THE UNITED STATES IS STILL A BRITISH COLONY
EXTORTING TAXE$ FOR THE CROWN!
A DOCUMENTARY REVIEW OF CHARTERS AND TREATIES
August 17, 1996
An introduction by the "Informer"
This is the latest from a man who visits me quite often. He and
another man researched my theory that we have never been free from the
British Crown. This disc shows the results. I have stated that we will
never win in their courts. This shows conclusively why. We have the
hard copy of the treaties that are the footnotes. This predates
Schroder's material, my research of the 1861 stats by Lincoln that put
us under the War Powers confiscation acts, and John Nelson's material.
All our material supports that the real Principal, the King of
England, still rules this country through the bankers and why we own
no property in allodium. This is why it is so important to start OUR
courts of God's natural (common) Law and break away from all the crap
they have handed us. This is one reason Virginia had a law to hang all
lawyers but was somehow, by someone, (the King) set aside to let them
operate again. Some good people put in the original 13th amendment so
that without the lawyers the King could not continue his strangle hold
on us. James shows how that was quashed by the King. I am happy that
James' research of six months bears out my theory, that most people
would not listen to me, that we are still citizen/subjects under the
kings of England. My article called "Reality" published in the
American Bulletin and the article of mine on the "Atocha case,"
wherein Florida in 1981 used it's sovereignty under the British crown
to try to take away the gold from the wreck found in Florida waters
supports this premise. James makes mention of the Law dictionaries
being England's Law Dictionary. You will note it lists the reign of
all the Kings of England. It never mentions the reign of the
Presidents of this country. Ever wonder Why? Get this out to as many
people as you can.
The Informer.
The United States is still a British Colony
The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place
and it can be changed to fit someone's belief and/or traditions, or it
can be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and
withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the
Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the
contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow
yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be
the judge and don't let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect
teaching, keep you from the truth.
I too was always taught in school and in studying our history
books that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and
was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I'm going to discuss
a few documents that are included at the end of this paper, in the
footnotes. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606
(footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our
fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition
for license is as follows.
"In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on
some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by
statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which
would otherwise be unlawful." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British
subjects. So you can better understand what I'm going to tell you,
here are the definitions for subject and citizen.
"In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes
permanent allegiance to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
"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." Swiss
Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed.
504. Blacks fifth Ed.
I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could
better understand what definition of citizen is really being used in
American law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law.
"The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of
private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family
and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other
subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the
distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel.
Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects
to America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you
would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper
from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty
over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the
amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by
his subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his
subjects could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a
valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, "In right of the crown,"
Black's forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of
total loss.
If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his
heirs and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold,
silver and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that
remained in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder
as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his
capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but
it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia
Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised
the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A
license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods
(commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of
the king's declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of
1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which
was not ceded to America.
This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was
declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant
between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without
representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted
by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of
England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king.
Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief,
separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of
freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the
colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the
militias.
The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis
surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been
taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next
document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally
contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).
I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to
himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States.
You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this
Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is
obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a
Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep
this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand
the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it
was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of
freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.
An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of
nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common
man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified
by this status, see the below definitions.
"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and
others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever
studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who
professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without
manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a
gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a
gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562
"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman,
and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants,
and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law
Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the
Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the
only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was
David Hartley Esqr..
Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the
Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France.
The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and
loyalty to the crown.
In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to
America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving
gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3
gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States
and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona
fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will
understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else
would he protect their interest with this Treaty?
I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty
was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States
defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we
were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the
Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign
such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty
gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War?
If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land
would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the
Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a
position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won.
Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did
McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No
way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the
king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of
all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the
chance to be free.
When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the
battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by
Cornwallis at Yorktown (footnote 3)
Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781,
that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a
holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will
be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will
unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than two
hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world
government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the
British Empire."
All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and
obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to
support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained
financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is
still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs
and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original
venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will
see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from
those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased
with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:
-CITE- 26 USC Sec. 1491
HEAD- Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax
-STATUTE-
There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a
citizen or resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation
or partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate
or trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a
contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a
foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess
of -
(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over
(2) the sum of -
(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in
the hands of the transferor, plus
(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the
time of the transfer.
-SOURCE- (Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976,
Pub. L. 94-455, title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov.6, 1978,
Pub. L. 95-600, title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat.2919.)
-MISC1-
AMENDMENTS
1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust' wherever
appearing.
1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.
(1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent'
for '27 1/2 percent' and in par.
(1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and
securities' and in par.
(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT
Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that:
'The amendments made by this paragraph (amending this section and
section 1492 of this title) shall apply to transfers after October 2,
1975.'
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT
Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The
amendments made by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title,
amending this section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering
former section 1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of
property after October 2, 1975.'
A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted
his land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for
his heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from
the king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had
concluded.
(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great
Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared "That
he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free
people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of
peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights
and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of
which the future strength and security of the country must forever
depend." The determined language of this speech, pointing to the
continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both
Lords and Commons.
In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons
that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion
"That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by
force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of
Great Britain." The rest of the debate can be found in (footnote 4).
What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper.
The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a
war was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key
personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of "A
Country Defeated In Victory," go into detail about how this was done
and exposes some of the main players.
Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the
king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from
the original American Charters.
The following is the definition of tribute (tax).
"A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from
his subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid
by an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure
the friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary
forth ed. p. 1677.
