winona rosa

Tuesday, February 22, 2011




***My Comments***
Well its been 5 years since I released "The United States Is
Still A British Colony, part I". I asked in part 7, the last
chapter, that others having seen the truth and relevance of
this book, do their own research, to see what others across the
country could turn up. Arthur Marron a researcher from one of
the northern states found a document called Treaties and
Conventions, he sent it to the Informer, who forwarded it to me
for me to comment on. The document is from an unlikely source,
the Dept of State, the Secretary of State. The information
contained in it is fascinating, it is further proof of what I
have been saying, as well as the Informer, in his book "The New
History Of America".
Below you will find several quotes I scanned in, along with
my commentary, which as always is brief, the facts speak for
themselves. This document prints out to 15 pages in dos text, new
I stated in my book that the 1783 Paris peace Treaty DID NOT
give America title to the land, it recognized our use of it, it
DID NOT grant individuals any freedom, it only recognized the
States as independent powers, with the inhabitants being subject
to the States in which they lived. It recognized the States
intent to incorporate into the United States. I asked the simple
question in my book, "if we won the war, how is the king granting
us anything?". I stated this was a continuation of the king's
corporate Charters and that he was allowing through subterfuge
the re incorporation of the States into the United States. I
have stated the king had no lawful, legal right or authority to
grant (cede America by way of title) to anyone, because legally
it was not his to give away. As I have shown in my book the
king's possessions in America were governed by corporate Charters
and that they were also irrevocable trusts, with his heirs and
successors to forever profit from the kings exploration and
conquest of America. Read the following quotes and see what
jumps out to you.***End Comment***

"In regulating the commercial and political relations
between the United States and other Powers, these several
Treaties secured the recognition of the Independence of the
United States, and also the assent of other Powers to many
important principles, some of which were not then universally
recognized as constituting part of the public law which should
govern the intercourse of nations with each other."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg.1220

"The power of the new nation whose existence had been
recognized by these Treaties to regulate and control its
commercial relations with foreign Powers was uniformly asserted
in this series of Treaties. They placed each of the other Powers,
in respect of commerce and navigation within each and every
State, on the footing of the most favored nation;...."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1221

"The several States which compose this Union, so far, at
least, as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled
from the time when they declared themselves independent to all
the rights and powers of sovereign States, and did not derive
them from concessions of the British King. The treaty of peace
contains a recognition of the independence of these States, not a
grant of it. The laws of the several State governments passed
after the Declaration of Independence were the laws of sovereign
States, and as such were obligatory upon the people of each
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1338

"The treaty of peace of 1783 between the United States and
Great Britain was a mere recognition of pre-existing rights as to
territory, and no territory was thereby acquired by way of
cession from Great Britain.3
All British grants are invalid which were made after the
Declaration of Independence, and purported to give title to land
within the territories of the United States as defined by the
Treaty of 1783."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1339

***My Comment***
1. The Independence was recognized, not granted. The fore
fathers always wanted, listed agnosium in the demands made to the
king prior to the 1776 Declaration of Independence, self
determination so as to not be taxed without representation. This
is exactly what they obtained in the 1783 Paris peace treaty, not
allodial possession of the land.

2. The powers recognized were the States, not the people, just as
the Informer has said in his books, the People being empowered
were the aristocrats setting up the corporation, not the little
people who were to be governed by the States. (Must read the
Informer's book "Which One Are You". Also, get a copy off the
net of Mercier's letter of several hundred pages dealing with
contracts and obligations, must read also.

3. The king knew the 1783 Treaty was not worth the paper it was
written on, just as when king John was forced to sign the Magna
Charta, but he had to take steps to overcome it, so as not to
expose his mode of operation.

4. Also, the land was not his to give away, you will see this in
the below quote, I had many other quotes from court cases and
other legal authorities that stated this in my book.

