Corp. U.S. could not pay. Said families settled the debt for the payments of all of Corp. U.S.' assets and for all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.

As 1913 began, Corp. U.S. had no funds to carry out the necessary business needs of the government so they went to said families and asked if they could borrow some money. The families said no (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they would not repay their debts in full). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name "Federal Reserve Bank". Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via note rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was one made between two private corporations and did not involve government; that is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system—again it has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements and the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.

1913 Federal Reserve Act.

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens of mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “Hypothecated” all property within the Federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. Citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the Federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets, and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States Corporation all of the credit (fiat money) it needed.

Almost simultaneously in 1913, Corp. U.S. adopts (as if ratified) their own 16th amendment. Tax protesters challenge the IRS tax collection system based on this fact, however when we remember that Corp. U.S. originally created their constitution by simply drafting it and adopting it; there is no difference between that adoption and this—such is the nature of corporate enactments—when the corporate board (Congress) tells the secretary to enter the amendment as ratified (even thought the States had not ratified it) the Se3cretary was instructed that the Representatives word alone was sufficient for ratification. You must also note, this amendment has nothing to do with our nation, with our people or with our national Constitution, which already had its own 16th amendment. The Supreme Court in Brushaber v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) ruled the 16th amendment did nothing that was not already done other than to make plain and clear the right of the United States (Corp. U.S.) to tax corporations and government employees.

Next (also 1913) Corp. U.S., through Congress, adopts (as if ratified) its 17th amendment. This amendment is not only not ratified, it is not constitutional; the nation's Constitution forbids Congress from even discussing the matter of where Senators are elected, which is the subject matter of this amendment; therefore they cannot pass such and Act and then of their own volition, order it entered as ratified. According to the United States Supreme Court, for Congress to propose such an amendment they would first have to pass an amendment that gave them the authority to discuss the matter.

 Accordingly, in 1914, the Freshman class and all Senators that successfully ran for reelection in 1913 by popular vote were seated in Corp. U.S. Senate capacity only; their respective seats from their States remained vacant because neither the State Senates nor the State Governors appointed new Senators to replace them as is still required by the national Constitution for placement of a national Senator.

In 1916, President Wilson is reelected by the Electoral College but their election is required to be confirmed by the constitutionally set Senate; where the new Corp. U.S. only Senators were allowed to participate in the Electoral College vote confirmation the only authority that could possibly have been used for electoral confirmation was corporate only. Therefore, President Wilson was not confirmed into office for his second term as President of the United States of America and was only seated in the Corp. U.S. Presidential capacity. Therefore the original jurisdiction government's seats were vacated because the people didn't seat any original jurisdiction government officers. It is important to note here that President Wilson retained his capacity as Commander in Chief of the military. Many people wonder about this fact imagining that such a capacity is bound to the President of the nation; however, When John Adams was President he assigned George Washington to the capacity of Commander in Chief of the military in preparation for an impending war with France. During this period, Mr. Adams became quite concerned because Mr. Washington became quite ill and passed on his acting military authority through his lead General Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Adams was concerned that if war did break out Mr. Hamilton would use that authority to create a military dictatorship of the nation. Mr. Adams averted the war through diplomacy and the title of Commander in Chief was returned to him.

(See: John Adams, by David McCullough, this book covers Mr. Adams concerns over this matter quite well. Mr. Adams was a fascinating man.)

In 1917, Corp. U.S. enters WWI and passes their Trading with the Enemies Act.

March 9, 1933 War Powers Act and Executive Orders. Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.... Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens. A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency.

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

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

See: http://www.barefootsworld.net/war_ep.html

Letters of Marque:

"A commission granted by the government to a private individual, to take the property of a foreign state, or of the citizens or subjects of such state, as reparation for an injury committed by such state, its citizens or subjects. The prizes so captured are divided between the owners of the privateer, the captain, and the crew. A vessel to a friendly port, but armed for its own defence in case of attack by an enemy, is also called a letter of marque."

Bouvier's Law Dictionary

March 9, 1933 The US citizen was added to the Trading With the Enemy Act making us enemy combatants.

April 5, 1933 Executive order 6102 was given to make it illegal for a US Citizen to own gold.

April 17, 1933 Senate Doc 43 said it does not matter how we pay for things because the State owns everything anyway.

June 5, 1933 Public Law 73 -10 or HJR 192 was passed making it illegal for anyone to force you to pay a bill in a particular kind or type of currency.

1938. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Rules, established in 1938, replaced the earlier Field Code and common law pleading systems. Significant revisions have been made to the FRCP in 1948, 1963, 1966, 1970, 1980, 1983, 1987, 1993, 2000, and 2006. (The FRCP contains a notes section that details the changes of each revision since 1938, explaining the rationale behind the language). The revisions that took effect in December 2006 made practical changes to discovery rules to make it easier for courts and litigating parties to manage electronic records. This also was a strategic maneuver for the BAR ASSOCIATION to abolish the State Grand Juries and usurp the united States Constitution.

On June 13, 1967 United States Representative, Rarick of Louisiana, submitted to the United States Congress, Louisiana House Concurrent Resolution, urging the United States Congress to declare the 14th Amendment illegal. He also entered a treatise on the illegality of the 14th Amendment Prepared by a Louisiana Judge Leander H. Perez. The Resolution stated:

“Whereas the Reconstruction Acts of Congress unlawfully overthrew their existing governments, removed the lawfully constituted legislatures by military force and replaced them with rump legislatures which carried out military orders and pretended to ratify the 14th Amendment.”

January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001. The State Constitutions Were Rewritten. The state constitutions were rewritten again during the Clinton Administration, except now they are called the Constitutions of Interdependence! These Constitutions read just like the Declaration of Independence, except that "We the People" have been eliminated. This is the Magna Carta of the public officials, to protect them under The New World Order Communist Government! The public was never informed of this, like everything else and the media never reported any of the Fraud being perpetrated against America by their public officials! I could go on and on, discussing Articles and Amendments of the Constitution but suffice it to say that the `benefits' the government dangled in front of our "naive noses," has been used as an inducement for us to volunteer; and that all of these `benefits' are received by us at a terrible cost! When we apply for government benefits, the foreign government in charge; converts our living sovereign person into a corporation and then records our person as, "government asset property"! The States use to provide protection, stability and security for the people but over time the focus of their attention has changed to the control of our minds, bodies, spirit and assets. To take a loyalty oath to support, defend and obey the Constitution; now is to swear an oath to your Masters to be ever loyal to them!

Abrogation of the Constitution

See Also: in-the-former-republic-of-the-u-s-a/

In most of these United States, the Grand Jury provision of the Fifth Amendment is simply ignored under the cover of state laws that sanction such practice. And sometimes, as in one county in Tennessee, the Grand Jury concept is so debased that there is an appearance of corruption.

