You are on page 1of 88
Restoring America From a Corporate Democracy back to the Constitutional Republic Reinstating the Law of

Restoring America

From a Corporate Democracy back to the Constitutional Republic

Reinstating the Law of the Land

Through the Jural Society

A Handbook on Jural Societies and the Common Law Based Upon Lectures by the American Jural Society

Offered by Sons of Liberty of Southern Idaho and Northern Utah

Compiled, Written and Edited in 1997, by Patric Alan of the Family of Powell Updated in 2006

Important Note

All Readers be Aware:

This version of the book was updated on 3 February 2007. It is a draft. It is not a publication copy.

It contains the material of chapters 1 and 2.

All material from chapters 3 through 12 are still being edited and are not available.

We realize there are lots of typos in this draft. Please only point out glaring errors as we have not done

a full house edit, yet we will.

To be immediately informed when new material is added to the book, or to participate in further editing and revision, visit the GuerrillaVille group and sign up for membership at: rillaVille rillaVille rillaVille

This book is available at

The text of the book begins on the next page. May you be edified.

America is a Christian Nation

According to the United States Supreme Court

“Our law and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that

it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization

and our institutions are emphatically

people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to

the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation

find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth

nation.” [Justice David J. Brewer U. S. Supreme Court - Holy Trinity Church vs US (1892)]

(Historical note: With this decision the court cited 87 legal precedents showing the Christian faith was at the heart of the United States, and the country did not and could not exist independently of it.)


is a religious


this is a Christian

America Based on the Ten Commandments

“We have staked the future of government not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions on the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the ten commandments of God.” [James Madison]

Notice to the Reader: This work focuses on the ancient religious origins of the laws and government of America. As such, the author has occasionally chosen to quote a few of the verses from the writings from the early American prophet, Joseph Smith, because of the unique and timeless character of their warnings and admonitions. This by no means suggests any endorsement of the LDS Church or its current posture of support or neutrality towards the de facto government and its activities.

Thoughts on keeping the Commandments

Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church. [Doctrine and Covenants 10:67-68]

Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in

befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever

is less than these cometh of evil

that ye shall forsake all evil


I give unto you a commandment, and Covenants, 98:6-7, 10, 11]


Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless we comply with or keep those we have already received. [Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Five, 1842-43, p. 255]

If you do not live up to every covenant you have made in the House of the Lord you will be in Satan's power.



The basic character of man has been divided between his natural tendencies and his spiritual attributes, the one consisting of the needs and desires of the flesh, and the other comprising an aspiration for something which goes far beyond the demands of satisfying the carnal appetite. The scriptures often illustrate many of the differences that exist between the natural man and the spiritual man. Although he may deny it, the natural man does not have the capacity to recognize, appreciate or understand that which is spiritual in nature. This knowledge is lost from him gradually, through a process which is described as "hardening of the heart". However the spiritual man can fully recognize, understand and appreciate that which is natural. In fact, his capacity to do so continually increases until his understanding extends to all things.

The scriptures also mention that, although many men might be “called”, very few of them become "chosen", the difference being due to the fact that most men have their hearts set upon the things of this world and they aspire to acquire the honors of men. Again we see the difference between the natural man and the spiritual man, the former seeking to satisfy his carnal, material and egotistical appetites and the latter preferring to choose and follow principles of righteousness more than pursuing the worldly aspirations characteristic of the former.

Interestingly enough, these two natures of man have also been recognized in law since ancient times, being referred to therein as the natural person as distinguished from the moral man. The natural person is

declared to be the subject of all statutory law, and the degree of statutory control is determined by the degree of actions of the natural persons in a given society. The Founding Fathers repeated on various occasions that the standard of freedom from the controls by man’s law that is promoted by the Constitution could only work with people of high moral standards, and that the people would only be able to have the blessings of a

Constitutional Republic, "


you can keep it." [Benjamin Franklin]

The types of societies which are created by these two classes of beings are also characterized in scripture. Those absorbed in the acquisition and enjoyment of material possessions are often identified as the people of ‘Babylon’, the sons and daughters of men, and those who focus on living the principles of righteousness and spirituality are referred to as the people of Zion, the sons and daughters of God. The people of Babylon, in their pursuit of power and material wealth, are often portrayed as seducers and deceivers of the righteous, and when they cannot persuade them, they tend to ridicule and mock them. The people of Zion seek to

convert the Babylonians also, but they are warned never to participate in their way of life. However, the man who dedicates himself to the development and promotion of spiritual values is promised that he will be greatly rewarded with treasures in heaven as well as the things of the earth.