5. After the Declaration of Independence, according to the
Secretary of State, ALL British grants were and are invalid.

6. I have said this so many times I must sound like a broken
record. We are not free from the Crown, because we do not have
allodial title, never have, could not, we never had it, never
conquered it, were never granted it, nor was it ever ceded to us.
You can claim you are free till hell freezes over, but if you do
not have allodial title to your land, meaning it cannot be taken
from you under any situation, it is an empty declaration. You
cannot have one without the other, it would be like trying to
have water without the wet. You are not a Freeman by definition,
if your land can be taken from you.
From the above quote: "The treaty of peace of 1783 between
the United States and Great Britain was a mere recognition of
rights to territory, never changed, they remained just they were,
pre-existing; from what? The king's Charters of course, the
original grants, while we were still admitted subjects of the
king, leasing the land from him. At the end of the Revolutionary
War and with the signing of the 1783 Paris Peace Treaty, no
territorial change took place, nor did the status of Americans.
We were not free before the Declaration of Independence,
evidenced by no man having allodial title, and no change took
place after the Declaration of Independence, the Revolutionary
War, or the 1783 Paris Peace Treaty. Why do you think that later
in history you have a grater status than our fore fathers, with
the amazing knowledge they had? The only reason you do is
because this illusion has been propagated by your conquerors, to
keep the servants on the plantation working hard. Stop with the
claim that you are sovereign and have allodial title, as I have
said before, and will continue to say, if your land can be taken
through the none payment of taxes, or through eminent domain, you
are not sovereign, you are not possessing land by allodial title,
I don't care what you believe or have been lead to believe, it
just ain't so. I'll ask another question as I did in my book to
prove this point. How did you acquire your supposed allodial
property, who did you conquer to obtain it, any lessor title of
ownership, is not synonymous with a Freeman? The only way to
acquire allodial title is by conquest, and you must have the
ability to keep it from anyone trying to take it from you.
You must remember a important fact concerning the below
quote, the below quote is true, but must be qualified by saying,
as long as office can be found, if office cannot be found the
land reverts back to the king. Office will always be found for
the original grants to America, this is why the king could not
cede the land to another owner.***End Comment***

"Even in cases of conquest, the conqueror does no more than
displace the sovereign, and assume dominion over the country. 7
Peters, 86; (10 Peters, 720, 729-30, passim). "A cession of
territory is never understood to be a cession of the property of
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1253


***My Comment***
I have also stated that treaties are the law of the land,
and have strongly been rebuffed for this position. The reason I
have held this position is because after the advise and consent
to a treaty by the Senate, any Constitutional limitations or
conflicts have tacitly been declared not to exist, making the
treaty equal to and part of our law, the Constitution. Also,
once passed, any laws inconsistent with the treaty, state or
federal, will be corrected by legislation, by Congress or the
Executive Branch. Reread the "International Covenant on Civil
and Political Rights", you will see in that Treaty what I am
saying here, and something you may not have noticed before. Read
the following quotes.***End Comment***

"A treaty, constitutionally concluded and ratified,
abrogates whatever law of any one of the States may be
inconsistent therewith.
A treaty made conformably to the constitution in substance
and form repeals pre-existing conflicting Federal law.2
Not to observe a treaty is to violate a deliberate and
express engagement, and afford good cause of war. When Congress
takes upon itself to disregard the provisions of any foreign
treaty it, of course, infringes the same, in the exercise of
sovereign right, and voluntarily accepts the casus belli, as
when, in 1798, it annulled the treaties between the United States
and France. See act of July 7, 1798
Under the constitution, treaties, as well as statutes are
the law of the land; both the one and the other, when not
inconsistent with the constitution, standing upon the same level
and being of equal force and validity; and, as is the case of all
laws emanating from an equal authority, the earlier in date
yields to the latter.4"
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1400

"The construction put by President Washington on the
agreement of guaranty contained in the 11th article of the Treaty
of 1778 with France, together with the conclusion of the Treaty
of 1794 with England, had affected the relations of the two
countries to such a degree that, in 1798, Congress had, by law,
assumed to exonerate the nation from further obligation to
observe the Treaties with France and the Attorney-General had
given an official opinion that there was a state of war. The
Treaty of 1800 restored the good relations: but in the amendments
on each side the old Treaties entirely disappeared."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1223

"I. A Treaty, constitutionally concluded and ratified, abrogates
all State laws inconsistent therewith. It is the supreme law of
the land, subject. only to the provisions of the constitution.4
[While, however, treaties are a part of the supreme law of
the land, they are nevertheless to be viewed in two lights, that
is to say, in the light of Politics and in the light of juridical
law. The decision of political questions is preeminently the
function of the political branch of the government, of the
Executive or of Congress, as the case may be; and when a
political question is so determined, the courts follow that

IV. Where a Treaty cannot be executed without the aid of an act
of Congress, it is the duty of Congress to enact such laws.
Congress has never failed to perform that duty.