First let us re-read the relevant portion of our Bill of Rights, Amendment 5:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury . . . ."

(People in actual service in the military or militia are exempt “in time of War or public danger.”) So there it is a constitutional requirement that no one can be charged with a felony unless first indicted by a Grand Jury, but my cursory investigation indicates that this requirement is routinely ignored in many and probably most states.

OK, since when do state laws take precedence over the Constitution? I realize that it is much easier, quicker and handier for a prosecutor to just request a preliminary hearing than to take the evidence for every felony before a Grand Jury, but a Republic is supposed to follow the rules it has adopted or change the rules according to the prescribed procedures for rule-changing. The question is, in matters of constitutional governance, do we choose expediency or principle?

Look who is in the White House for the answer to that one.

In Monroe County, Tennessee, the principle of expediency—is that an oxymoron?—has been carried to extremes by a judge who for 27 years has been reappointing one Gary D. Pettway as the foreman of a phony, shell Grand Jury that apparently does not exist. What makes this setup especially pertinent at present is that patriots have been trying for months to present evidence of Barack Obama’s election fraud to a presumed Grand Jury and were deceived as to the shadowy nature of things in Monroe County.

Details of the Tennessee shenanigans are found in an article by Lt. Commander Walter Fitzpatrick III (“The JAG HUNTER) dated January 25th and entitled “The Third Truth: Monroe County, Tennessee Grand Jury Update.” To quote briefly from Fitzpatrick:

In the first truth we find that Tennessee state law commands all jurors be selected in a way that prohibits the possibility of human intervention.” “In the second truth there is Judge Carroll L. Ross’ installment a few weeks ago of Mr. Gary D. Pettway as Foreman to the Monroe County Tennessee Grand Jury for a twenty-seventh consecutive year.”

“In the collision [of the first two truths] emerged our third truth that Monroe County prosecutors and judges dispensed with the use of Grand Juries decades ago.”

That state of affairs is bad enough, but it becomes even worse when it suppresses the legitimate concerns of citizens about the legitimacy of our government, as is the case here.

In the federal system and in all but two of the states, de-facto Grand Juries are used to bring charges against persons who are believed to have committed crimes. In the federal system and in some states, they HAVE to be used to bring charges for felonies, which are the more serious crimes that normally carry a prison term for those who are convicted. In other states, they CAN be used to bring charges for felonies (or for other crimes), but don’t have to be used. If a prosecutor doesn’t HAVE to use a Grand Jury and doesn’t WANT to, he or she can bring charges (on their own) using what is called an “information” as the charging document. When a Grand Jury brings criminal charges, the charges are contained in a charging document that is called an “indictment.”


1. The original united States that was in operation until 1860; a collection of sovereign Republics in the union. Under the original Constitution the States controlled the Federal Government; the Federal Government did not control the States and had very little authority.

2. The original United States has been usurped by a separate and different UNITED STATES formed in 1871, which only controls the District of Columbia and its territories, and which is actually a corporation (the UNITED STATES CORPORATION) that acts as our current government. The United States Corporation operates under Corporate/Commercial/Public Law rather than Common/Private Law.

The original Constitution was never removed; it has simply been dormant since 1871. It is still intact to this day. This fact was made clear by Supreme Court Justice Marshall Harlan (Downes v. Bidwell, 182, U.S. 244 1901) by giving the following dissenting opinion: “Two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and Independently of that Instrument.”

The Restore America Plan reclaimed the De Jure institutions of government of the 50 State Republics in order to restore Common Law that represents the voice of the people and ends Corporate Law that ignores the voice of the people while operating under Maritime/Admiralty/International Law. This occurred when warrants were delivered to all 50 Governors on March 30, 2010.

The rewritten Constitution of the UNITED STATES CORPORATION bypasses the original Constitution for the United States of America, which explains why our Congressmen and Senators don’t abide by it, and the President can write Executive Orders to do whatever he/she wants. They are following corporate laws that completely strip sovereigns of their God given unalienable rights. Corporate/Commercial/Public Law is not sovereign (private), as it is an agreement between two or more parties under contract. Common Law (which sovereigns operate under) is not Commercial Law; it is personal and private.

To understand this document, you need to understand some basic terms. Visit www.usa v. us.info for complete understanding. The basic terms are:

De Jure. Existing by right or according to law; original, lawful. Common Law operates under De Jure terms.

De Facto - In practice but not necessarily ordained by law; in fact, in reality. Corporate Law operates under De Facto terms.

Sovereign. A real person. Sovereigns can own property while Citizens/Subjects cannot. According to the original Constitution, all government comes from the Sovereign Individual. Without the Sovereign Individual, there is no government.

U.S. Citizen/Subject. A corporate fictitious entity that merely represents the real person. It acts as a “STRAWMAN.” [To call oneself a “sovereign citizen” or “sovereign subject” is an oxymoron, since “sovereign” and “citizen/subject” are mutually exclusive of each other.] When asked if you are a “U.S. Citizen” on corporate legal documents, if you check “yes,” you agree to the terms of Corporate Law and unknowingly relinquish your sovereign status and transfer all of your rights to the UNITED STATES CORPORATION since you are now under contract.

Corporation. A non-human, fictitious entity. Corporate fictitious entities are denoted in all caps. This includes the names of Citizens/Subjects. Your fictitious “STRAWMAN” entity is addressed in all caps, i.e. JOHN SMITH, rather than John Smith.

Common Law. God’s law. Common Law and the system of De Jure Juries apply to sovereigns in disputes. In Common Law, contracts must be entered into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally.

Admiralty/Maritime Law/International Law. The King’s law. Deals with criminal acts that only apply to international contracts. Under this law, the people are no longer sovereign. The Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) that the United States practices is based on Admiralty Law. Under the UCC, contracts do not have to be entered into knowingly. Simple agreements can be binding, and as long as you exercise the benefits of that "agreement," you must meet the obligations associated with those benefits. If you accept the benefit offered by the government, then you MUST follow, to the letter, each and every statute involved with that benefit. That “benefit” is the Federal Reserve Notes (U.S. dollars). By paying for things with U.S. dollars you are unknowingly giving up all of your Constitutional rights and are legally obligated to follow all of the UCC statutes But you were NEVER told this.

Lawful. A term used in Common Law.

Legal. A term used in the UCC which applies to Corporate Law.

