Part II: The Constitution 


----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------

"The privileges and immunities clause of the fourteenth Amendment
protects very few rights because it [neither incorporates any of the
Bill of Rights] nor protects all rights of individual citizens...
Instead this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being a
citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights
which relate to state citizenship..." Jones v. Temmer (Aug. 1993) 829
F. Supp. 1226.

The body of admiralty law and the federal judicial power in admiralty
and maritime jurisdiction are paramount and exclusive over and against
everything except the sovereignty of the Federal Government itself,
and foreign sovereignties having treaty rights. They recognize but one
sovereignty in the United States, that of the Federal Government. Nor
can there be but one sovereign power over the same thing at the same
time. As to this body of law and these judicial powers, the States
have surrendered both their sovereign powers and sovereign privileges
under the Constitution. The State can have or enact no law
contravening or affecting them. Nor can it urge its sovereign
attributes to accomplish the same results. To hold otherwise would be
a contradiction. Workman v. New York City, 179 U.S. 552; The Lake
Monroe, 250 U.S. 246; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. Stewart, 253 U.S. 149;
Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, 244 U.S. 205; Union Fish Co. v.
Erickson, 248 U.S. 308. 

[9.1] 2.8 06/30/98 CONFLICT OF LAWS 

1.The federal law prevails over state law (statutory or
constitutional), and the state law, if in conflict, must yield.
(Falsone v. U.S.) 

Internal Revenue Manual Handbook. 9.1 Chap. 2 AUTHORITY 06/30/98

Once again, I understand what many of you are facing with this
information. But please, ask yourself if what you read here doesn't
answer so many of the questions you have had over the years, with no
answers for them. Why is it that no matter who gets elected, nothing
changes?

Why are the Republicans and Democrats so much alike? Where are all
your "freedoms" going, and why? And there are many other questions as
well. This is the answer, like it or not. And what you must do with
this information is not just "believe" it, but go to work and confirm
it! 

Many of you have worked very hard over the years to elect the "right
politician". Well, while you have been working for "them", many other
men, dozens, even hundreds of them, have been digging through case law
decisions, filing freedom of information requests, initiating law
suits against government personnel and entities to force the truth out
and sifting through millions of pages of government archives, all of
them looking for the information you now have access to. 

And this is not all. You are going to see a lot more over the next
several parts, much of it to confirm to you that what you are reading
here is the Truth. 

So, please, read on, and prepare yourself for much more in Part III!

What, Exactly, Is The Constitution?

The Constitution of the United States of America, Article I, Section
8, Clause 17:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; 

UH?

So what?

Is the Constitution fact or fiction? That's all I want to know! Don't
bore me with details or rhetoric about words or laws or statutes or
any of that other 'stuff'! 

Just tell me; What, exactly, is the Constitution? Is it fact of
fiction? Does it even exist anymore? 

Of course the Constitution exists, or Washington, DC, as a seat of
government, could not exist, because the Constitution is the creation
document for what eventually became known as The United States
Government (i. e., the UNITED STATES). Without the Constitution, the
District of Columbia ceases to have any lawful existence, except as a
city. Not that this would stop those in power in DC, but it would
raise some questions in the minds of the People that probably could
not be answered without blood-shed, and some of the blood shed would
be that of those in DC, and, of course, their minions. 

To understand a little better, the District of Columbia was created by
a grant from either Madison or Adams and George Washington. It was
originally 10 miles square, which encompassed 100 square miles.
Washington’s Land was in Virginia and he and the boys from Maryland
got into a disagreement and George revoked his assignment of the
Virginia parcel, so to this day D.C. encompasses only 73 square miles.


Maryland's District of Columbia Cession Act was Md. Laws 1791, Ch. 45,
§ 2. The National District of Columbia Enabling Act was U.S., Feb 27,
1801, c. 15, 2 Stat. 103. The Constitution for the United States of
America designs that such a District should be created and delegated
it but did not create it. This is why the government was originally
operated from Philadelphia. There is also more than some evidence that
the particular location picked for Washington, DC, had to do with
occult symbolism and the remarkable similarity of the area, once it
would be built up, to Alexandria, Egypt, and the Nile river. 

It is important for you to also understand that what we are facing is,
more than anything, the need for those in Washington, DC, to fragment
and confuse the people of America as much as possible. It is not
necessary to blind everyone; it is simply necessary to blind a
majority, so that the few who understand stand alone. In this manner,
resistance to tyranny can be blamed for the problems created by those
in Washington, DC, and the majority of our people will never see the
Truth. This is why it is essential that you begin to understand and
when you do, that you begin to help educate those around you as well.
And, you will always find a few who are ready to listen. 

To continue, I think that everyone can agree that the Constitution is
a fact. Not very many people deny that Washington, DC, or that the
UNITED STATES, exists. But what about fiction? Yes, the Constitution
is also a fiction, but not in the literal sense. The Constitution is a
fiction in the minds of the People; Those who persist in believing
what they wish to have be true, in the face of all evidence to the
contrary, including case law from the courts created by Congress
through the power granted by the Constitution. That being said, the
questions still remain concerning the Constitution. 

Yet the answers to all of our questions about the so-called
Constitution is right in the Constitution; if we would simply read it,
and think about what we are reading, instead of accepting that which
we are TOLD we are reading! It took me many years and many false
starts before I finally started to read the Constitution, instead of
reading what others have said about the Constitution. Once I did this,
what others were actually saying, instead of what I thought they were
saying, became very clear. 

'They' tell us the answer to the vast majority of our questions at
every opportunity, but we simply fail to hear what 'they' are really
saying. We prefer to hear that which we think is being said, rather
than carefully listening and thinking about the meaning behind the
rhetoric.

"Democracy".

Since when did I pledge allegiance to any old "democracy"? 

All of us have heard the old objections and the questions about "what
is going on" including the above. Why did we pledge "allegiance" to
any creation of man without the realization that our husbands,
brothers, fathers and sons (and now daughters) would be sent off to
foreign wars for the profits and gain of the merchants of the earth? 

I Samuel 8:18 "I brought up Israel from Egypt, I rescued you from the
power of the Egyptians and from the power of all the realms that were
oppressing you; and to-day you have rejected your God, who has himself
saved you from all your calamities and distresses; you have said 'no'
to me and claimed a king. Then he added, "Here are the methods of the
king who shall reign over you; your sons he will take and place them
in his chariots and among his horsemen and to run before his chariots;
he will put them in command of his regiments and companies; some will
have to plough his ground and reap his harvest to make his arms and
construct his chariots; your daughters he will take for perfumers and
cooks and bakers; he will take the pick of your fields and vineyards
and olive-yards and present them to his courtiers; a tenth part of
your arable land and vineyards he will present to his officers and
courtiers; your slaves, male and female, and the pick of your cattle
and your asses, he will take and use for his own ends; a tenth part of
your flocks he will take; and you yourselves shall be slaves to him.
Then you will cry out on account of the king whom you have chosen for
yourselves, but the Eternal will not answer you then." 

The above is one of the strongest parts of the Bible, and the one
everyone can understand around him in action, if he will but look. It
says very plainly that God the Eternal will not hear your call until
you come out of her! And it goes a long way in explaining the
Constitution, as you will see. And in understanding why those who
serve the UNITED STATES in aggressive warfare are so punished for
their actions. For instance, all of the POW/MIAs, the Gulf War
Syndrome sufferers, Michael New and all the rest too numerous to
mention. There have been tens of thousands. There will be thousands
more. Perhaps millions more. 

You defend your nation on the shores and fields of the nation; You
plunder other nations on their shores and in their fields. That is the
lesson of foreign wars and of a standing army. A standing army is
always, in the final resort, used against the People it supposedly is
to protect. A standing army is always, in the end, filled with
desperate men who will do whatever is necessary to protect what little
they think is theirs, be it rank, starvation wages, or a way of life
they can not do without. Pity them, for they know not what they do. 