VIII. The constitution of the United States confers absolutely on
the government of the United States the power of making war and
of making Treaties, from which it follows that government
possesses the power of acquiring territory either by conquest or
by Treaty.9

X. A Treaty of cession is a deed of the ceded territory by the
Sovereign grantor, and the deed is to receive an equitable

XII. Interest, according to the usage of nations, is a necessary
part of a just national indemnification.2
The Treaty Power under the Constitution has also been the
subject of legislative discussion in Congress.
When the Treaty of 1794 with Great Britain was sent to that
body, Edward Livingston, who was a member of the House, moved
that the President be requested to transmit to the House a copy
of the instructions to Mr. Jay, and of the correspondence and
documents relative to the Treaty. This motion was resisted on the
ground that the Treaty had become the supreme law, and the House
had no constitutional jurisdiction over questions which were
settled by it. The House, however, adopted the resolution, 61
ayes, 33 noes? President Washington replied to this resolution
thus: "Having been a member of the General Convention, and
knowing the principles on which the Constitution was formed, I
have ever entertained but one opinion on this subject, and from
the first establishment of the Government to this moment, my
conduct has exemplified that opinion, that the power of making
treaties is exclusively vested in the President, by and with the
advice and consent of two-thirds of the Senate, provided
two-thirds of the Senators present concur, and that every treaty
so made, and promulgated, thence-forward becomes the law of the
land. * * * As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to
my understanding that the assent of the House of Representatives
is not necessary to the validity of a Treaty; as the Treaty with
Great Britain exhibits in itself all the objects requiring
legislative provision, and on these the papers called for can
throw no light; and as it is essential to time due administration
of the Government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution
between the different departments should be preserved, a just
regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office, under
all the circumstances of this case, forbid a compliance with your
The House thereupon, after a short debate, resolved "that it
is not necessary to the propriety of any application from this
House to the Executive for information desired by them, and which
may relate to any constitutional functions of the House, that the
purpose for which such information may be wanted, or to which it
may be applied, should be stated in the application."3"
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1227-1229


***My Comment***
The following quotes were something I never considered,
while conducting my research for my book. If the signers of a
Treaty later find themselves in the state of war against
themselves, the Treaties made prior to the war are suspended. As
always lawyers want everything their way, depending on what side
of the issue they are on. This issue is no different, when it
benefited the U.S. government, they said yes this is the case,
but then later this secretary says no, war does not suspend
treaties, or it just suspends parts of the treaties. The
government lawyers are disingenuous as always, but Britain was
telling the truth on this subject. It does not take a rocket
scientist to figure this out, just use a little common sense, if
you have a treaty with someone saying you can fish my waters, and
you then are being attacked by that person, are you going to
continue to allow them to fish your waters? I think not. You
read the below quotes, you be the judge. ***End Comment***

"Mr. Monroe, in an early stage of negotiations with Holland,
for this purpose, informed the Dutch Minister at Washington that
"the Treaties between the United States and some of the Powers of
Europe having been annulled by causes preceding from the state
of Europe for some time past, and other Treaties having expired,
the United States have now to form their system of commercial
intercourse with every Power, as it were, at the same time."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1224

"Great Britain 1782 (VII.), 1783 (VII.),
1794 (Ii. and VII.), 1796 (V II.), 1798
(VII.), 1802 (VII.). 1827 (Vi.), 1854
(III.), 1862 (VI.), 1871 (lit.)."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1232