How the Constitution Was Usurped By the Corporation

Note by Panama Legal: These are the basic premises adhered to by the people in the movement and the people in the Sovereign movement. The Government is a Corporation actually functioning as the Federal Government. Thus it does not have to follow the constitution. Also it does not matter if Obama is not a natural born citizen since it is a corporation he is the head of. The corporation gets the permission of the people to reign over them by deceit. This is done by wording in the Birth Certificates, Social Security Cards, driving Licenses, IRS forms, Marriage Licenses and other documents. They always refer to the “person” in all capital letters. This means the name represents a corporate entity. This is how the corporation courts get jurisdiction over you. Their courts do not fly the “reaL” American flag. They use the military or admiralty flag. For a discourse on this try this website: http://www.usavsus.info/

In The Courtroom. When you enter a US Courtroom there is a military or admiralty flag flying. The US Military does not have the protection of the constitution; neither does this apply to admiralty laws with ships at sea. When you enter a court room and cross through that little wooden gate they have and go to the area where the plaintiff (prosecutor) and defendant sit along with judge, court reporter, you are entering a “ship” or a foreign country as evidenced by the admiralty or military flag flying thus the constitution has no applicability and you are under equity law not common law. The flaw with their scheme is that there is no full disclosure to the people about any of this. This is the scam run by the federal corporation.

January 1, 1788. The united States is officially bankrupt.

August 4, 1790. Article one of the U.S. statutes at Large, pages 138-178, abolished the States of the Republic and created Federal Districts. In the same year, the former States of the Republic reorganized as Corporations and their legislatures wrote new State Constitutions, absent defined boundaries, which they presented to the people of each state for a vote...the new State Constitutions fraudulently made the people “Citizens” of the new Corporate States. A Citizen is also defined as a “corporate fiction." The people were bound to the Corporate State and the States were bound to the Corporate United States and fraudulently obligated all of us to pay the debts of the Federal Government owed to the King! This was necessary because the United States was officially bankrupt on January 1, 1788 and the politician's (our Founding Fathers) who benefitted the most by these Revolutionary loans, required a guarantee to present to the King! Absent that guarantee, they were personally obligated to repay the debts!

See Also: http://www.greghallett.com/.pdf

In 1845, Congress passed legislation that would ultimately allow Common Law to be usurped by Admiralty Law. www.barefootsworld.net/admiralty.html explains this change. The yellow fringe around the flags in the courtroom shows this is still true. Before 1845, Americans were considered sovereign individuals who governed themselves under Common Law.

In 1860. Congress was adjourned Sine Die (pronounced see-na dee-a; literally “without day”). Lincoln could not legally reconvene Congress.

In 1861, President Lincoln declared a National Emergency and Martial Law, which gave the President unprecedented powers and removed it from the other branches. This has NEVER been reversed.

From 1864-1867, Several Reconstruction Acts were passed forcing the states to ratify the 14th Amendment, which made everyone slaves.

In 1862 Abraham Lincoln Authorized Printing of the Greenback.

In 1862 President advised Congress to pass a law authorizing the printing of full legal tender Treasury notes to pay for the War effort. Lincoln recognized the great benefits of this issue. At one point he wrote: "... (we) gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they have ever had - their own paper money to pay their own debts... "  The Treasury notes were printed with green ink on the back, so the people called them "Greenbacks".

Lincoln printed 400 million dollars worth of Greenbacks (the exact amount being $449,338,902), money that he delegated to be created, a debt-free and interest-free money to finance the War. It served as legal tender for all debts, public and private. He printed it, paid it to the soldiers, to the U.S. Civil Service employees, and bought supplies for war.

In 1863, the Lieber Code was established taking away your property and your rights.

In 1865, the capital was moved to Washington, D.C., a separate country. not a part of the United States of America.

April 15, 1865 Abraham Lincoln was assassinated. What did he do before the assassination? Well, he created government interest-free money, so called greenback dollars, to pay off the debt from the Civil War. Shortly after he was killed, the greenbacks were taken out of circulation…

Was Abraham Lincoln killed as a result of his monetary policies?

This theory is that Abraham Lincoln was killed as a result of his monetary policies. John Wilkes Booth would be seen as a hired gun. In its simplest terms, the theory is that Lincoln needed money to finance the Civil War. Bankers in Europe led by the Rothschild's offered him loans at high (36%) interest rates. Rather than accept the loans, Lincoln found other means to fund the war effort. More importantly, the British bankers opposed Lincoln's protectionist policies. Some Englishmen in the 1860's believed that "British free trade, industrial monopoly and human slavery travel together." Lincoln's policies after the Civil War would have destroyed the Rothschild's' commodity speculations. After the war, Lincoln planned a mild Reconstruction policy which would have enabled a resumption of agriculture production. The Rothschild's were betting the other way on high prices caused by a tough Reconstruction policy toward the South. Lincoln was viewed as a threat to the established order of things, and he was assassinated as a result. The goal was to weaken the United States so the Rothschild's could takeover its economy.

In 1871, The United States became a Corporation with a new constitution and a new corporate government, and the original constitutional government was vacated to become dormant, but it was never terminated. The new constitution had to be ratified by the people according to the original constitution, but it never was. The whole process occurred behind closed doors. The people are the source of financing for this new government.

In 1917, the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA) was passed. This insightful video from [link to movielocker.com/4084)] states the following: “This act was implemented to deal with the countries we were at war with during World War I. It gave the President and the Alien Property Custodian the right to seize the assets of the people included in this act and if they wanted to do business in this country they could apply for a license to do so. By 1921, the Federal Reserve Bank (the trustee for the Alien Property Custodian) held over $700,000,000 in trust. ” Understand that this trust was based on our assets, not theirs.

In 1933, 48 Stat 1, of the TWEA was amended to include the United States Person because they wanted to take our gold away. Executive Order 6102 was created to make it illegal for a U.S. Citizen to own gold. In order for the Government to take our gold away and violate our Constitutional rights, we were reclassified as ENEMY COMBATANTS.”

In 1933, there was a second United States bankruptcy. In the first bankruptcy the United States collateralized all public lands. In the 1933 bankruptcy, the U.S. government collateralized the private lands of the people (a lien). they borrowed money against our private lands. They were then mortgaged. That is why we pay property taxes.

March 9, 1933. United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act. From a speech in Congress in The Bankruptcy of the United States Congressional Record, March 17, 1993, Vol. 33, page H-1303, Speaker Representative James Trafficant Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House states:

“...It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1, Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 - Joint Resolution to Suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.”

The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers. With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the United States. This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part: “The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing the United States...

June 5, 1933. Joint Resolution (HJR-192) to suspend the Gold Standard and Abrogate the Gold Clause dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal Government exists today in name only.

Like any debtor, the Federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the Federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves,” the U.S. Citizens, as collateral against the federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks, forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the People have exchanged one master for another.”

Prior to 1913, most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free and clear of any liens of mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913) “ Hypothecated” all property within the Federal United States to the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve, in which the Trustees (stockholders) held legal title. The U.S. Citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a “beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate. In 1933, the Federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties, assets, and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. Citizen to the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to extend the federal United States Corporation all of the credit it needed.