(See the British army in the building of the British merchant Empire
and the accumulation of the vast wealth of the Rothschilds/Rhodes and
the like. It is very instructive to talk to UNITED STATES soldiers
today, and hear how they cannot get an education any other way or, in
many cases, earn a living outside of the military forces. This is
identical to the situation which existed in England for centuries, and
the world is littered with the graves of the common folk of England
who died to 'create' the merchant Empire of "The City", and who never
saw any gain for their deaths. Also see the book The Empire of "The
City" by E. C. Knuth, where you will learn that the real power of the
British "Empire" is the London financial district known as "The City",
and "the Crown" is the committee of 12 to 14 men who rule "The City",
thus being the "power" behind the "King".) 

Always the illusion must be kept before the "People" of the united
States that what they are supporting and/or fighting for is the Union
of States, the united States, instead of some kingdom, the UNITED
STATES (a private corporation) located on the banks of the Potomac.
More on this later. History always repeats itself; those who fail to
study history become just so many more victims of history: the
Wilderness; Iwo Jima; the Bulge; Stalingrad; Hiroshima; the Ardennes;
Pork Chop Hill; Viet Nam; Iraq; Gettysburg; and on and on.

And I've said nothing about the above Clause 17 from the Constitution.
Perhaps just to give you a chance to think about it some more. Why?
Because the answer is right there before us, if we are willing to put
our preconceived, preprogrammed prejudices aside and actually think
about what we are reading. If need be, get out a legal dictionary and
look up the words. 

What you are reading as Article1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the
Constitution of the United States of America is why so many Americans
refer to the United States as Amerika. Because of the Constitution,
this is what exists now as the UNITED STATES of 1998, and on into the
future. Not a pretty place, from my view point. But it is exactly what
was intended by the men who, meeting secretly, wrote the Constitution!


And to understand this completely, to understand the secrecy
completely, there is one more part of the Constitution which we must
consider; Article VI, Clause II:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every States shall be bound
thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the
Contrary notwithstanding. Read the above section again, only end it
with not with standing, instead of notwithstanding, and think about
how that changes the meaning of the Clause: the laws and Constitution
of any state to the contrary will not have standing, in Washington,
DC. 

This Clause is only interesting if taken within the context of
Article1, Section 8, Clause 17. Read again: and all Treaties made...
Then think about one clear, simple fact; 'They' put no limitation upon
time as far as when the chain of treaties began. 

Could the train go clear back to the charter granted in the early
1600s by the King of England to Virginia? Or to Maryland? A charter
issued under the authority of "the Crown", which is the London
Financial District known as 'the City"? Would this perhaps explain the
First Bank of the United States a little better? And Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17 would be absolutely essential for this Clause of
Article VI to be enforced.

It is also important to understand the relationship of the "Supreme
Court" to these proceedings: Only the King's Lawyers have ever been
allowed to 'practice' law before what is known today as the Supreme
Court or before any court subordinate to that same so-called Supreme
Court. But I digress...

What do you think of when you say Constitution? Most people I have
talked to think of a beautiful scroll, with the words "We find these
truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal" written
thereon. In fact, I have even had people tell me that these words are
a part of the preamble to the Constitution. Of course, this is wrong,
because the words come from the foundation document of these united
States, The Declaration of Independence. Legally referred to as the
Statute of 1776, The Declaration of Independence is the cornerstone
upon which our freedoms rest. The Declaration of Independence is what
the men of the Revolutionary War shed their blood for, not the
Constitution! But the programming of our People has been so complete
that everyone believes that the Constitution is the key document. 

Nothing could be further from the truth! The more I learn, the more
convinced I become that the Constitution was actually the bankers/King
of England/lawyer’s answer to The Declaration of Independence. And it
is impossible, with any study of history, to believe that "accidents"
happen in politics. (If it was an "accident", it would be corrected.)
To believe that a "mistake" of the magnitude of Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17 of the Constitution of the United States of America just
"happened" through error and oversight of the men who created the
Constitution or that the provision of Article VI, Clause II exists. 

Most everyone has heard of the "fatal flaw" in the Constitution. But
most everyone claims that the general welfare clause is the problem;
They are wrong. The clause enumerated above, Clause 17 of Section 8,
Article I is the fatal flaw in the Constitution.

How can we tell that?

By Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, of course, and by case law as
well:

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such
District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of
particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of
the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority
over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts,
Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; 

The Constitution is the law of the land, right?

Wrong! 

The Constitution is the law of the land, except for the area known as
the District of Columbia! 

The Constitution does not apply in Washington, DC! That is precisely
what the above Clause of the 'Constitution' is all about! "To exercise
exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever..."

There is no control on Congress within Washington, DC, whatsoever. Not
by the Constitution, and not by the People who supposedly "benefit"
from the Constitution. None whatsoever. Congress can do whatsoever
they please in DC, with no law, and no People, to answer to. That is,
by definition, a "democracy". 

And I have already heard all of the arguments that 'one little tiny
mistake by our forefathers does not negate a great document, the best
effort the world has ever seen in man's attempt to obtain freedom'
(see I Samuel 8:18). This is not one tiny little mistake! At least 95%
of all of the "laws" enacted by "Congress" are enacted through the
power granted by this Clause! And then I hear about how the 'court'
destroyed the Constitution by their "false interpretation" of this
clause. In Downes v. Bidwell, the Supreme Court ruled that "exclusive"
meant exactly that; EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction, with no control from the
Constitution. (In Downes v. Bidwell, the Court ruled that "exclusive"
meant "without consideration of the Constitutional restraints...") A
few years later, the Supreme Court confirmed this ruling in Hooven v.
Evatt, and I fail to see how else the 'court' could have ruled! What
is not understandable about "exclusive"? But of course, this is not
all of the story either! 

Tell me, what is the definition of Democracy? And yes, we've all heard
the bit about "mob rule", but what does that mean? 

Simply put, it means that there is no law to govern by (no
Constitution; no Scripture; nothing), that anything is permissible if
the majority, or rather the controlling (moneyed) minority, desires
it. No law. None whatsoever. Anything goes, including genocide, debt
creation, concentration camps, income tax, social security, or
anything else that the People can be convinced is good enough to
contract for. Oh, and let me be very clear about this; The People only
have to contract for the benefits they want, because the rest comes
along with the pie, unseen and not thought of until it applies. Think
of it this way, a "benefit" or a "privilege" is "bait". As any
fisherman knows, "bait" always has a hook in it. 

What is the hook? Anytime you apply for any benefit from any arm of
the government, you first must surrender all Rights. All Rights. There
can be no exception to this statement, because any creation of man,
capable of giving "benefits", must gain something by the giving of the
benefit, or there is no reason to give the benefit. Benefits are
privileges. Privileges only exist for your benefit at the expense of
some other man. Thus, any benefit for you must be taken from someone
else first, so any government "empowered to give" must first be
"empowered to take". This is the purpose of Article I, Section 8,
Clause 17. To create a jurisdiction wherein privileges are granted
instead of Rights acknowledged. When a government is given the power
to grant privileges, it becomes a play thing for the bankers and their
bottomless pockets of created credit. 

Black's Law Dictionary, Volume 6, page 1197: Privilege. A particular
and peculiar benefit or advantage enjoyed by a person, company, or
class, beyond the common advantages of other citizens. An exceptional
or extraordinary power or exemption. A peculiar right, advantage,
exemption, power, franchise, or immunity held by a person or class,
not generally possessed by others. 

Does it make any sense to ask 'man' for the privilege of being set
above other men? To enjoy an advantage over other men? (It certainly
does to a banker!) Does it make any sense to think that there is not
some cost involved in gaining such a privilege? No lawful government,
of the People, by the People, and for the People, can give any
privilege to one man, because such can only be done at the expense of
another man. So there is always more to the story than what you see on
the surface. There is the rest of the story. 

Just like the parasitic infestations in pork and in shell fish, the
rest of the story is unseen until the host becomes so sick that the
problem can not be ignored. All that was needed in order to destroy
what was created by the Declaration of Independence and the blood of
those who died for freedom in the Revolutionary War was for the
framers of the "Constitution" to give exclusive power to make "law" to
any branch of the so-called government in any forum whatsoever and the
nature of man would take care of the rest. 

The nature of man, with a little help from the King's minions, namely
his lawyers. Please see the info about Esquires in United States
citizen, Yes or No? 