"VII. Treaties the Executory parts of which are claimed to have
been terminated by war: [Great Britain, 1782, 1783, 1794, and the
Additional and Explanatory Articles thereto, and 1802; Mexico,
1831 and the Additional Article thereto, but Article 17 of the
Treaty or February 2, 1848 revived the Treaty except so far as
the stipulations were incompatible and except the additional
Article; Tripoli, 1796.
After the conclusion of the Treaty of Ghent it was claimed
by Great Britain that the rights which the Americans had enjoyed
in the British fisheries before the war, under the Treaty of
1783, had been lost through the abrogation of the Treaty in
consequence of the war. John Quincy Adams, who was the United
States Minister at London at that time, contended that the Treaty
of 1783 was not "one of those which by the common understanding
and usage of civilized nations is or can be considered as
annulled by a subsequent war between the same parties.1 Lord
Bathnrst replied, "To a position of this novel nature Great
Britain cannot accede. She knows of no exception to the rule that
all Treaties are put an end to by a subsequent war between the
same parties."2 During the negotiations which followed Great
Britain never abandoned that position, and the United States may
be said to have acquiesced in it. By it they secured the
exclusion of Great Britain from the Mississippi, the free and
open navigation of which was granted to the subjects of Great
Britain forever by the Treaty which Lord Bathurst set aside.
The political department of the Government of the United
States assumed the same position during the Mexican war.
President Polk, in his annual message to Congress, in December,
1847, said, "A state of war abrogates Treaties previously
existing between belligerents, and a treaty of peace puts an end
to all claims for indemnity."3"
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1237

""But we are not inclined to admit the doctrine urged at the
bar, that treaties become extinguished, ipso facto, by war
between the two governments, unless they should be revived by an
express or implied renewal on the return of peace. * * There may
be treaties of such a nature, as to their object and import, as
that war will put an end to them; but where treaties contemplate
a permanent arrangement of territorial and other national rights,
or which, in their terms, are meant to provide for the event of
an intervening war, it would be against every principle of just
interpretation to hold them extinguished by the event of war. if
such were the law, even the treaty of 1783, so far as it fixed
our limits, and acknowledged our independence, would be gone, and
we should have had again to struggle for both upon original
revolutionary principles."7
"We think, therefore, that treaties stipulating for
permanent rights, and general arrangements, and professing to aim
at perpetuity, and to deal with the case of war as well as of
peace, do not cease on the occurrence of war, but are at most
only suspended while it lasts; and unless they are waived by the
parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made, they revive
in their operation at the return of peace.
The termination of a treaty by war does not divest rights of
property already vested under it.2"
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1400-1401

VII. Treaties do not generally ipso facto become extinguished by
war. Vested rights of property will not become divested in such
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1227-1229


***My Comment***
The Treaties of 1782, 1783 and 1794 were suspended and
abrogated by the War of 1812. The king knew this, and I believe
this was one of the reasons he instigated our declaring war on
Britain, allowing the king to get out of the legal mess he had
gotten himself into by signing the Paris Treaty. However, to be
fair, the king thought the Treaties were already in jeopardy if
not abrogated, by the U.S. for not paying its war debt and
interest.***End Comment***

"The formation of the civil government in California, when
it was done, was the lawful exercise of a belligerents right over
a conquered territory."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1251

"The usage of the world is, if a nation be not entirely
subdued, to consider the holding of conquered territory as a mere
military occupation, until its fate shall be determined at the
treaty of peace. If it be ceded by treaty, the acquisition is
confirmed, and the ceded territory becomes a part of the nation
to which it is annexed, either on the terms stipulated in the
treaty of cession, or on such as its new master shall impose."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1251