Like any debtor, the Federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the Federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private property of their “economic slaves,” the U.S. Citizens, as collateral against the federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal territories, national parks, forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit organizations as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been transferred as payment to the international bankers.

Unwittingly, America has returned to its pre-American Revolution feudal roots whereby all land is held by a sovereign and the common people had no rights to hold allodial title to property. Once again, We the People are the tenants and sharecroppers renting our own property from a Sovereign in the guise of the Federal Reserve Bank. We the People have exchanged one master for another.”

Sometime after 1935, you ask Social Security Administration for a relationship with their program. With the express purpose of generating Beneficiary funds to United States General Trust Fund (GTF) the Social Security Administration creates an entity with a name (that sounds like your name but is spelled with all capital letters) and an account number (Social Security number). They give you the Social Security card and let you know that the card does not belong to you but you are to hold it for them until they want it back. If you are willing to accept that responsibility over the card you activate the card by signing it, which gives you the ability to act as the fiduciary for the cards actual owner Corp. U.S. and you can use the card’s name and number to thus transact business relations for the card’s actual owner. You are also to note that though the card verifies its agency (you as the single person with authority to control the entity so created) it is not for use as identification. On review: notice the Social Security Administration was the creator of the entity, they offered you the opportunity to serve its Trustee capacity (by lending it actual consciousness and physical capacity), they gave you something (the card) that does not belong to you to hold in trust and they reserved the actual owner of the thing (Corp. U.S.) as the beneficiary of the entity—by definition, this only describes the creation and existence of a Trust. More importantly: the name they gave this Trust is not your name, the number they gave the Trust is not your number and your lending actual consciousness and physical capacity to this Trust’s Trustee capacity does not limit you or your capacity to separately act in your natural sovereign capacity in any way—what you do, when you do it and how you do it is still totally up to you.

In 1944, Washington D.C. was deeded to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) by the Breton Woods Agreement. The IMF is made up of wealthy people that own most of the banking industries of the world. It is an organized group of bankers that have taken control of most governments of the world so the bankers run the world. Congress, the IRS, and the President work for the IMF. The IRS is not a U.S. government agency. It is an agency of the IMF. (Diversified Metal Products v. IRS et al. CV-93-405E-EJE U.S.D.C.D.I., Public Law 94-564, Senate Report 94-1148 pg. 5967, Reorganization Plan No. 26, Public Law 102-391.)

In 1962, considering the states were forced to carry out their business dealings in terms of Federal Reserve Notes (foreign notes), which is forbidden in the national and State constitutions, out of the necessity the states began protecting themselves from the people by forming corporations like Corp. U.S. Accordingly, those newly formed corporate state administrations began adopting Corp. U.S. suggested uniform codes and licensing structures that allowed better and more powerful control over the people, which thing the original jurisdiction governments of this nation had no capacity to do. Our Constitutions secure that the governments do not govern the people rather they govern themselves in accord with the limits of Law. The people govern themselves. Such is the foundational nature of our Constitutional Republic.

January of 1963, In January of 1963, President John F. Kennedy announced his plan to cut the tax breaks for the oil industry. Oilmen H.L. Hunt, George H.W. Bush (head of Zapata Petroleum), and others were no doubt enraged. What a curious twist of fate that Kennedy was shot in Texas later that same year.

June 4, 1963, President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110. This executive order was made to strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the government at interest. On that day President John F. Kennedy signed Executive Order No. 11110 that returned to the U.S. government the power to issue currency, without going through the Federal Reserve. Mr. Kennedy's order gave the Treasury the power "to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury." This meant that for every ounce of silver in the U.S. Treasury's vault, the government could introduce new money into circulation. In all, Kennedy brought nearly $4.3 billion in U.S. notes into circulation. The ramifications of this bill are enormous.

With the stroke of a pen, Mr. Kennedy was on his way to putting the Federal Reserve Bank of New York out of business. If enough of these silver certificates were to come into circulation they would have eliminated the demand for Federal Reserve notes. This is because the silver certificates are backed by silver and the Federal Reserve notes are not backed by anything. Executive Order 11110 could have prevented the national debt from reaching its current level, because it would have given the government the ability to repay its debt without going to the Federal Reserve and being charged interest in order to create the new money. Executive Order 11110 gave the U.S. the ability to create its own money backed by silver.

What JFK did was to create interest-free government money, backed up by the silver reserve, contrary to the Federal Reserve money, which is not backed up by anything. He wanted to pay off the US debt this way. Apparently aware of the secret behind the Federal Reserve, he decided to go back and follow the Constitution. Of course, this was a very dangerous thing to do, because if he was allowed to continue, it could put the International bankers out of business in the long run.

Also, JFK's intention to end the Vietnam War (which was a very profitable war for the bankers) by 1965 would severely have cut the profits of the private owned Federal Reserve Bank and the banking establishment.

1971 The Nixon administration closed the remaining 'gold window'.

By 1971, every State government in the union of States had formed such private corporations (Corp. State), in accord with the IMF admonition, and the people ceased to seat original jurisdiction government officials in their State government seats.

Now, having stated these historical facts, we ask you not to believe us, but rather prove these facts for yourself. We then ask you to contact us and share your discovery with us.

When you find there is no error in this historical outline, then remember these simple facts and let no one dissuade you from the truth. The Bottom Line: when you speak about these private foreign corporations remember that is what they are and stop calling them government. Further, it is very important that we cease to attempt to fix them. It is far more important that we learn how to reseat our original jurisdiction government and spread the word about the truth. By reseating our State and national governments in their original jurisdiction nature, we gain the capacity to hold these private foreign corporations accountable. They owe us a lot of money, in fact they owe us more money than there is available in the world. In fact it is impossible for them to pay and that gives us the leverage we need to take back our nation and put things right. The process is a simple one. The difficulty is in getting our people to wake up to the truth. That's why we ask you to prove the truth for yourself and contact us with your discovery.

That means that you must stop acting and communicating like you are anything other than the sovereign that God created you to be. And, stop referring to Corp. U.S. or the STATE OF 'X' as anything other than the private foreign corporations that they are. And, finally, stop listening to the Bigfoot Patriot Mythology that is espoused by those that only give these facts lip service.

It's time to wake up and follow the truth, time to repent and become a moral and honorable society instead of lauding our Piety while we stand guilty of:

  1. not knowing the truth;
  2. not living the truth;
  3. believing God will save us even though we have the tools to know the truth the ability to use the tools but we refuse to live by the truth and use the tools we have to save ourselves and thereby become free.