Then, when Congress went sine a die in 1861, exclusive Legislative
power devolved unto the President, who, at the point of a gun (acting
as Commander-in-Chief of the army), reconvened Congress. Thereafter,
you find legislation by Presidential fiat, i.e., Executive Orders,
become the "law of the land" (but ONLY in Washington, DC, under the
municipal code of DC, in the territories and in the federal district
States – more on this a little later). 

The only quasi-legitimate manner in which to convince the vast
majority of the People to enter into the exclusive jurisdiction of
Congress was to offer a "contract(s)" under the guise of a "benefit",
without explaining all of the elements of the contract. Of course,
this is called a constructive trust (see Black's Law Dictionary for an
explanation of constructive trust, i.e., constructive fraud). 

Why must there be a contract? Under the Constitution, the absolute
Right to contract is protected, and it is only in this manner that
your other Rights can voluntarily be given up for the duration of the
contract entered into. The contracts thus entered into form trusts,
which I have also seen called Bifurcated Trusts. It is through these
so-called trusts that the financial interest in your labor and time is
claimed for the benefit of those who conspire to have the laws and
statutes passed which most benefit them in the exclusive jurisdiction
of Congress in the District of Criminals, Washington, DC. 

The only manner in which this thievery of the labor and time of the
People of America can be thus accomplished, is that each individual
must be, in some manner, convinced to volunteer (perhaps you have
heard of our voluntary tax code?) into the jurisdiction of the
municipal code of Washington, DC, where Congress holds exclusive
Legislative power. The operative word being power. And the
Constitution absolutely forbids Congress and the States from
interfering in any manner with the Obligation of Contracts. 

Once you volunteer into the jurisdiction of the municipal code of
Washington, DC, the restraints of the Constitution on the workings of
government officials no longer apply, and they can and will do
whatever they wish. By contracting for privileges into Washington, DC,
you remove yourself from above the Constitution to a place beyond the
Constitution, where there is no law. 

This is called the King's Privilege. The King's Sovereignty is based
on his 'right' to make law. If he has the right to make law, then he
is bound by no law! And those who are bound by the law he 'makes' are
called subjects! So if you are bound by the laws written by Congress,
if you are a United States citizen, do not fool yourself about your
legal status. 

This is important to understand, because you, as a native American,
are not under the Constitution, unless you are an official of the so-
called government; Sworn to uphold and defend the said document. (Why
anyone would take such an oath is beyond me, but then, I'm not as
young and foolish as I once was!) Did you sign the Constitution? No?
Then you are not under it, and there is case law on this subject. The
courts understand this, even if the vast majority of us do not. The
courts tell us "Don't bring up the Constitution in this court!" and we
don't understand that the only thing being adjudicated in that court
are contracts that we have entered into with the private corporation
that controls the said court. 

The Constitution is simply a restraint upon those who work in the so-
called government. It is nothing else, and conveys no privileges nor
benefits to the common man, nor does it grant any protections. The
Constitution simply makes the existence of the District of Criminals
in Washington possible. And the men who wrote the Constitution
understood exactly what they were doing. No one who called themselves
a Christian and who recognized the Lawgiver of the Universe could not
understand what a license they were handing to Congress with the term
exclusive Legislation. 

Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 919; License. A personal
privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on land without
possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable
at the will of the licensor and is not assignable... The permission by
competent authority to do an act which, without such permission, would
be illegal, a trespass, a tort, or otherwise not allowable...
Certificate or the document itself which gives permission. Leave to do
thing which licensor could prevent... Permission to do a particular
thing, to exercise a certain privilege or to carry on a particular
business or to pursue a certain occupation...

"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever..." Who
could issue such a license to "make law"? Only the King. 

To make any law whatsoever. To 'create' any tax code, for Washington,
DC! To create any privilege whatsoever for any one willing to pay
enough for the privilege. For instance, the 'privilege' of printing
'money'. But only for Washington, DC. 

To make any law whatsoever! It is impossible for me to believe that
the men who fought and died for freedom in the Revolutionary War would
ever agree to let any man write the law under which they must live.
Who has the power to write law? Only THE Sovereign. The power to write
law IS the power of sovereignty, and any man who must obey the said
laws is known as a subject, as in ‘subject to the power of’. The more
I learn the more I understand why the Constitution was written in
secrecy. And now I understand what I was told concerning the
Constitution being sent to Britain in 1788 for approval, before the
final draft was accepted in 1792. You will understand as well, before
I am done. 

And I know that many of you will simply shake your head in disbelief
about all of the nonsense, like, for sure, yeh, Great Britain! Only
the greatest maritime power on the face of the earth for centuries.
And just a small island, kinda like a ten miles square district of
Maryland, you know, perhaps you've heard of Washington, DC? 

However, if you want a lesson in real American History, go to
http://www.state-citizen.org/files/stateinfobriefs/000contents.txt and
download the file '1STCONG.ZIP' and read a "true and correct copy of
the Constitution from 1789, before the Bill of Rights - please check
this out, and see all the changes made by our government". This is the
version of the Constitution accepted by the delegates of the States,
not the one "adopted" by the 'government' in 1792, AFTER the British
approved the final version. I think you will find it rather
interesting to compare the two versions, and this may help you
understand what is actually going on in America. 

And remember this; men such as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson
certainly knew and understood exactly what was going on. Many of the
ordinary delegates and such certainly did not know or understand, or
many of the so-called founding fathers would have been lynched! 

Now all that had to be done was to devise some manner of convincing
all of those so-called free-men out there that it was a good idea to
contract into the jurisdiction of Washington, DC! Because no matter
what privilege or 'tax code' is created for the benefit of the wealthy
minority, it is of no benefit to 'them' without the willing
'taxpayers' to participate. You know; the cannon fodder; the useless
eaters, the vast majority of the People of the united States, who must
be convinced that the united Sates is really the UNITED STATES, and
that the Constitution is a GREAT document! Oh, isn't public education
wonderful? 

Once you understand these facts, the Buck Act, Social Security (the
greatest Ponzi scheme ever devised!), the so-called Income Tax, the
IRS, FBI and all of the other alphabet soup agencies begin to make
sense. Not much, until you finally grasp that Congress has the right
to regulate those who are contracted into their exclusive
jurisdiction! 

Contracting with equals the acceptance of. 


To Contract with Congress is to accept any burden placed upon
Washington, DC, by Congress, including the payment of the national
bankruptcy, serve in foreign wars for the benefit of the merchants of
death, be a guinea pig for medical experiments, in fact, to act as a
slave of Congress, just as the contracts spell out. To be, in short, a
subject. 

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition; Subject. Constitutional Law. One
that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The
natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men
in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they
enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the
laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a
republican form of government. 

Read the above carefully and you will see where "citizen," as in
United States citizen, ties to subject as is described in Part I,
United States citizen, Yes or No? 

And there are two more points which needs to be pointed out here:

First, you can not go to Congress and ask for relief from taxes. These
men, and women, are contracted to support the Constitution, under the
Fourteenth Amendment. 

Now, what happens when you or some Congressman questions this
"National" debt, or asks Congress for "relief," especially in the
nature of curtailing the activities of everyone’s favorite agency, the
IRS? Well, all Congressmen, probably you, and, of course, all lawyers,
are bound by contract to the terms and conditions of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment is very plain, and
quite clear:

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

(It is very interesting to carry this "collection of contracted debt"
completely forward from the beginning through the formation of the
corporation known today as The United States government:

.......And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance
on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each
other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our Sacred Honor. (Declaration of
Independence, 1776) 

This mutual pledge served notice to all the world that the new United
States of America would honor it's public debts. In effect, it was an
introductory statement of a Public Pledge of Revenue Assurance for the
Public Debt of the United States of America. This Public Pledge was
subsequently, and more specifically, expressed as follows:

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 as a charge against the United States; and the
Public Faith are hereby solemnly PLEDGED. [Articles of Confederation,
Article XII].

It is agreed that CREDITORS on either side shall meet with no lawful
Impediment to recovery of the Full Value in Sterling Money of all bona
fide DEBTS heretofore contracted. [Treaty of Peace, September 3,
1783].