It is because the people and activities of Babylon, by nature are without restraint, that they must be controlled with vast statutory regulation, while the people of Zion are self-governing, agents unto themselves. However it is the observable objective of those who seek to dominate and govern mankind to seduce as many as possible into compromising the standards of Zion and to participate in the enticements of Babylon, so that they may fall under their statutory control. Those who fall into the trap are the victims of their own ignorance and appetites, failing to understand the greater prosperity which is promised to those who reject Babylon, those who have instead dedicated themselves to the principles of righteousness.

While the Founding Fathers recognized that the proper function and purpose of government is to limit itself to the protection of the life, liberty and property of man, in their wisdom they were also well aware of and acquainted with the natural tendency of those in governing positions, to seek increasing control over the life, liberty and property of those they govern, until they have created tyranny. As the Saviour has said, “We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” [D&C 121:39]. With that weakness in mind, the Founders expressed in the Declaration of Independence that, "-whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or "

abolish it, and to institute new Government

This right of the organized body of People to alter or abolish government at any time it becomes necessary, and institute a new one,

known as the ‘doctrine of necessity’, was so well recognized and demanded, that as each colony in its turn debated the ratification of the Constitution, they made declarations to that effect in their ratifying conventions. For example, the Virginia convention said, "We the


derived from the people of the United States, be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.

do declare every power granted to that Constitution being

As each new State wrote its own constitution, prior to joining the Union of states, it also included words to that effect. These are some of the provisions for the people's right to change government, as declared in

various state constitutions:

1. Constitution of California, Article I, Sec. 26. [Purpose of

Government.] All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for

their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform it when the public good may require.

2. Constitution of Idaho, Article I, Section 2. [Political power inherent in

the people.] All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for

their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary;

3. Constitution of Utah, Article I, Sec. 2. [All political power inherent in

the people.] All political power is inherent in the people; and all free governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the public welfare may require.

From the above, one can see that it is obviously a well established and recognized fact in this nation that the people have the right to change their government whenever they believe it is necessary for the public good. 1 It is not stated that those in government office must change their own agenda of control, as people seem to expect, but which will never happen, it is stated that it is the right and the responsibility of the people themselves, in a lawfully organized body, to make the necessary changes, as demonstrated with the Declaration of Independence.

It has also become widely recognized that the government in this nation, at all levels, has become corrupt, very destructive and abusive, and is out of the control of the people. This has happened because so many of the people have been seduced, and have deteriorated to the level of the natural man. They have become so engrossed in the pursuits of Babylon, that increasing statutory control has been implemented by government throughout all levels of society. Instead of being a self- governing people under the Common Law, which the Constitution requires, society has been bought by those in power, and become dependent on governmental control.

This present work is dedicated to the education of, and demonstration to all those people who cannot and will not accept or be seduced by the



men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them, or

to form a new state in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase, whenever they think

that thereby they may promote their own happiness.” [Constitution of Pennsylvania, by William Penn, Pennsylvania Founder]

standards and practices of Babylon [the Corporate Democracy] and its government, to show them that there is and always has been a plan provided, and a system given whereby the man who seeks to live according to the principles of freedom, as a Son of God, may take steps, and prepare himself to participate in a Zion government and society, and be able to stand valiant in the defense of his God-given agency. These are the principles upon which this nation was founded, and there are numerous groups around this land who are reestablishing and practicing these principles and beginning to enjoy the fruits thereof.



What is the law of the land? Most people seem to believe that while it might be founded in the Constitution, it mainly consists of the codes and statutes written by Congress and the legislatures of the several states, and in the decisions of the courts. But in fact, as the early Americans knew, the Law of the Land existed long before the Constitution was written or the state or the national governments were organized. It was known as the Common Law, and every society has established its own laws, based upon the traditions and customs of its people. They were not founded upon any government decree. Members of the society would learn these unwritten rules as they grew up and became educated by their parents and teachers.