The biggest problem with that get all excited about uniting against the tyranny of Corp. U.S. is that they are blind to the truth having no remedy so they bail out of "the system" hell bent for a rebellion even the scripture says cannot be won with conventional weapons of war. Would that we could instead follow the admonition of the King of Kings and unite with truth to legally, lawfully and peacefully reseat our original jurisdiction government thereby taking back the control our nation in accord with law.

March 30, 1981 President Ronald Reagan Assassination Attempt

In 1980, Hinckley Sr. was a Texas oilman who, the records show, strove mightily to get fellow Texas oilman George H.W. Bush the Republican nomination for president. The Bushes and the Hinckleys were frequent dinner companions.

But far beyond their social connection, neither Bush nor Hinckley wanted Ronald Reagan to become president, because Reagan was opposed to tax breaks for the oil industry to which Bush, Hinckley and other Texans were highly dependent.

The effort to make Bush Sr. president in 1980 failed; but he and his friend and backer Hinckley Sr. got the next best thing – the "heartbeat away from the presidency" office of Vice-President of the United States.

A couple months later, Hinckley Jr. shot Reagan, and Bush Sr. very nearly did become president at that time, after all. Curiously, only one time was it announced on the news about the connections between the Bush and Hinckley families: An almost bewildered John Chancellor on NBC Nightly News reported "the bizarre coincidence" that Vice President Bush's son, Neil, and Scott Hinckley had dinner plans for March 31, 1981 -- now cancelled, of course. [But even Chancellor failed to mention the close friendship between the the assassin's father and Vice President Bush--let alone the rest of the corporate media.]

Reports indicate that the Bush family strove mightily to keep this information from the American people. And some reports list this incredible "coincidence" -- directly linked to the assassination attempt of President Reagan -- as one of the most spiked stories of the last century.

Was it just a bizarre coincidence that the family of the convicted shooter of President Ronald Reagan were acquainted with the Bush family and were affluent Texas oil tycoons who gave large campaign contributions to then George Bush Sr.'s unsuccessful 1980 presidential primary bid against Reagan?

October 1981 John Connally came out in October 1981 and announced that the U.S. "does not have the gold" to go back on a gold standard.

October 26, 2001. The Patriot Act: The Latest Assault on Liberty. When Congress passed the draconian Patriot Act, we were assured that its dictatorial powers would be only used against Muslim terrorists. From the beginning, organizations like Cutting Edge warned that American people were the real targets of these powers and it would not take long to see Americans suffering under the legal weight of the Patriot Act umbrella. That time did not take long in coming, and this current article should raise warning flags all across this great land.

Surprise of all surprises! Just as Cutting Edge predicted in November, 2001, the FBI is using provisions of the Patriot Act against American citizens. When President Bush and company were demanding dictatorial powers immediately following the attacks of 9/11, the American people were the real targets and that the attacks were simply the scare tactic being used to gain those powers.

Unfortunately, few Americans were willing and ready to listen to this truth, because they felt threatened, violated and angry because of the attacks. Slightly more than one year later, Ashcroft demanded Patriot Act II, which completed the process of allowing the Executive Branch to become an absolute dictatorship. Once again, the vast majority of people remained asleep, confident their freedoms were secure because the country had not fallen into obvious dictatorship since Patriot Act I was enacted and because nothing politically evil had ever befallen this great nation. Therefore, these naive sleepers believe nothing bad will ever happen.

How far down this road to severe dictatorship have President Bush and Attorney General Ashcroft traveled? Further than you would like to imagine: "On Monday morning (August 12) I found a Reuters story on ABC News online news-wire, which stated that the White House had quietly announced summary executions of certain persons designated as 'terrorists' by Bush or other high-ranking Bush (Administration) members HAD BEEN given the OK. So: ONLY the SAY-SO of Bush people, in other words, is sufficient to incur the MURDER of whomever is so designated, by OFFICIAL US government policy. No evidence whatsoever need ever be presented to ANYONE that the person so designated IS in fact a 'terrorist' at all. This Reuters article indicated that the directive applied both abroad AND at home in the U.S. ... on Tuesday evening associate Mark Jahnsky found an item on the Washington Post website which reported that a CIA spokesperson said the agency HAD been given the 'green light' (the Post's words) to carry out summary executions or assassinations of certain persons whom Bush ... claimed were 'terrorists'."

Using this law, the government can begin to crack down on those people whose only "crime" is criticizing the government!


As you can see from some of these old articles we have quoted, the President Bush and company have quietly laid the foundation for our coming dictatorship for a very long time. The current Times Union article on which this article is based is simply reporting the logical end result of all this planning to bring down our government once the next false flag crisis hits.

Retired Army General Tommy Franks told us in November, 2003, that our Constitution would not survive the next terrorist alert.

Can We Vote Someone Into Office To Fix Our Country?

No, we are under military rule.

Established by our Constitution we are supposed to have Three Branches of Government

Who Is Working Against The American People?

Why Haven't Our Law Makers Fixed This?

Remember the original 13th amendment: “No person with a title of nobility could hold office”.

Listed below is a good reason why that amendment was ratified in 1819.

Report on the national lawyers guild legal bulwark of the communist party Report [Pursuant to House Res. 5, 79th Cong., 1st sess.]

The National Lawyers Guild is the foremost legal bulwark of the Communist Party, its front organizations, and controlled unions. Since its inception it has never failed to rally to the legal defense of the Communist Party and individual members thereof, including known espionage agents. It has consistently fought against national, State, and local legislation aimed at curbing the Communist conspiracy. It has been most articulate in its attacks upon all agencies of the Government seeking to expose or prosecute the subversive activities of the Communist network, including national, State, and local investigative committees, the Department of Justice, the FBI, and law enforcement agencies generally. Through its affiliation with the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, an international Communist.

These aims... the real aims of the National Lawyers Guild, as demonstrated conclusively by its activities for the past 13 years of its existence‐are not specified in its constitution or statement of avowed purpose. In order to attract non‐Communists to serve as a cover for its actual purpose as an appendage to the Communist Party, the National Lawyers Guild poses benevolently as “a professional organization which shall function as an effective social force in the service of the people to the end that human rights shall be regarded as more sacred than property rights.” In the entire history of the guild there is no record of its ever having condemned such instances of the violation of human rights as found in Soviet slave labor camps and in the series of Moscow trials, which shocked the civilized world.

Communists publicly hailed the founding of the National Lawyers Guild. New Masses, a weekly publication of the Communist Party, featured an article entitled “Defense for the Counsel‐The Need for the National Lawyers Guild” in its issue of June 14, 1938 (pp. 19‐21) by Charles Recht, an attorney for the Soviet Government and a member of the guild, observed that:

With the growth of the American Labor Party in New York, and kindred progressive movements throughout the United States, the lawyers, who in many of the smaller communities are the nerve centers of political activities, will be an invaluable aid in galvanizing the latent liberal elements of the country into a political force. The National Lawyers Guild can and will form one of the most important adjuncts to a progressive movement representing the interests of the workers and farmers.