All debts contracted and engagements entered into before the adoption
of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States
under this Constitution as under the Confederation. [United States
Constitution, Article VI, Section 1].

The validity of the Public Debt of the United States AUTHORIZED BY
LAW, including debts incurred for the payment of pensions and bounties
for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion shall not be
questioned. [United States Constitution, Amendment XIV, Section 4]. 

Each new pledge above shows the time frame for the changes that were
made to the so-called government. 

This also means that any efforts taken to collect upon this debt shall
not be questioned. So you should think about this very carefully
before you rush out to work and donate to elect some new Congressman
who will "make a difference." Yeah, right, and if pigs could fly…

Second, I would like to ask how an American would ever know if the
President, Congress, or courts are in treason when they have never
read the Constitution? And yes, I remember what I wrote at the
beginning about just read the darn thing! But this is in the nature of
a lesson, to show you that even if you read what is put forth, it is
probably a lie, and certainly not fully disclosed, unless you
literally see everything. This is why it becomes necessary for you to
have "faith" in the system, and why so much effort is put forth to be
sure that you do have "faith," even in the face of mounting evidence
that "something" is wrong. As long as you can be convinced that with a
little more effort, one more election, one different man in the right
place at the right time, we can solve all of these nagging little
problems… As long as you can be convinced to continue to participate,
the purpose and function of the Constitution can continue to be
fulfilled. That purpose, and that function, has nothing to do with you
except as your participation continues to benefit those in control of
that corporation established by the Constitution. 

In this regard, I have corresponded with literally thousands of people
on this subject of the Constitution, and I have never encountered a
single one of them that can honestly claim to have read the entire
Constitution for the United States. Now, before you start to think of
arguing with me about this, finish reading!

If anyone thinks that they have read the constitution, then I would
ask that they immediately look in Black's Law Dictionary for the term,
"incorporation by reference." In my sixth edition of Black's, it is on
page 766. The actual description of the term is something like:

'The method of making one document of any kind become a part of
another separate document by referring to the former in the latter,
and declaring that the former shall be taken and considered as a part
of the latter the same as if it were fully set out therein.'

With this phrase in mind, examine Article 6, clause 1 of the
Constitution. This reads:

"All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."

Thus we see two "incorporations by reference" of an unspecified number
of documents. Where are the documents describing the "Debts
contracted" and the "Engagements entered into". Especially, where are
the documents regarding the "engagements entered into" for remedying
the bankruptcy under the Articles of Confederation? The phrase "as
valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the
Confederation" would require that the entire document, including seals
and signatures, be incorporated "the same as if it were fully set out
therein." 

In clause two, there is the phrase, "and all Treaties made, or which
shall be made,". This includes two more classes of documents that are
incorporated by reference, i.e.- all past Treaties and all future
Treaties. I am well aware of the Supreme Court decisions that no
treaty can operate contrary to the constitution, however, as pointed
out above, unless we see

the "Engagements entered into" and all of the treaties that were made
BEFORE the constitution was written, how can we mere mortals know if a
NEW Treaty banning personal ownership of firearms for anyone under the
jurisdiction of congress would be in conflict with one of the many
documents that were made an integral part of the organic constitution
as an

"incorporation by reference"? Besides, any Treaty entered into by
Congress IS binding upon their Exclusive Jurisdiction, as they can do
anything they wish "within" the District of Columbia! The prohibition
on Treaties not interfering with the limitations imposed by the
Constitution is only for the rest of the country, where the
Constitution is the law of the land. 

How many so-called "Patriots" are there who have made an oath to
"defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic" can
now say that they have read and understand the Constitution? I am
looking for the documents that were incorporated by reference. I would
really like some help on this, because I have located some of the
treaties, but I would also like to have some of the "engagements
entered into."

I sincerely hope this helps everyone to understand that it is not
possible to be truly informed about the Constitution, as there are
simply to many secrets behind and within it. Once you reach this point
of understanding, get ye out of her begins to make even more sense. 

EDUCATION

One of the real problems that the People of the united States face is
educating themselves, because those who benefit from our ignorance,
are not going to volunteer the information required for our freedom!
And our education begins with the most basic of all facts: everything
you sign is a contract! Or you would not be asked to sign it!!!!!! 

When I was younger, I signed everything put before me. Now, you'll
have a very difficult time making me sign anything that I did not
write! And for sure I am not going to sign anything that is not
completely before me, such as a bank signature card where you agree to
abide by all the rules and regulations of the Federal Reserve. After
all, there are only about 7 million pages of statutes, rules,
ordinances and the like involved, so why worry, right? 

This is particularly amusing to me when friends and neighbors argue
with me about not being able to obey The True God's Laws, because
there are just too many of them (about 728)! But these same people
will willingly and even eagerly sign a contract to observe 7 million
pages of rules and regulations without batting an eye, and then wonder
why they are in trouble with the IRS, or the BATF, or any of the other
numerous agencies of Washington, DC.

If you are confused about this, read the Arman Condo Letter (Part IX),
and follow up with Invisible Contracts, then What Is Money? (Part VII)
By the time you finish this Series, you will be ready for the book The
Science of Life, or, Man and his gods, and how to be free of them
(Please ask if you want information about this book), and you will
begin to understand why the book costs what it does. And you may even
learn that it is the cheapest book you will ever purchase. 

When you look up the Constitution of 1789, take a look at the file
'ACOUNNES.ZIP'. See for yourself where the US went bankrupt. You'll be
amazed by documents that prove your property right down to your shorts
has been mortgaged to the world bankers, through the exclusive
jurisdiction of Washington, DC. See also BANK_WAR.ZIP; Supreme Court
statements that the 13th and 14th Amendments undermine the U.S,.
Constitution and extend jurisdiction over "U.S. citizens" (and those
who claim to be). Many citings that U.S. citizens are NOT protected by
the Bill of Rights. 

Regulation, or Benefit?

A friend just brought me some information that is very interesting. In
the April, 1998, newsletter from the California Department of Real
Estate (DRE), the DRE informs their licensees that under the "Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act" (welfare reform act of 1996)
passed by the U.S. Congress (what a surprise!), the State of
California must insure that no benefits are provided to illegal
aliens. It is interesting to note that the DRE goes on to say: The
definition of a public benefit includes professional and occupational
licenses issued to individuals by state agencies." For years people
have been told that these licenses are only "regulatory" in nature, to
insure that the public is protected from unscrupulous or improperly
trained personnel in positions that may be prone to cause serious
injury (financial or physical) to the public. 

As you can see, the truth always comes out. Any license issued by any
government is a benefit! And a contract, with the government. It is a
privilege issued at the expense of your fellow man, and there is a
cost. There is no such thing as a free lunch. We know this, but... we
keep acting as if there is not absolute truth in the statement.
Remember; any 'government' big and powerful enough to give you
anything you need or want is also big and powerful enough to take from
you anything someone else wants or desires!

And I know that many of you are going to be in denial about what I
have written. However, you should not be, and will not be, if you just
continue to study and learn. There are no accidents in politics.
Everything is carefully planned to occur in just the manner in which
they do. And one of the pieces that I learned that really put
everything in perspective for me concerns the so-called father of
'our' country; George Washington.

I have always wondered exactly where the federal districts had their
beginnings. I've seen much of the information developed about
'federalism' and 'federal zones', etc., but every time I thought I had
finally arrived at the source of the infection, more information came
to my view. On the internet, at 'http://civil-liberties.com', is a
very interesting on-line book titled The United States is Still a
Subject of Great Britain. Recently new to this on-line book is a
summary section in which I found the following information:

"In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. I, 1789-
1897, I discovered the following:

Gentlemen of the Senate:

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled "An act
repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid
upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their
stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and
for appropriating the same," I have thought fit to divide the United
States into the following districts, namely:

The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New
Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of
Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence
Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of
Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of
Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New
York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New
Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of
Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of
Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of
Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of
Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of
North Carolina; the district of South Carolina, to consist of the
State of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of
the State of Georgia." March 4, 1791 (page 99). 

In George Washington's Proclamation of March 30, 1791, he declares the
district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he
says further:


"And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the
present month of March have given further authority to the President
of the United States..."