"Jefferson met this on the 15th of December, by a note
stating briefly the American position as to the British
infractions of the Treaty and producing evidence in its support.6
This drew from Hammond an elaborate reply the 5th of March, 1792,
in which he contended (1.) that the United States had failed to
execute the 4th article of the Treaty, by not preventing the
placing of impediments in the way of the recovery, in sterling,
of debts due to British subjects; (2) that interest had not been
allowed on judgments in favor of British creditors; and (3) that
article 5 had not been carried into effect by the United States,
inasmuch as confiscated estates had not been restored; and that
therefore "the measure that the King has adopted (of delaying his
compliance with the 7th article of the Treaty) is perfectly
justifiable." To this, Jefferson, on the 29th of May, 1792,
replied, (1) that impediments, within the meaning of the
Treaty, had not been thrown in the way of the collection of
British debts is the United States; (2) that interest is not an
integral part of a debt under British and American law, and
therefore it was not embraced in the Treaty; (3) that the United
States had only undertaken in the Treaty to recommend the States
to restore confiscated estates, and had fully complied with that
agreement; and he showed conclusively that it was understood both
by the Ministry and by both Houses of Parliament, when the Treaty
was negotiated, that the American Plenipotentiaries not only
would not agree to restore the confiscated estates, but expressed
the opinion that the States themselves would not restore them,
even if recommended by Congress to do so; (4) that the British
infractions of the Treaty, so far from being the result of
alleged infractions by the United States, preceded them, and were
in no way dependent upon them.'
More than a year elapsed without a reply. Jefferson then, on
the 19th of June, 1793, wrote Hammond, asking when one might be
expected. "The subject," be said, "was extensive and important,
and therefore rendered a certain degree of delay in the reply to
be expected. But it has now become such as naturally to generate
disquietude. The interests we have in the Western posts, the
blood and treasure which their detention costs us daily, cannot
but produce a corresponding anxiety on our part."2 Hammond
replied that as soon as he should receive instructions the reply
should be transmitted, and added, "There is one passage in your
letter of yesterday, Sir, of which it becomes me to take some
notice. The passage I allude to is that wherein you mention `the
blood and treasure which the detention of the Western posts costs
the United States daily.' I cannot easily conjecture the motives
in which this declaration has originated. After the evidence that
this Government has repeatedly received of the strict neutrality
observed by the King's Governors of Canada, during the present
contest between the United States and the Indians, and of the
disposition of those officers to facilitate, as far as may be in
their power, any negotiations for peace, I will not for a moment
imagine that the expression I have cited was intended to convey
the insinuation of their having pursued a different conduct."
Jefferson made no response to this. In a few months he again
asked Hammond whether he was prepared to reply on this subject of
the infractions of the Treaty.4 No answer was ever made.
In the autumn of 1793 a new question of difference arose.
The Admiralty instructions to British ships of War and
privateers, issued in June, 1793, ordered the seizure of all
neutral vessels laden with corn, flour, or meal, destined for
French ports, and of all neutral vessels, except those of Denmark
and Sweden, attempting to enter any blockaded port.5 As Denmark,
Sweden, and the United States were the principal neutral maritime
powers, there was no question as to the vessels against which the
latter provision was aimed. When complaint was made of the order
to seize vessels laden with provisions, it was justified by Great
Britain on the assumption that provisions were contraband of
war.6 Edmund Randolph, Jefferson's successor as Secretary of
State, met this by saying: "We have labored to cultivate with the
British nation perfect harmony. We have not attempted by a
revival of maxims which, if ever countenanced, are now
antiquated, to blast your agriculture or commerce. To be
persuaded, as you wish, that the instructions of the 8th of June,
1793, are in a conciliatory spirit, is impossible. And be
assured, Sir, that it is a matter of sincere regret to learn the
intention of your Government to adhere to them, notwithstanding
our representations, which utter, as we flatter ourselves, the
decent but firm language of right."
Under such circumstances President Washington, on the 16th
of April, 1794, sent a message to the Senate, in which, referring
to the "serious aspect of' our affairs with Great Britain," he
said: "But, as peace ought to he pursued with unremitted zeal,
before the last resource, which has so often been the scourge of
nations, and cannot fail to check the advancing prosperity of the
United States, is contemplated, I have thought proper to
nominate, and do hereby nominate, John Jay as Envoy Extraordinary
of the United States to His Britannic Majesty."
The nomination was confirmed by a vote of 18 to 8. Jay's
instructions were dated the 6th of May, 1794.2 He sailed from New
York on the 12th of the same month.3
He had scarcely left the shores of the United States when a
new and still more irritating cause of difference arose. Lord
Dorchester, the Governor-General of the British possessions in
America, in a speech to the Indian tribes which were in hostility
with the United States, said: "Children, since my return I find
no appearance of a line remains, and, from the manner in which
the people of the States push on, and act and talk on this side,
and from what I learn of their conduct towards the sea, I shall
not be surprised if we are at war with them in the course of the
present year; and, if so, a line must then be drawn by the
warriors." Simultaneously with this three companies of a British
regiment went to the foot of the rapids of the Miami, in the
southern part of what is now the State of Ohio, to build a fort
there.' When complaints were made of these hostile acts, the
British Minister at Washington justified both as defensible
preparations for an actual state of war about to begin between
the two nations, and he retorted by complaining of the fitting
out of French privateers in American ports, and of the "uniformly
unfriendly treatment which His Majesty's ships of war * *
experienced in the American ports." President Washington, in
transmitting the correspondence to both Houses of Congress. said:
"This new state of things suggests the propriety of placing the
United States in a posture of effectual preparation for an event
which, notwithstanding the endeavors making to avert it, may, by
circumstances beyond our control, be forced upon us."
The treaty concluded by Jay on the 19th of November, 1794,
removed or suspended these grave causes of difference. It named a
day for the withdrawal of British troops from the territories of
the United States. The United States undertook to make
compensation to British creditors who had been prevented by
"lawful impediments,"8 in violation of the Treaty of 1783, from
the recovery of their debts. Great Britain agreed to make
compensation to the merchants and citizens of the United States
whose vessels had been illegally captured or condemned, The
United States undertook to make compensation to certain British
subjects whose vessels or merchandise had been captured within
the jurisdiction of the United States and brought into the same;
or had been captured by vessels originally armed in the ports of
the United States. it was agreed that provisions and other
articles not generally contraband of war should not be
confiscated if seized, but that the owners should be fully
indemnified; and that vessels approaching a blockaded port, in
ignorance of the blockade, should not be detained, nor the cargo
confiscated unless contraband."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1319-1321