How Can We Repair Our Country Right Now?

The Supreme Court has said the De Jure Government offices still exist but the people have failed to occupy them.

Remember Downs v. Bidwell 182 U.S. 244 (1901) and the dissenting opinion of Justice Marshall Harlan? He said that two national governments exist; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions. This is one that We the people need to force our elected public officials to occupy. De jure rule.

We need to change that by organizing Grand Juries and putting our officials back under De jure rule and out of the Corporate (or Military) Rule that they are currently operating under.

Our elected officials will then have to operate under the limits of their Oath of office to uphold the united States Constitution, circa 1787. When they violate the Oath it is a Capital crime.

The reason we go back to circa 1787 is because that is the last time we had de jure (lawful) laws in this country.

Where do the People Get Their Power to Convene a Grand Jury?

  1. The Magna Carta, circa 1215
  2. The Restore America Plan

Our Founding Fathers looked back to history for precedent when they decided they wanted to change their government. What they found was the Magna Carta Liberatum, the Great Charter of Freedoms. It set a precedent that changed the face of England forever, by establishing that the King was not above the law.

King John of England signed the Magna Carta after immense pressure from the Church and his barons (the people). The King often lived above the law, violating both Feudal and Common Law, and was heavily criticized for his foreign policy and actions in England. The Barons, with the support of the Church, pressured King John to spell out a list of their rights and guarantee that those rights would be enforced. The Barons provided a draft, and after some negotiation, King John put his seal to the Magna Carta in Runnymede, in June of 1215.

Section 61 set rules for establishing the Grand Jury. It states: Since we have granted all these things for God, for the better ordering of our kingdom, and to allay the discord that has arisen between us and our barons (people), and since we desire that they shall be enjoyed in their entirety, with lasting strength, forever, we give and grant to the barons the following security: The barons shall elect twenty-five of their number to keep, and cause to be observed with all their might, the peace and liberties granted and confirmed to them by this charter. If we, our chief justice, our officials, or any of our servants offend in any respect against any man, or transgress any of the articles of the peace or of this security, and the offense is made known to four of the said twenty-five barons, they shall come to us.”

County Grand Juries in the United States

In the U.S., the states of Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Nevada, and Oregon have grand juries at the county level.

In California, each county is required by the state constitution to have at least one Grand Jury impaneled at all times. Grand juries are governed by Title 4 of the California Penal Code, as well as other more general provisions. In addition, grand juries are not subject to the Brown Act.

Most grand juries are seated on a fiscal cycle, i.e. July through June. Most counties have panels consisting of nineteen jurors, some have as few as eleven jurors, others have as many as twenty-three (see California Penal Code Section 888.2). All actions by a Grand Jury require a two-thirds vote. Jurors are usually selected on a volunteer basis.

These county-level grand juries primarily focus on oversight of government institutions at the county level or lower. Almost any entity that receives public money can be examined by the Grand Jury, including county government, cities, and special districts. Each panel selects the topics that it wishes to examine each year. A jury is not allowed to continue an oversight from a previous panel. If a jury wishes to look at a subject that a prior jury was examining, it must start its own investigation and independently verify all information. It may use information obtained from the prior jury but this information must be verified before it can be used by the current jury. Upon completing its investigation, the jury may, but is not required to, issue a report detailing its findings and recommendations.

The Grand Jury is required to publish a minimum of one report containing a minimum of one finding and one recommendation. The published reports are the only public record of the Grand Jury's work; there is no minority report. Each published report includes a list of those public entities that are required or requested to respond. The format of these responses is dictated by California Penal Code Section 933.05, as is the time span in which they must respond.

County grand juries develop areas to examine by two avenues: juror interests, and public complaints. Complaints filed by the public are kept confidential. The protection of whistleblowers is one of the primary reasons for the confidential nature of the Grand Jury's work.

Note: Most county grand juries in California do not consider criminal matters, though by law they are able to. The decision of whether or not to present criminal cases to the Grand Jury is made by the county District Attorney.

Hennepin County, Minnesota (which contains Minneapolis) keeps a Grand Jury impaneled at all times (at the time of this writing are de facto). Each Grand Jury serves a term of four months, typically meets one day each week, and focuses almost exclusively on homicide cases.

Common Law

The term common law has three main connotations and several historical meanings worth mentioning:

1. Common Law As Opposed To Statutory Law And Regulatory Law

This connotation distinguishes the authority that promulgated a law. For example, most areas of law in most Anglo-American jurisdictions include "statutory law" enacted by a legislature, "regulatory law" promulgated by executive branch agencies pursuant to delegation of rule-making authority from the legislature, and common law or "case law", i.e., decisions issued by courts (or quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies). This first connotation can be further differentiated into (a) pure common law arising from the traditional and inherent authority of courts to define what the law is, even in absence of an underlying statute, e.g., most criminal law and procedural law before the 20th century, and even today, most of contract law and the law of torts, and (b) court decisions that decide the fine boundaries and distinctions in law promulgated by other bodies, such as judicial interpretations of the Constitution, of statutes, and of regulations.

2. Common Law Legal Systems As Opposed To Civil Law Legal Systems

This connotation differentiates "common law" jurisdictions and legal systems from "civil law" or "code" jurisdictions. Common law systems place great weight on court decisions, which are considered "law" with the same force of law as statutes. By contrast, in civil law jurisdictions (the legal tradition that prevails in, or is combined with common law in, Europe and most non-Islamic, non-common law countries), judicial precedent is given less weight (which means that a judge deciding a given case has more freedom to interpret the text of a statute independently, and less predictably), and scholarly literature is given more. For example, the Napoleonic code expressly forbade French judges from pronouncing general principles of law. As a rough rule of thumb, common law systems trace their history to England, while civil law systems trace their history to Roman law and the Napoleonic Code.

The contrast between common law and civil law systems is elaborated in Alternatives to common law systems, below.

3. Law As Opposed To Equity

This connotation differentiates "common law" (or just "law") from "equity". Before 1873, England had two parallel court systems: courts of "law" that could only award money damages and recognized only the legal owner of property, and courts of "equity" (courts of chancery) that could issue injunctive relief (that is, a court order to a party to do something, give something to someone, or stop doing something) and recognized trusts of property. This split propagated to many of the colonies, including the united States. For most purposes, most jurisdictions, including the U.S. federal system and most states, have merged the two courts. Additionally, even before the separate courts were merged together, most courts were permitted to apply both law and equity, though under potentially different procedural law. Nonetheless, the historical distinction between "law" and "equity" remains important today when the case involves issues such as the following:

See Also: Common Law

Understanding “Who You Are”

Unalienable; The State of a Thing or Right Which Cannot Be Sold

Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE.

Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523

You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights; they are a gift from the creator to the individual and cannot under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual's have unalienable rights.

Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

You can surrender, sell or transfer inalienable rights if you consent either actually or constructively. Inalienable rights are not inherent in man and can be alienated by government. Persons have inalienable rights. Most state constitutions recognize only inalienable rights.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness. Declaration of Independence

Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights- 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;' and to 'secure,' not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. Budd v. People of state of New York, 143 U.S. 517 (1892).

Among these unalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment. The common business and callings of life, the ordinary trades and pursuits, which are innocuous in themselves, and have been followed in all communities from time immemorial, must therefore be free in this country to all alike upon the same conditions. The right to pursue them, without let or hindrance, except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex, and condition, is a distinguishing privilege of citizens of the United States, and an essential element of that freedom which they claim as their birthright. It has been well said that “The property which every man has in his own labor, as it is the original foundation of all other property, so it is the most sacred and inviolable.”

Definition of inviolable

1) Secure from violation or profanation: an inviolable reliquary deep beneath the altar.

2) Impregnable to assault or trespass; invincible: fortifications that made the frontier inviolable.

The patrimony of the poor man lies in the strength and dexterity of his own hands, and to hinder his employing this strength and dexterity in what manner he thinks proper, without injury to his neighbor, is a plain violation of this most sacred property. It is a manifest encroachment upon the just liberty both of the workman and of those who might be disposed to employ him. . . The right to follow any of the common occupations of life is an inalienable right, it was formulated as such under the phrase 'pursuit of happiness' in the Declaration of Independence, which commenced with the fundamental proposition that 'all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.' This right is a large ingredient in the civil liberty of the citizen. To deny it to all but a few favored individuals, by investing the latter with a monopoly, is to invade one of the fundamental privileges of the citizen, contrary not only to common right, but, as I think, to the express words of the constitution. It is what no legislature has a right to do; and no contract to that end can be binding on subsequent legislatures. . . Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884)

From these passages it is evident; that the right of acquiring and possessing property, and having it protected, is one of the natural, inherent, and unalienable rights of man. Men have a sense of property: Property is necessary to their subsistence, and correspondent to their natural wants and desires; its security was one of the objects that induced them to unite in society. No man would become a member of a community, in which he could not enjoy the fruits of his honest labor and industry. . . The constitution expressly declares that the right of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property is natural, inherent, and unalienable. It is a right not ex gratia from the legislature, but ex debito from the constitution. . . Where is the security, where the inviolability of property, if the legislature, by a private act, affecting particular persons ONLY, can take land from one citizen, who acquired it legally, and vest it in another? Vanhorne's Lessee v. Dorrance, 2 U.S. 304 (1795)…The Due Process Clause protects [the unalienable liberty recognized in the Declaration of Independence] rather than the particular rights or privileges conferred by specific laws or regulations. Sandin v. Conner, U.S. (1995).

The Rights of Life and Personal Liberty are Natural Rights of Man.

To secure these rights, says the Declaration of Independence, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

The very highest duty of the States, when they entered into the Union under the Constitution, was to protect all persons within their boundaries in the enjoyment of these unalienable rights with which they were endowed by their Creator.

Sovereignty, for this purpose, rests alone with the States. It is no more the duty or within the power of the United States to punish for a conspiracy to falsely imprison or murder within a State, than it would be to punish for false imprisonment or murder itself. U S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).

Elliot's Debates on the Federal Constitution (1876) 319 et seq. In ratifying the Constitution the following declarations were made: New Hampshire, p. 326, 'XI. Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or to infringe the rights of conscience.' Virginia, p. 327, '... no right, of any denomination, can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Representatives, acting in any capacity, by the President, or any department or officer of the United States, except in those instances in which power is given by the Constitution for those purposes; and that among other essential rights, the liberty of conscience, and of the press, cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or modified, by any authority of the United States.' New York, p. 328, That the freedom of the press ought not to be violated or restrained. After the submission of the amendments, Rhode Island ratified and declared, pp. 334, 335, 'IV. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, and not by force and violence; and therefore all men have a natural, equal, and unalienable right to the exercise of religion according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others. ... XVI. That the people have a right to freedom of speech, and of writing and publishing their sentiments. That freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty, and ought not to be violated.' Jones v. City Of Opelika, 319 U.S. 105 (1943).

As to the objections made on the other side to our interpretation of the compact, that it impugns the right to the pursuit of happiness, which is inherent in every society of men, and is incompatible with these unalienable rights of sovereignty and of self-government, which every independent State must possess, the answer is obvious: that no people has a right to pursue its own happiness to the injury of others, for whose protection solemn compacts, like the present, have been made. It is a trite maxim that man gives up a part of his natural liberty when he enters into civil society, as the price of the blessings of that state: and it may be said, with truth, this liberty is well exchanged for the advantages which flow from law and justice. Green v. Biddle, 21 U.S. 1 (1821).

While the "meaning and scope of the First Amendment" must be read "in light of its history and the evils it was designed forever to suppress," Everson v. Board of Education, supra, at 14-15, this Court has also recognized that "this Nation's history has not been one of entirely sanitized separation between Church and State." Committee for Public Education and Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, at 760. "The fact that the Founding Fathers believed devotedly that there was a God and that the unalienable rights of man were rooted in Him is clearly evidenced in their writings, from the Mayflower Compact to the Constitution itself." Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 213 (1963). The Court properly has noted "an unbroken history of official acknowledgment . . . of the role of religion in American life." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S., at 674, and has recognized that these references to "our religious heritage" are constitutionally acceptable. Id., at 677. Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)

When the First Congress was debating the Bill of Rights, it was contended that there was no need separately to assert the right of assembly because it was subsumed in freedom of speech. Mr. Sedgwick of Massachusetts argued that inclusion of "assembly" among the enumerated rights would tend to make the Congress "appear trifling in the eyes of their constituents. . . ." If people freely converse together, they must assemble for that purpose; it is a self-evident, unalienable right which the people possess; it is certainly a thing that never would be called in question . . . ." Annals of Cong. 731 (1789). Since the right existed independent of any written guarantee, Sedgwick went on to argue that if it were the drafting committee's purpose to protect all inherent rights of the people by listing them, "they might have gone into a very lengthy enumeration of rights," but this was unnecessary, he said, "in a Government where none of them were intended to be infringed." Id., at 732. Mr. Page of Virginia responded, however, that at times "such rights have been opposed," and that "people have . . . been prevented from assembling together on their lawful occasions": "[T]herefore it is well to guard against such stretches of authority, by inserting the privilege in the declaration of rights. If the people could be deprived of the power of assembling under any pretext whatsoever, they might be deprived of every other privilege contained in the clause. The motion to strike "assembly" was defeated. Id., at 733. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)

The denial of human rights was etched into the American Colonies' first attempts at establishing self-government. When the colonists determined to seek their independence from England, they drafted a unique document cataloguing their grievances against the King and proclaiming as "self-evident" that "all men are created equal" and are endowed "with certain unalienable Rights," including those to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The self-evident truths and the unalienable rights were intended, however, to apply only to white men. An earlier draft of the Declaration of Independence, submitted by Thomas Jefferson to the Continental Congress, University Of California Regents v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)

What does the Bible say about human rights?