As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes
that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that
study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master
File, all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to
break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your
IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax
you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series,
which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which
is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to
1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone
is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being
held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K.,
payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is
form 8288, FIRPTA - Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you
won't find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288
form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3.
If you will check the OMB's paper - Office of Management and Budget,
in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections,
Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under
OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for
dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property
interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign
persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a.
These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF
300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is
the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads
the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty
Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the government
just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a foreign tax to the
king/queen of England. We have been in financial servitude since the
Treaty of 1783.
Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay's
Treaty of 1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris
Treaty of 1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the
Treaty. In 1794 he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was
great controversy among the American people about this Treaty.
In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was
supposed to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is
13 years after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess
someone forgot to tell the king of England. In Article 6, the king is
still dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection
of debt and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed
we owe. In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this
time concerning where and with who the
United States could trade. In Article 18 the United States agrees to a
wide variety of material that would be subject to confiscation if
Britain found said material going to its enemies ports. Who won the
Revolutionary War?
That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into
believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had
the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because
our status is far worse now than then. I'll explain.
Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest
made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was
canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in
order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never
asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all
our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over
the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest
barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly
adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose
for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government
who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious
that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the
Title of nobility or honor.
The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of
the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the
evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it
increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to
reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was
ratified by the Senate in 1815.
Forgotten Amendment
The Articles of Confederation, Article VI states: "nor shall the
united States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any Title
of nobility." The Constitution for the united States, in Article, I
Section 9, clause 8 states: "No Title of nobility shall be granted by
the united States; and no Person holding any Office or Profit or Trust
under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any
present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any
King, Prince, or foreign State."
Also, Section 10, clause 1 states, "No State shall enter into any
Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque or
Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but Gold
and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
Attainder, ex post facto of Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,
or grant any Title of nobility."
There was however, no measurable penalty for violation of the above
Sections, Congress saw this as a great threat to the freedom of
Americans, and our Republican form of government. In January 1810
Senator Reed proposed the Thirteenth Amendment, and on April 26, 1810
was passed by the Senate 26 to 1 (1st-2nd session, p. 670) and by the
House 87 to 3 on May 1, 1810 (2nd session, p. 2050) and submitted to
the seventeen states for ratification. The Amendment reads as follows:
"If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim, receive
or retain any title of nobility or honor, or shall, without the
consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office or
emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or
foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United
States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or
profit under them, or either of them."
From An "American Dictionary of the English Language, 1st Edition,"
Noah Webster, (1828) defines nobility as: "3. The qualities which
constitute distinction of rank in civil society, according to the
customs or laws of the country; that eminence or dignity which a man
derives from birth or title conferred, and which places him in an
order above common men."; and, "4. The persons collectively who enjoy
rank above commoners; the peerage."
The fore-mentioned Sections in the Constitution for the united
States, and the above proposed Thirteenth Amendment sought to prohibit
the above definition, which would give any advantage or privilege to
some citizens an unequal opportunity to achieve or exercise political
power. Thirteen of the seventeen states listed below understood the
importance of this Amendment.
Date Admitted to the Union State
Date voted the Amendment
Date Voted Against the Amendment
1788 Maryland Dec. 25, 1810
1792 Kentucky Jan. 31, 1811
1803 Ohio Jan. 31, 1811
1787 Delaware Feb. 2, 1811
1787 Pennsylvania Feb. 6, 1811
1787 New Jersey Feb. 13, 1811
1791 Vermont Oct. 24, 1811
1796 Tennessee Nov. 21, 1811
1788 Georgia Dec. 13, 1811
1789 North Carolina Dec. 23, 1811
1788 Massachusetts Feb. 27, 1812
1788 New Hampshire Dec. 10, 1812
1788 Virginia Mar. 12, 1819
1788 New York Mar. 12, 1811
1788 Connecticut May 1813
1788 South Carolina Dec. 7 1813
1790 Rhode Island Sept. 15 1814
On March 10, 1819, the Virginia legislature passed Act No. 280
(Virginia Archives of Richmond, "misc." file, p. 299 for micro- film):
"Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that there shall be
published an edition of the laws of this Commonwealth in which shall
be contained the following matters, that is to say: the Constitution
of the united States and the amendments thereto..."
The official day of ratification was March 12, 1819, this was the
date of re-publication of the Virginia Civil Code. Virginia ordered
4,000 copies, almost triple their usual order. Word of Virginia's 1819
ratification spread throughout the states and both Rhode Island and
Kentucky published the new Amendment in 1822. Ohio published the new
Amendment in 1824. Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution
with the new Amendment to be printed for use in the public schools,
and again in 1831 for their
Census Edition. Indiana published the new Amendment in the Indiana
Revised Laws, of 1831 on P. 20. The Northwest Territories published
the new Amendment in 1833; Ohio published the new Amendment again in
1831 and in 1833. Connecticut, one of the states that voted against
the new Amendment published the new Amendment in 1835. Wisconsin
Territory published the new Amendment in 1839; Iowa Territory
published the new Amendment in 1843; Ohio published the new Amendment
again, in 1848;
Kansas published the new Amendment in 1855; and Nebraska Territory
published the new Amendment six years in a row from 1855 to 1860.
Colorado Territory published the new Amendment in 1865 and again 1867,
in the 1867 printing, the present Thirteenth Amendment (slavery
Amendment) was listed as the Fourteenth Amendment
|