This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union
formally known as the States of... . This was also necessary for the
newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do
business in the State of..., but is actually the District State.
Subjection of the States of... was complete, all that was necessary
was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since
the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them
to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an
occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-
Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District
States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a
matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a
Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, Sec.
4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the
War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a
ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority,
Article 1, Sec. 17, over the District. Washington extended this
District without Constitutional authority. Washington put in place
officers of the District to oversee the District States. As a result
of the military rule imposed by Washington, District courts and
Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and
imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States. THESE
DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED. The
Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two
years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers,
thereby HE created District States, so the federal government could
use the militias to crush the tax protesters in Pennsylvania, by
Washington's order. Since the Judicial Districts already existed, why
did they recreate them? Washington said he was dividing the United
States into District States."...

END OF QUOTE.

There is more, and to understand fully, I urge you to read the entire
book-on-line. However, the rest of this paragraph, as contained in the
summary is, in my opinion, in error. The author of the summary goes on
to talk about DIVIDING THE STATES, but that is not what happened. You
must understand the difference between the United States and the
united States. Washington divided the United States into districts,
not the united States. The United States is formed BY the Constitution
(and the Articles of Confederation); the united States are the union
States, which formed the United States. This is a powerful distinction
which must be understood for effective action in removing the legal
disabilities of contractual obligations with the exclusive
jurisdiction of the UNITED STATES. If it was not a powerful
distinction, they would not have to contract you into the
jurisdiction, but would assume all of the powers they desire without
the "legal" niceties of a contract. 

To help understand a little better, look at Supreme Court Rule 45.1,
which says that all process of that court is in the name of the
president of the United States. The Supreme Court (and all courts
subject to the rules laid down by the Supreme Court) can only be an
executive branch (martial law) court. Since the ultimate court of
appeal to all so-called courts now under the American BAR (British
Accreditation Regency) Association in the United States is a martial
law court, then all subordinate courts are also martial law courts
operating in the federal districts originated by George Washington! 

(When you are looking up the Constitution of 1789, go to the file
marked 'FEDJURIS.ZIP', and read a speech by Judge Yankovich at
Stanford University showing federal jurisdiction in the courts.) 

There are three branches of government in the United States;
legislative, executive and judicial. All three branches of government
are capable of having their own courts, i. e., legislative =
legislative tribunal; executive = courts-martial (martial law under
the president acting as Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces) and
the judicial, which must operate in the Union States only under the
rules of the common law (it is important to note that the third branch
of the government, the judicial branch, has never been activated as
required by the Constitution - David). I know of no legitimate state
courts, which would be courts of the People under common law, in
America at this time. No court operating in America can be a common
law court if the said court is under the BAR, which owes allegiance to
a foreign power, i.e., The City. 

The author of the summary quoted above correctly identified the
problem, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution of the
United States of America. However, in reading his works, I doubt if he
truly understood the real nature of the problem: There is no law in
Washington, DC. Anything goes. Anything, that is, that someone is
willing to pay enough to make it worth while for the 'politicians' to
act. After all, the UNITED STATES has the best politicians money can
buy! Of course, "anything goes" subject to their willingness to be
bound by and enter into additional treaties. If you wish to understand
what I mean, study the record of those in Washington, DC, and the
treaties made with the Indians. It becomes very obvious that the only
treaties made and kept by "them" are the ones which personally benefit
"them". 

There is one more quote from the summary, concerning Patrick Henry's
speech of June 5, 1788, which is very important here:

"Mr. Chairman... I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my
own mind. When I asked the question. I thought the meaning of my
interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and America may
depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a
proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a
confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.
The question turns, Sir, on that poor little thing--the expression, We
the People, instead of the States of America. I need not take much
pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely
pernicious, impolite and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England--
a compact between Prince and people; with checks and balances on the
former, to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a Confederacy,
like Holland--and association of a number of independent States, each
of which retain its individual sovereignty?"

The Confederate States of America.

Perhaps that makes more sense to you now. Perhaps you should read the
first sentence of the March 1, 1781, Articles of Confederation: "To
all to whom these Presents shall come, we the under signed Delegates
of the States affixed to our Names, send greeting." 

And maybe just a little more of this foundation document, which is
superior law to the Constitution:

Article I. The Title of this confederacy shall be "The United States
of America."

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and
independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by
this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in
Congress assembled. 

Perhaps all of us can now begin to see where our freedoms and Rights
went, and what the real intent behind the Constitution and all of the
licenses and other contracts entered into with any arm of government
really is. Because I bring witness to you, that until you identify the
real basis of the problem, solutions are not possible. 

I also witness to you that freedom is really rather simple. The first
basis of freedom is to not 'request' a privilege from any man or any
creation of man which sets you above your fellow men. Such as a
license. For to do so is to give prima facie evidence that the man or
the creation of man that you demanded the privilege from is superior
to you, with the authority to elevate you above other men. You give
prima facie evidence that the said power is your sovereign. 

If every man and woman in America would realize this, our problems
would evaporate. Government is an illusion, created by men for the
benefit of men at the expense of other men. YOU give 'government' its
force and effect by recognizing it, and by participating in it's games
(i.e., voting, licensing, etc.). When enough People wise up,
government goes away, or, at least, enough of it goes away that it can
become manageable by We the People. 

Government is operated by parasites; men, and women, who have no wish
nor ability to produce. They must exist at the expense of others.
Politicians, bureaucrats, lawyers, judges, professional military; all
of these have one thing in common: Most, 99% most, have never worked a
day in their lives, producing something for themselves or their fellow
man. When you take away the incentive for parasites, they go away or
they die off! Their incentive is called taxation. License fees are
taxation. 

To understand this better, read the Constitution. The only taxes
authorized by the Constitution, excise and impost taxes and duties,
are designed to protect the People of the united States from
foreigners. Scripture tells us that only foreigners are to be taxed.
Direct taxes (on land, income, labor, etc.) are forbidden, except in
Washington, DC, where Congress has exclusive jurisdiction! Congress'
incentive to tax ends when We the People stop going to them with hat
in hand asking for a special privilege, a benefit, or a license. When
We the People quit volunteering into their exclusive jurisdiction!

Oh, by the way, the Constitution is NOT suspended! I remember hearing
all about "the suspension of the Constitution" and the talk about how
"the judges don't respect the Constitution" and how "the politicians
ignore the Constitution"! Nothing could be further from the truth. The
problem is not with them; It's our problem. The Constitution is very
dear and important to those in Washington, DC. After all, it's the
source of their power, so they certainly are not about to suspend it!
All they want to do is to figure out how to entice each and every one
of the People of the several States to contract with their exclusive
jurisdiction for some privilege/benefit. 

And it does not matter if the so-called Amendments to the Constitution
are ratified by the several States or not. (It's THEIR Constitution,
People!) Such as all of the nonsense about the so-called Sixteenth
Amendment. The Amendments after the first thirteen (I'm referring to
the original Thirteenth Amendment) were simply adopted as part of the
municipal code of the District of Columbia by the UNITED STATES, and
they have no force and effect outside of the territory of the UNITED
STATES except for those under contract into the exclusive jurisdiction
wherein the so-called amendments ARE important. 

The same is true of all acts of Congress. Congress passes two types of
bills. They differ in how they are numbered. Some begin with H, and
most with HR. Those beginning with HR are for the municipal code of
Washington, DC, and mean nothing to the several States. And the men
who serve in Washington understand this very well. It is only We the
People who are confused. We have to be made to believe that it is in
our interest to volunteer into their exclusive jurisdiction. After
all, if they were sitting there on the Potomac, all by themselves,
with no subjects to pay them and give them power, it wouldn't be much
fun, now would it? So when you come right down to it, whose fault are
the problems that we in America are experiencing? The politicians? The
bankers? The cops? Or is it our fault? 

I know where I think the blame lies. 

It lies with the Constitution and those who serve it, and we who
participate with them. Look at all of the problems in America. Look at
what is happening to many Americans. Look at the prisons full of men
and women who never harmed anyone. Look at all of the abortions, the
drugs, the Gestapo agencies, the millions of pages of so-called laws,
the federal registry, the 'president' writing law (executive orders),
look at all of it very closely. All of this is happening, not in spite
of the Constitution, but because of the Constitution. The Constitution
is the author of all this misery, deceit and crime. The Constitution,
and its fatal flaw. 