***My Comment***
What was the another cause and effect of the War of 1812?
The biggest slave trading nation in the world would use this
divisive issue against America in the Ghent Treaty of 1815,
knowing once passed, legislation would have to be passed by the
American Congress, to comply with the Treaty. Knowing this issue
would divide the North from the South, to divide and then
conquer. Was this the only way Britain attacked the United
States, no they used even more subversive ways, the creation and
control of the Bank of the United States in 1791-1811 and again
in 1816-1836, which could not have be done without Washington
creating federal District overlays in every state in March of
1791, the same month the bank was Chartered, I might add, when
this took place Congress was out of session. This was the case
until President Jackson drove a stake through its heart.
However, their control over the money, finances and the media was
so complete, with their bought Congressman and Senators we were
doomed. The other way they completed their attack and Conquest
was through the Lawyers and Judges they controlled, to overrule
and rewrite long standing stare decisis, coinciding with their
destruction of our documents in Washington during the War of
1812. There is no telling the significance of the documents that
were destroyed, one document we know of, was the existence of the
original Thirteenth Amendment, which would have forever driven a
stake through the heart of the legal professions influence over
our government, making it illegal for them to hold office in the
U.S. government, because of their conflict of interest, serving
two masters. This would have destroyed the kings ability to
legislate for the United States, for he would have no access to
our government through his esquires.***End Comment***

***Comment by the Informer***
"One has to read the treatise by Charles Warren titles the
History Of The American Bar, published 1966 by Howard Fertig and
Little , Brown and co., lib. Of cong. Card # 66-24357. This will
tell you the entire sordid history of lawyers, when they started,
where they started, how they came to be the scourge of American
colonies before the revolutionary war and how they seemingly
became the good guys at the time of 1774 to 1790. It explains
the middle and inner temples of the bar and how they influenced
the American courts to the point that all the non lawyer judges
said they would some day rule the courts and every aspect of life
in America. Now that has come to pass and this was predicted
back in 1774. This book cannot be skim read and is 581 pages.
After you read this you will know why the king placed the inner
and middle temple lawyers in America so that he would have rule
of the courts and why the war of 1812 was created to destroy the
original 13th Amendment. Without the esquires the king was dead
in the water so to speak." ***End Comment the Informer***

***My Comment***
Have you never wondered why our system of government so
mirrors the British system? I bet many of you yet today have no
idea where our federal reserve system comes from. It is the copy
of the British Exchequer, it was written in secret by the Bank of
England. Don't believe it, I suggest you read a Book I wrote
back in 1992 called "A Country Defeated In Victory, parts 1 and
2", the facts cannot be disputed, much of which is Congressional
Record. There are many other policies and programs we have that
mirror Britain's, but I will not go into them here. So read the
following quotes, then contemplate what it means that the above
Treaties were suspended.***End Comment***