America was founded by Christians seeking the religious freedoms which had been their heritage, and which they gradually lost as the kings began to reign and rule over the monarchies they established over their European homelands. It is a matter of documented fact that America was founded specifically upon the fundamental principles of Christianity, and upon the word of God, as set forth in the scriptures, in general. As a result, the basic traditions and customs of the Founders are Christian in origin, regardless of what form their personal convictions might have taken thereafter. Therefore these many traditions can be documented in scriptural text.

The Founding Fathers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence

that "all Men

Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness

—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men

" We can see from these words that they already had their traditions

and customs of law, and that government was instituted to protect these commonly recognized laws, not to create new ones. The right to practice these traditions is called the traditionally vested rights of custom and usage. In the formal study of law they are technically referred to as the lex non scripta, the unwritten law, that which has become known as the Common Law.


endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable

An examination of the Constitution reveals that the rules and regulations written therein apply to the control of the government representatives and agents. There are no rules or laws given therein for the regulation of the common man. That is because he already knew and practiced his customs and traditions, which were the unwritten law. It was the government' s job to preserve and protect those rights and laws in accordance with constitutional principles. But the Founders were very

fearful of the uncontrollable power of government. Thus, the states would not accept the Constitution until they were protected by a Bill of Rights, added to declare some of the most basic and important of those traditionally vested rights which already existed, and which they wanted to insure that the government could never deny to the people.

Further, to be sure that the government would not limit the rights of the people to those specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, they included Amendment Nine, which decreed that, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." This again gave recognition to the prior existence of the traditional and customary rights of the people in the Law of the Land.

In an early decision the Supreme Court made it very clear what should be the relationship between the government and the Constitution, saying:

“An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this court any original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited, and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the reason the Constitution was written. -- Marbury vs. Madison

The following pages have been written to demonstrate and to document the fact that Congress and government leaders have always recognized that the Word of God is the foundation of this nation and of the Law of the Land. They will also show how a deliberate effort has been accomplished to ‘dumb down’ and to reeducate the American people, so that they no longer understand their relationship to God and the government, or the origin of their rights, so that they may be ignorant of what actually is the real Law of the Land, and what are their true powers, rights and privileges, their “traditionally vested rights of custom and usage”.

These pages will also show how a parallel government has been organized to gradually take the place of the one ordained in the Constitution. It mimics constitutional structure, but is based upon the commercial code of the law merchant, and is designed to bring everyone under the corporate control of the ‘merchants of the earth’ about whom we have been warned in scripture (Revelation 18), who traffic in the souls of men through disguised ‘adhesion’ contracts, so that their constitutional protection may be repudiated.

Finally these pages offer a solution for all those who wish to preserve the rights which God has intended for His children to enjoy, and the Constitution which He has inspired for their protection. They explain the

details and the step-by-step procedure of how to avoid government control and entrapment, and how to restore a local constitutional government, which is that right of the people, described in the

Declaration of Independence, when it says, "

Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the

People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government

" As

previously demonstrated, this right of the people to "alter, reform, or abolish" the government "whenever they may deem it necessary", is well established in the Declaration of Rights of every state constitution.

whenever any Form of

It is my hope and my sincere prayer that this booklet may offer a solution for all righteous men, to restore the 1oss of the American dream of freedom, truth, morality and a nation founded on the Love for God and for our fel1ow man and on the Faith in Jesus Christ which are the only steps that can guide a society to the path that can make men free.

This book is prepared and distributed without any intention to make any monetary gain. To profit economically from God's work, of educating our fellow man in the eternal truths that can make them free, is to us a form of priestcraft. 2 If we are instead motivated by a desire to serve our fellow beings in this effort we are sure to bring the blessings from heaven down upon our souls. Do not be afraid to serve your fellow man without charge. God's blessings are far more worthwhile and profitable than the favors of mammon and of Babylon.



“And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints, which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.”

“Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be.”

“Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.”

“For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea, even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.”

“Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain of all righteousness and be saved.”