Chose this day who you will serve: The One True God, or Mammon. I hope
this paper makes the choices we, each and every one, make each day a
little easier to understand.

And if you chose to continue your relationship with Mammon, then quit
belly-aching and pay the taxes, because you owe them! When you take
privileges from the government, and then refuse to pay the taxes due,
they rightly label you a tax protester. If you owe the tax, pay it! 

Bless you, each and every one, and through our combined efforts, I
pray that once again The One True God may bless the united States,
these Union States. One day, perhaps, these Republics; These
Confederate States of America!

"If you believe certain words, you believe their hidden arguments.
When you believe something is right or wrong, true or false, you
believe the assumptions in the words which express the arguments. Such
assumptions are often full of holes, but remain most precious to the
convinced". Book Three of Dune, page 244. 

What is a belief? Simply put, a belief is an assumption accepted
without proof being offered. The Constitution is a great document,
right? Yet you know a tree by its fruit, not by its roots. In medieval
Europe, a serf on his Lord's land owed the first 25% of the newly
created wealth of the soil to his master. Today, in America, the land
of the "free", at least 65% goes to the hidden masters!

In Bill Clinton's 1993 report on the budget to Congress, it was
admitted that the accumulative tax rate in the United States was 65%,
and would be 85% by 2005. (They know and understand exactly what is
going on.) Simply put, this means that when you buy a loaf of bread
for $1.00, 65 cents is taxes. When you buy a house for $100,000.00,
$65,000.00 is taxes. 

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the "fruit" of the Constitution. 

Summary: There has been some additional pages added to this paper. I
have also been told that a brief description of the facts contained
herein is necessary. 

The facts are simple; 

1. The Constitution was the answer to The Declaration of Independence.


2. The Constitution was the formative document for a new Crown colony,
placed in the united States on a piece of ground to be ceded by
Virginia/Maryland. This gives the United States the same status under
International Law as Canada. This was done by men who had no desire to
see the "colonies" separate from Britain. Men who deeply felt the need
for a "king".

3. The Fourteenth Amendment was the final installment of the answer to
The Declaration of Independence. This was the purpose of the Civil
War. See the essay United States citizen, Yes or No?

4. If you are under the legal disability of any contract to Congress
through the municipal code of Washington, DC, you are a subject of the
said Crown colony. You are a subject of the King. 

5. Under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress simply means under
feudal law, i.e., the King's privilege. (In Part XIX, we will look at
how oaths are used to bind us to this jurisdiction.) 

6. If you are working on "reforming" Washington, DC, and trying to
"elect" the "right people for the job", if you are trying to involve
others in this nonsense, you are trying to do the impossible!
Washington, DC, is exactly what it was intended to be, and you will
never change that!

7. The only solution to Washington, DC, is to stop playing "their"
games, and stop supporting it! This will do one of two things: they
will either die on the vine, or they will come after everyone (good
luck to them if they dare to do this!). Either way, it is the only way
we will ever solve the problem. 

Anything short of solving your legal disability problems with their
exclusive jurisdiction is simply feeding them more power and more
authority. And, more importantly, giving them more time to plan their
final, apocalyptic scenario which will crush our People. I don't know
what that scenario will be, but I have some pretty good ideas, and
most of our People will never even understand what has happened to
them! 

Good luck, and God Bless! And do not lose heart. I would not be doing
this if there were not a solution! Keep reading, and all will become
clear. 

"Those who engage in politics do so for self-interest. It is extreme
folly to expect that having elected someone who you desire to serve
your self-interest, that the individual so elected will not then serve
his own self-interest, and thus, serve those with the most money. This
is the history of man’s government on earth, and those who engage with
such governments without understanding this fact of human nature do so
at their own peril, and through their own ignorance. To rail at the
betrayal of "your trust" while working in your own interest is not
only ignorance, it is self-betrayal at it’s worst, and not only
betrayal of yourself, but of your family, friends and nation as well."
David Gould 


(If the following seems to be disconnected in any way with Part II as
a sequence, please bear with me. I learn also, and the following has
been added long after this paper was written because I did not have
access to the information before. At least, I did not have access to
the view that some of the following imparts, and it is important
enough to add to this without disturbing the original information. I
do this in this manner for two reasons;


I have been told that this paper is good, and I do not think I can
make it better by chopping it up.


It is necessary for you to see that I continue to learn and continue
to search for the answers that we all seek. This Series in an
incomplete work, and will remain an incomplete work until America is
re-established as a Republic, or is destroyed. You will be the ones to
make that choice between re-establishment and destruction. David

When Congress went Sine Die in 1861, the result was to create a vacuum
which Lincoln moved to fill. On his authority, and at the point of the
bayonets of the standing army of the United States, Lincoln called
Congress back into session and they proceeded to enact the plans of
the bankers in America. This was done to create a different
corporation which would, at some point in the future, not be bound by
the restrictions imposed by the original Constitution. This included
removing the original Thirteenth Amendment, and creating three new
ones. Once this was completed, this new Constitution was adopted (the
Amendments were adopted; not ratified) as the bylaws of a new
corporation formed in 1871: 

The Private Corporation known as "The District of Columbia" was
created in 1871 under the District of Columbia Organic Act at U.S.
Feb. 21 1871, c. 62, 16 Stat. 419. Later another name was given to
that corporation: The United States Government. 

It is very important that you realize that though this corporation has
a 'sounds like government name', it is not a government. Even though
it was lawfully charged with the responsibility of carrying out the
actual (original) government's business needs, it is not the
government. It is only a private corporation.

Corporations are not all necessarily held in terms of stockholders. At
the time of its creation the actual government of the United States of
America owned the corporation. That ownership lasted until 1944, where
in the Bretton Woods Agreement, 'The United States Government' was
quit claimed to the 'International Monetary Fund'. That ownership has
remained the same from that time until this.

All of that is authorized by the Actual Constitution. For reference,
see "Exclusive Jurisdiction." I know this may sound odd, to any man
that has fallen for the 'Great Foundations of America's' lies, but it
is accurate none the less.

Now, the next piece of information concerns research that a man I am
now in contact with is doing overseas. What he has found is that
nearly every "tax code" is identical in wording. Word for word
identical, in every English speaking nation that he has checked to
date. I have since learned that the tax codes of the world are
virtually identical, and why not? The so-called IRS collects original
taxes from over 270 nations. The IRS collects taxes in the District of
Columbia at the private corporation's request. The International
Monetary Fund is one of the key corporations behind the United
Nations. So it should be no surprise that these nations use identical
codes. Why would we expect that they would rewrite it? What difference
does it make? If you are subject to their jurisdiction, you must pay
the tax. 

I know that these things seem inappropriate to people that do not
understand the fundamental difference between the national government
(original jurisdiction) and the corporation in existence today, but
that's because the natural government of our nation was vacated of its
officers by 1917. Those seats sat vacant between 1917 and 1944 when
The United States Government found a new owner to solve their dilemma
of bankruptcy. Remember reading of when one bank takes over another
because the first bank is insolvent? The same thing happened with the
Bretton Woods agreement and the United States government. That is why,
today, the Treasury of the United States government is the bank
account for the International Monetary Fund. 

Always keep in mind that the original jurisdiction established for the
people of the several states provided a jurisdiction where they did
not need to contract into the king’s jurisdiction, through his Crown
Colony established by the original Constitution. To so contract is
voluntary, and America is the only nation in which this is so on the
face of the earth. To me, this is what makes America the promised
land. Only, we forgot what the blessings of liberty truly are, and it
is taking some very severe lessons to make this apparent again. 

The following is what is wrong with America; it is only half of the
answer. If the writer would simply think: 

The solution is simple ... convince people to stop signing government
forms... if their compliance is absolutely, positively required and
mandated by law ... then no signature is necessary. For example, no
one signs an agreement say that they will not murder.

"Think upon these things next time you make the statement: "How can
they get away with that?" or "What is/has happened in our county ?" 

"Try to remember which country you want to be a citizen of... 