Any honest study of the Bible must acknowledge that man, as God’s special creation, has been blessed with certain “human rights.” Any true student of the Bible will be stimulated toward ideals such as equity and justice and benevolence. America’s founding fathers put it well: “all men are created equal . . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.” Such a statement accords well with Scripture. The Bible says that man is created in the image of God (Genesis 1:27). Because of this, man has a certain dignity and was given dominion over the rest of creation (Genesis 1:26).

The image of God in man also means that murder is a most heinous crime. “Whoever sheds the blood of man, / by man shall his blood be shed; / for in the image of God / has God made man” (Genesis 9:6). The severity of the punishment underscores the severity of the offense. The Mosaic Law is full of examples of how God expects everyone to be treated humanely. The Ten Commandments contain prohibitions against murder, theft, coveting, adultery, and bearing false testimony. These five laws promote the ethical treatment of our fellow man. Other examples in the Law include commands to treat immigrants well (Exodus 22:21; Leviticus 19:33-34), to provide for the poor (Leviticus 19:10; Deuteronomy 15:7-8), to grant interest-free loans to the poor (Exodus 22:25), and to release all indentured servants every fifty years (Leviticus 25:39-41).

The Bible teaches that God does not discriminate or show favoritism (Acts 10:34). Every person is a unique creation of His, and He loves each one (John 3:16; 2 Peter 3:9). “Rich and poor have this in common: / The LORD is the Maker of them all” (Proverbs 22:2). In turn, the Bible teaches that Christians should not discriminate based on race, gender, cultural background, or social standing (Galatians 3:28; Colossians 3:11; James 2:1-4). We are to be kind to all (Luke 6:35-36). The Bible gives strict warnings against taking advantage of the poor and downtrodden. “He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God” (Proverbs 14:31).

Instead, God’s people are to help whoever is in need (Proverbs 14:21; Matthew 5:42; Luke 10:30-37). Throughout history, most Christians have understood their responsibility to aid their fellow human beings. The majority of hospitals and orphanages in our world were founded by concerned Christians. Many of the great humanitarian reforms of history, including abolition, were spearheaded by Christian men and women seeking justice.

Today, Christians are still working to combat human rights abuses and to promote the welfare of all people. As they preach the Gospel around the world, they are digging wells, planting crops, giving clothes, dispensing medicine, and providing education for the destitute. This is as it should be. There is a sense in which the Christian has no “rights” of his own, because he has surrendered his life to Christ. Christ “owns” the believer. “You are not your own; you were bought at a price” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20). But God’s authority over us does not negate God’s image in us. Our submission to the will of God does not annul God’s command to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matthew 23:39). In fact, we serve God most when we serve others (Matthew 25:40).

Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/human-rights.html

Unalienable or Natural Rights!

Natural rights are those rights such as life (from conception), liberty and the pursuit of happiness ergo freedom of religion, speech, learning, travel, self-defense, etc. Hence laws and statutes which violate NATURAL RIGHTS, though they have the color of law, are not law but impostors! The U.S. Constitution was written to protect these NATURAL RIGHTS from being tampered with by legislators. Further, our forefathers also wisely knew that the U.S. Constitution would be utterly worthless to restrain government legislators unless it was clearly understood that the people had the right to compel the government to keep within the Constitutional limits.

In a jury trial the real judges are the Jurors! Surprisingly, judges are actually just referees bound by the Constitution! Lysander Spooner wrote as follows:

“Government is established for the protection of the weak against the strong. This is the principal, if not the sole motive for the establishment of all legitimate government. It is only the weaker party that loses their liberties, when a government becomes oppressive. The stronger parties, in all governments are free by virtue of their superior strength. They never oppress themselves. Legislation is the work of this stronger party; and if, in addition to the sole power of legislation, they have the sole power of determining what legislation shall be enforced, they have all power in their hands, and the weaker parties are the subjects of an absolute government. Unless the weaker party have veto power, they have no power whatever in the government and ... no liberties ... The trial by jury is the only institution that gives the weaker party any veto upon the power of the stronger. Consequently it is the only institution that gives them any effective voice in the government, or any guaranty against oppression.” Essay on the Trial by Jury


Sovereignty is the quality of having supreme, independent authority over a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make law that rests on a political fact for which no purely legal explanation can be provided.

The state of making laws and controlling resources without the coercion of other nations; Supreme authority over all things. (Ref. ‘King of Kings, and Lord of lords’); The liberty to decide one's thoughts and actions

Sovereignty is a state of completeness and inter-connectedness. It is recognizing that as a human being you have an individuated spirit force that animates your physical, emotional, and mental aspects, and that through this spirit you are complete and connected to all other life forms.

The Sovereign Integral is a state of consciousness whereby the entity and all of its various forms of expression and perception are integrated as a conscious wholeness. This is a state of consciousness that all entities are evolving towards, and at some point, each will reach a state of transformation that allows the entity and its instruments of experience (i.e., the human instrument) to become an integrated expression that is aligned and in harmony with Source Intelligence. Some defining characteristics include: a belief in the concept of self-ownership; a strong commitment to individual rights; a distrust of political democracy; a market-anarchist or natural order mindset; a belief in the right to financial and personal privacy; a willingness to think and act outside the square - as regards being beholden to existing nation states; an active strategy of banking offshore and using various structures to protect one's assets.

sovereign - a nation's ruler or head of state usually by hereditary right

sovereign - greatest in status or authority or power; "a supreme tribunal"

sovereign - Above or superior to all others; chief; greatest; supreme dominion or power.


The Constitution for The united States: united-States-Constitution_circa-1787.pdf

Rhode Island Constitution: RI-Constitution

Articles of Confederation: Articles of Confederation


Citizens Rule Book: JuryDutyHandbook.pdf

See Also: http://www.gemworld.com/USA-Unalienable.htm

Admiralty law, Common Law and the Sovereign Video

The Ultimate Delusion: ultimate_delusion.pdf

By: Kenneth Michael

http://commonlawgrandjury.com is here to inspire the sovereign People of the united States to learn about the de jure common law grand jury. People have the right to act as a balance of power against a corrupt government that tries to usurp their Constitutionally limited powers.

Internal Links:

Contact Us
About Us
Privacy Policy
Legal Disclaimer