"On the 1st of June, 1812, President Madison transmitted a
confidential message to Congress respecting the relations with
Great Britain. It ended without recommending any particular
action.2 It was received in each Body with closed doors.3 In the
House it was considered on the 2d and 3d of June with closed
doors. On the 3d, Calhoun, from the Committee on Foreign
Relations to whom it had been referred, reported (the House being
in secret session) "that after the experience which the United
States have had of the great injustice of the British Government
towards them, exemplified by so many acts of violence and
oppression, it will be more difficult to justify to the impartial
world their patient forbearance, than the measures to which it
has become necessary to resort to avenge the wrongs and vindicate
the rights and honor of the nation. * The period has now arrived
when the United States must support their character and station
among the nations of the earth. * More than seven years have
elapsed since the commencement of this system of hostile
aggressions by the British Government on the rights and interests
of the United States. * As early as 1804 the Minister of the
United States at London was instructed to invite the British
Government to enter into a negotiation on all the points on which
a collision might arise between the two countries in the course
of the war, and to propose to it an arrangement of their claims
on fair and reasonable conditions. The invitation was accepted. *
it was at this time, and under these circumstances that an attack
was made, by surprise, upon an important branch of the American
Commerce. * The commerce on which this attack was so unexpectedly
made, was that between the United States and the Colonies of
France, Spain, and other enemies of Great Britain. * In May,
1806, the whole coast of the continent from the Elbe to Brest,
inclusive, was declared to be in a state of blockade. By this act
the well-established principles of the law of nations--principles
which have served for ages as guides, and fixed the boundary
between the rights of belligerents and neutrals--were violated. *
The next act of the British Government which claims our attention
is the order of council, of January 7, 1807, by which neutral
powers are prohibited from trading from one port to another of
France or her allies, or any other country with which Great
Britain might not freely trade. * We proceed to bring into view
the British order in council of November 11, 1807. * By this
order all France and her allies, and every other country at war
with Great Britain, or with which she was not at war, from which
the British flag was excluded, and all the colonies of her
enemies, were subjected to the same restrictions as if they were
actually blockaded in the most strict and rigorous manner; and
all trade in articles, the produce and manufacture of the said
countries and colonies, and the vessels engaged in it, were
subject to capture and condemnation as lawful prize. The attempt
to dismember our Union, and overthrow our excellent Constitution,
by a secret mission, the object of which was to foment discontent
and excite insurrection against the constituted authorities and
laws of the nation, as lately disclosed by the agent employed in
it, affords full proof that there is no bound to the hostility of
the British Government against the United States."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1325-1326

"From this review of the multiplied wrongs of the British
Government, since the commencement of the present war, it must be
evident to the impartial world that the contest which is now
forced on the United States is radically a contest for their
sovereignty and independence."
Treaties and Conventions, Department of State 1889, pg. 1326

***My Comment***
Finally America, it does not get any plainer than the facts
above. Unless you can hold your hand up to the government when
they come to take your land, and say: stop, "you cannot come on
my land", and the government turns away and never comes back, to
bother you or your heirs again, the arguments you may have with
what I said above are bogus, because the nexus between allodial
and Freeman cannot be overcome.
America is there any hope of your waking up, why must you be
hit over the head over and over with truth? Still you make bogus
claims in the courts, just to have the judges admonish you for
your foolishness? Do you have to go to jail before you say
"Damn, something is not right here, things are not as they
appear, black is white, white is black"? As long as you don't
know the enemy, nor the weapons used against you in this warfare,
how in God's name do you think anything will change? Much of
America, the Christians are waiting for Jesus Christ to come back
and take care of the problem. Christians unless you can figure a
way to force Christ off His Throne, before His enemies are
destroyed, thereby forcing Him to violate His Word, you are going
to have a very long wait, and continue to go down the crapper
while you wait. Why the strong admonishment, because I'm tired
of America accepting a lie, to acquiesce for the easiest path,
rather than facing up to the facts of their legal and financial
enslavement, because only when you face up to a problem will you
do anything about it. As long as you wish to accept voluntary
slavery, which is legal, the remedy will never be learned or
I have said all the above to say this, there is a way to
change this, and I am not talking of armed rebellion or
insurrection. In fact, it is the only way of reaching the level
of freedom we seek, and what we have a right to demand, thereby
removing the yokes from around our necks. The answer does not
lie in a civil remedy, as I stated several times above in dealing
with mans physical attempts to do it his way. Our Freedom has to
do with a Trust granted by our Father in Heaven, I am working on
a short paper, that will explain how we can regain our freedom
through His knowledge, thereby exercising our rights provided in
our Trust, as the legitimate heirs of Christ's Kingdom, the neat
thing is, just as with the worldly kings system, no one has
access to our Trust, except the heirs of Christ, until then keep
the faith.***End Comment***

James Franklin Montgomery

No comments:

Post a Comment