"Two Different and Distinct Nations 

"The idea prevails with some, indeed it has expression in arguments at
the bar, that we have in this country substantially two national
governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its
restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and
independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other
nations of the earth are accustomed to... I take leave to say that, if
the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a
majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system
will result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of a
constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution
into an era of legislative absolutism... It will be an evil day for
American Liberty if the theory of a government outside the Supreme Law
of the Land finds lodgment in our Constitutional Jurisprudence. No
higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to
prevent all violation of the principles of the Constitution." 

- Honorable Supreme Court Justice John Harlan in the 1901 case of
Downes v. Bidwell. "I have added the emphasis in the form of italics
and bold print to show that the prophecy of this Supreme Court
Justice, has come true today. 

Michael Heit Chairman The American Heritage Party of Montana
http://gallery.in-tch.com/~bearman/ahpom10a.html

A further clarification via Brother Gregory:

"Gregory Thomas. Williams" ekklesia@presys.com and from: Clifford
Emeric <vgray35@hotmail.com>

There is a simple way to view this story by realizing we have two
constitutions: (a) The Constitution of the United States of America
and (b) The United States Constitution.

The second came about as a result of the incorporation of 1871/1878
which created the United States Government, which is a government for
the District of Columbia. Of course, the Constitution provided for a
government of the District of Columbia, but the powers that be wanted
to organize it differently, and the Constitution gave them the power
to do as they please within the 10 mile square area allotted to D.C as
a seat of government within the Constitution.

The Constitution of the United States of America actually has the
13th, 14th and 15th amendments (and possibly the 16th amendment) prior
to 1871. After the incorporation a new Constitution was created as by-
laws of the corporation, which dropped the 13th amendment. (I do take
exception to this, and below I will show why. – David)

They renamed the original 14th, 15th, & 16th amendments to the new
Constitution the 13th, new 14th and new 15th amendments. Then a new
16th amendment was added around 1913-1916 (I forget exactly when). One
example of this is the Constitution of Colorado, which plainly shows
the new 13th amendment abolishing slavery as the 14th amendment prior
to 1871.

This new Constitution applies to the Federal Zone only and hence it is
lawful. It simply does not apply to the republic: it applies only to
the UNITED STATES. The incorporation created a democracy and gave them
more flexibility to implement Roman Civil Law.

No amendment has been added to the original Constitution since 1871,
and the corporate amendments 16 to 27 of the corporate constitution
are not applicable to the republic. 

I do not believe their intentions towards us is at all amicable, and I
also believe their intent is to one day make this new Constitution
generally applicable, by consent of the people.

This is as I explained in this paper; in essence, you have two
corporations, and two Constitutions, one subordinate to the other, and
both "within" Washington, DC. The new one was installed by the
military power of Washington, DC, and the president acting in his
capacity as commander in chief of the armed military might of the
original corporation. This, of course, is why the original people of
the colonies were so distrustful of standing armies. Brothers Clifford
and Anthony, however, have added some very valuable clarifications
which I truly thank them for. 

As we look at this aspect of the federal jurisdiction, the nature of
the contracts which we must enter into once again becomes very
evident. It is voluntary, my friends. 

And, still, the picture becomes clearer as more information becomes
available. I think that this occurs not so much because of new
information, as by more understanding and a different manner of
looking at what is already known. The researchers must digest
information just as much as you do so that the final pieces fall into
place. The following just came from The Informer, and it is quite
instructive when taken with the piece above. Enjoy. Believe me, I did,
and my understanding did increase. 

From: "Inhabitant of the Conquered lands"

jay rutledge States:

" I believe the following, however, are incorrect:. "The parties of
interest consist of the People within the exterior boundaries of the
State, the State it self, and the United States." Per Padleford no
person is a party of interest to the U.S. Constitution. The states are
the parties of interest. The people were the grantors or settlers of
powers of sovereignty. Also, I do not understand the United States as
a party of interest then." 

Answer: The people are the origin of all authority.

The three branches of the Republic are the People, within the exterior
boundaries of the States, the States, and the United States.

The People are not party to the Union within the constituted document
known as the Constitution of the United States for the United States
of America. The People are represented within the House of
Representatives.

The States are represented within the Senate. The 17th Amendment not
withstanding. The Senators should be appointed by the State
Legislatures, not by the so-called will of the people. The Executive
Branch is controlled by the State Legislatures through the electors. 

It is the failure of Americans to stand for the Law that has allowed
this "Social Democracy" radiating from the shores of the Potomac to
perpetrate the current fraud.

The Articles of Confederation still have force in effect. The
Constitution is simply a document to empower the Confederacy’s Agency,
the United States.

The first three Articles of the Constitution of the United States for
the United States of America simply state the three administrative
agencies of the National Governance. The Third Administrative Branch
established in Article III, has never been convened.

The First Congress of the United States empowered it’s own Legislative
Tribunal on September 23, 1789, and called it the "Supreme Court."

The National Governance administered on behalf of the States united
under the Articles of Confederation up until December of 1860. Then
the Congress of the United States for the United States of America
adjourned Sine Die. This is when an alliance between the Executive
Branch operating with the Sine Die Congress of the United States in
March of 1861 established the militant armed force of the United
States.

The Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, still in force, coupled with
the "14th" Amendment empowered the military occupation of the States
of America. This Military Occupation was further enhanced on December
13, 1913, with the Congressional creation of it’s privately charted
monetized debt service center. (The Federal Reserve. – David)

On March 9th, 1933, the Bank Conservation Act empowered the President
to extend the licensing authority that the Executive Branch had been
brandishing since July 13th, 1861. (Title 50, section 207, and 208,
United State Code.) (The original bankruptcy. – David)

The American People have been denuded with over 150 years of
governmental propagation doled out in the Government Schools.

The United States is the "National Socialistic Democracy." Wherein the
Will of the majority within the Congress of the United States is the
oppression of the minority within the States of America.

The Republic has died a slow death. The Republic now lies dormant for
the failure of Americans to comprehend the tyranny radiating from the
Shores from the of the Potomac.

Make no mistake, the United States is the "NEW WORLD ORDER." The
United States apparently has military agreements with the Butchers of
Tiananmen Square, and the ghouls of the Kremlin. These agreements
appear to have been in place since it’s Agency, the United Nations was
empowered under the questionable actions of the Congress of the United
States and the Executive Branch in August of 1945.

Make no Mistake, the United Nations is simply the most devious
backhanded tool of oppression of the United States to complete what
appears to be the de facto military occupation of the United States of
America and the World.

This Date, July 14th, only 212 years after the fall of the Bastille,
223 years after the proclamation of the Declaration of Independence,
and 218 years after the formal creation of the United States; the
United States has posted troops in over 105 nations around the world,
and imported unknown tens of thousands of foreign troops under the
auspices of the United Nations to occupy the States of America.

The United States was constituted by the States to administer limited
and delineated duties as an Agency on behalf of the States. The United
States is the governance created by the States for the established of
regular Commerce amongst the States, International Commerce, and
military protection from both domestic and foreign enemies.

Three Acts of the Congress of the United States: July 13th, 1861,
October 7, 1917, and March 9, 1933, empowered the President of the
United States to issue License to People who are in commerce within
and without the States, whom would be considered to be in obstruction
and in insurrection against the Laws of the United States. (Get any
license, join commerce under the king. – David)

Many Americans have failed to comprehend the insincerity of it’s own
Agency, the United States, and it’s Nul Tiel instrumentalities, known
as this State. Tens of millions of Americans are inundated every day
with the most sophisticated campaign of Disinformation, Mastracht, and
apparently nothing less than downright lies.

The coming collapse will be utter chaos to the American People who
apparently willingly, knowingly, and intentionally support what
appears to be the most successful despotic Tyranny in known history.

Please read the above carefully, and understand that what is going on
is caused by us; by our unwillingness to disconnect with "the system."
By our unwillingness to work to correct what is going on by educating
others, and by our unwillingness to withdraw support for the United
States. It is by our cooperation that the fraud of the "United States"
continues. Please, always remember this:

The solution is simple ... convince people to stop signing government
forms... if their compliance is absolutely, positively required and
mandated by law ... then no signature is necessary. For example, no
one signs an agreement say that they will not murder.

A caveat to the above information about the 14th Amendment, and
whether it can be a part of the original Constitution:

To begin with, the Congress went Sine Die, and they were not capable
of beginning the process of an Amendment to the Constitution, much
less of completing what is necessary to change the basic governing
laws of the nation. In addition to this, the various states would have
nothing to do with the Amendment. The "government" then sent armed men
into the various state legislatures to see to it that the Amendment
was "ratified." This still did not do the trick, and, instead of
ratification, the Amendment was "adopted":

Please see: http://www.ptialaska.net/~swampy/amend_14/amend_14.html

The Secretary of State at that time, William H. Seward, understood
what was going on:

"Now, therefore, be it known that I, William H. Seward, Secretary of
State of the United States, in execution of the aforesaid act, and of
the aforesaid concurrent resolution of the 21st of July, 1868, and in
*** thereto, do hereby direct the said proposed amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to be published in the newspapers
authorized to promulgate the laws to the United States, and I do
hereby certify that the said proposed amendment has been adopted…

Pay close attention to this word: adopted. More on this in a minute. 

in the manner heretofore mentioned by the States specified in the said
concurrent resolution, namely the States of Connecticut, New
Hampshire, Tennessee, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, New York, Ohio,
***, West Virginia, Kansas, Maine, Nevada, Missouri, Indiana,
Minnesota, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, Iowa, Arkansas, Florida, North Carolina,
Louisiana, South Carolina, Alabama, and also by the legislature of the
State of Georgia, the States thus specified being more than three-
fourths of the States of the United States.

"And I do further certify that the said amendment has hereto be valid
in all intents and purposes as a part of the Constitution of the
United States.

"In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal
of the Secretary of State to be affixed.

"Done at the city of Washington the 28th day of July, in the year of
our lord Jesus, and of the Independence of the United States of
America the ninety third.

"[SEAL] "William H. Seward" "Secretary of State" 

"In this matter nothing has happened to change the mind or solve the
doubts of the Secretary, but as an executive officer, he was compelled
to obey a joint resolution of Congress whatever his own opinion might
be of the power of Congress to pass it, that being, as I have said
above, a judicial question.

/s/ Andrew Johnson, President 

Now, look at the comment made by the president. This makes it very
clear that the Amendment was never ratified; instead, it was adopted.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition; Ratify. To approve and sanction;
to make valid; to confirm; to give sanction to. To authorize or
otherwise approve, retroactively, an agreement or conduct either
expressly or by implication. See Approval; Confirm; Ratification. 

Ratification. In a broad sense, the confirmation of a previous act
done either by the party himself or by another;… 

Adoptive act. An act of legislation which comes into operation within
a limited area upon being adopted, in manner prescribed therein, by
the inhabitants of that area. 

What area does Congress "inhabit?" The District of Columbia, and this
is why every Amendment after this was "adopted." They only apply to
the District of Columbia. Now, at least two state Supreme Courts, one
being Utah, have declared the 14th Amendment un-Constitutional. They
have no power to do that. This is a subject which can be addressed
only by Congress, as it applies exclusively to their "exclusive
legislation" area. 

If you study this subject, you are going to find where the courts
refuse to rule on the validity of the 14th Amendment. The federal
courts have consistently ruled, and they are correct, that this is a
"political question." 

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition; Political Questions. Questions of
which courts will refuse to take cognizance, or to decide, on account
of their purely political character, or because their determination
would involve an encroachment upon the executive or legislative
powers. 

And the courts are correct; Congress was simply acting within the
powers delegated to it by the Constitution and legislating within
their "area" of exclusive jurisdiction. Within this understanding,
there is another point which needs to be made here: the term People is
a specific class that ratified the contract (Constitution) and not the
people of the several States in general, therefore those that created
and ratified it (the Constitution), did intend to bring under control,
the people in general, under this jurisdiction. To understand this,
look at the Preamble to the Constitution, and look in particular, at
the capitalization of the word People; this signifies that it refers
to a specific group of People, and not the people of the nation in
general. We forget even what little English grammar we have been
taught! 

As a further explanation, let me add here what the people of the 1790s
understood very well; the Second Amendment (thank you, Ken):

Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American
freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is an "AMENDMENT".
(Actually, the Second Amendment is actually an ARTICLE; not an
Amendment. The Bill of Rights has it’s own Preamble, and stands as a
separate document. However, what is being said here is correct, as far
as the meaning of the "changes in intent" accomplished by the Second
Article of the Bill of Rights. The Articles of the Bill of Rights did
not change the wording "within" the Constitution, but they did clarify
and, in this case in particular, add absolute prohibitions to the
Constitution. – David) None of the "Articles in Amendment" to the
Constitution (commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights) stand alone
and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is
that each Article amended in the body of the original Constitution. It
should not be knowledge to any American claiming patriot status that
the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787
WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was decided that the
States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until
"further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in
order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions)
powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments.) The
first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution
until December 15, 1791. (The Constitution was not officially
"adopted" by the states until the Bill of Rights was presented, and
both were adopted at the same time. The Constitution was not in force
prior to the adoption of the Bill of Rights, and this is why George
Washington did not take office prior to this. – David) 

In this Light:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."

What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second
Amendment is designed to "amended"? 

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL
CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied
with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original
Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or
abuse of its powers." 

What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning
the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States? To answer this one
must first understand that the word "militia" was used with more than
one meaning at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. One
popular definition used was one often quoted today, that the "Militia"
was (and is) every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this
definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as
used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment .

"Militia" as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in the
original Constitution at Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where
Congress is granted the power: 

"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of
the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions."

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: 

"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA,
and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service
of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by
Congress;" 

Any "patriot" still out there still want to be called a member of the
"MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution? If so, obey your
commander:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers Clinton: "The President shall
be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and
of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States;"

The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the
original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL
REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE"
required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution
be "WELL REGULATED" by "restrictive clauses." How did the States
decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL
REGULATED"? By demanding that the Second Amendment be added to the
original Constitution providing: "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND
BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with
"ARMS" would "REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!

Now the brightness of the Light may require sun glasses:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE
STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE
INFRINGED."

Is it not amazing how understanding clears the air? And please note,
in reading this with a new understanding, the Second Amendment becomes
an absolute ban on any type of restrictions placed upon the people
owning arms by the "government." ANY restrictions. Want a machine gun?
Well, if you are a United States citizen, no, because you have the
same status as a slave/property, and as such, no Rights. Please see
the federal court decisions regarding United States citizens and the
Bill of Rights. 

Now, one more piece of the puzzle; the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Once you understand what is being said in this Preamble, everything
else begins to make more sense!:

Preamble to the Bill of Rights;

Articles in AMENDMENT to the CONSTITUTION

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES begun and held at the city of New York,
on Wednesday the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and
eighty nine

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their
adopting the Constitution, express a desire, in order to prevent
misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declamatory and
restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of
public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent
ends of its institution;

RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembles, two thirds of both Houses
concurring that the following Articles be proposed to the legislatures
of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United
States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths
of that said Legislatures, to be to all intents and purposes, as part
of the said Constitution; viz..

ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendments of the Constitution of the
United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the
Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of
the original Constitution.

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of
Representatives.

John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the
Senate.

Attest,

John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Sam A. Otis
Secretary of the Senate.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

the first ten Amendments Ratified December 15, 1791

Note : This is a part of America some "sinners" have attempted to
hide. I believe most folks can now fully understand the rest of this
Document.

Until you begin to make a difference in your own town, in your own
Township, and in your own family, nothing will change and we will
never return to the Republic that was designed to permit us to be
separate from the king if that was our desire. Much more on this in
Part XX. 

Now that you have finished Part II, and if you are comfortable and
ready to proceed, please go to Part III. Please, do not forget to go
to the for the Part you are ready for next, and do not skip Parts! It
really is not wise. 

Part III is different, and a number of people have told me they like
it the best of any of the sections. You might let me know your opinion
as well. A good part of Part III is to prepare you for some of the
information to follow. Please bear with me as you read it.

<DIRECTORY   Next: Part III: What Is the Truth, Anyway? 

LAST UPDATE: September 29, 1999