Ether 8:22-26



Chapter One

Remedies Against a Beast


Table of References


Chapter Two

The Plot to Enslave America's Free Society


Table of References


Chapter Three Avoiding Entrance Into the Federal Venue


Table of References


Chapter Four Establishing a Jural Society


Table of References


Chapter Five

The Jural Society Officers


Table of References


Chapter Six

Concepts Regarding the Status of Jural Society Members


Table of References


Chapter SevenRestoring Lawful, Constitutional Monetary Exchange


Table of References


Chapter Eight Lawful Elections and Electors


Table of References


Chapter Nine The Non-statutory Abatement - Part One


Table of References


Chapter Ten

The Non-statutory Abatement - Part Two


Table of References

Organizing a Court at Common Law

Forming The Pro Tem Jural Society


Chapter Eleven


Table of References


Chapter Twelve


Table of References


Chapter One

Chapter One

Chapter One

Remedies Against a Beast Which is Daily Devouring our Lives, Liberties, and Property (The Defacto Government) The Condition of Law in America today, 1997

Christianity and the Common Law.

Learning to be a truly self-governing man is the only solution, if we want to regain control of our personal freedom in the presence of a tyrannical government. The first responsibility of

a free man is to follow the Lord, Jesus Christ and

the word of God; to seek to live and promote God's truth, as it alone can make us free [John 8:31-32]. This includes practicing the golden rule in our dealings with our fellow man. Those principles are the fundamentals of the Common Law, the ‘traditionally vested rights of custom and usage’ upon which America was founded, and the only system of law that holds man's freedom as its primary objective. In the divinely inspired republic in which we hope to live, the rights of state citizenship alone are not sufficient to protect man's freedom. He must live so as to qualify to be a Christian citizen [Ephesians 2:19] Christianity and the Common Law are inseparably bound together. The modern-day legislators in Congress have recognized and have expressed in law, that America’s system of government is founded upon the laws of God.

United States Law Recognizes Bible.

As recently as October, 1982, the Senators and the House of Representatives, in Congress assembled, ratified a law (Public Law

97-280) 1 in which they declared that the Bible is "the Word of God", that it made our country a "distinctive and blessed nation and people", that

it "inspired concepts of civil government that are

contained in our Declaration of Independence

and the Constitution", that our great national leaders of the past recognized the Bible as "the rock on which our Republic rests", that we need to "apply the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families, and societies", that we "now face great challenges that will test this nation as it has never been tested before", and that "renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as

a nation and a people", and that we have a

"national need to study and apply the teachings

of the Holy Scriptures." Again in December of 1989 Congresss ratified another law promoting

the Scriptures (Public Law 101-209) 2 , in which they again declared that those same principles

and applied them to societies around the world, that internationally, all mankind has been blessed by the God of the Bible, and has the responsibility to live by God's word as set forth

in the Scriptures!

The Common Law and Roman Civil Law.

All law is based upon some moral objective and a related 'religious' principle from which it proceeds. A change in law implies a change in the religious principle. All thought can also be connected to the expression of some religious standard. The only real difference between societies of men is in how they define the 'god' they worship, be it Christ or mammon (money). Anyone not living in harmony with Christian principles cannot effectively apply the protections, nor utilize the procedures of the

Common Law in the currently existing de-facto (operating in fact) system of government, which is based on Roman Civil Law. That system promotes the religion of humanism, and is militantly pursuing the separation of Christian principles from the laws of man. But the Common Law is the link which binds those two together. Surprisingly, when a man's behavior varies from that prescribed by Christ, the civil law seizes his rights and binds him to its own code. A well-respected lawyer and statesman, J. Ruben Clark, who was a former Under Secretary of State and Ambassador to Mexico, made a significant comparison of these two systems of law. He was a General Authority in the LDS Church, the BYU School of Law being named after him. He said, "During the centuries, these two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry for the control of society, the civil law and its fundamental concepts being the instrument through which ambitious men of genius and selfishness have set up and maintained despotisms; the Common Law, with its basic principles, being the installment through which men of equal genius, but with love of mankind burning in their souls, have established and preserved liberty and free institutions. The Constitution of the United States embodies the loftiest models yet framed of this concept." But, as John Adams and others of the Founding Fathers have said, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." That should tell us how we have lost the protection provided through constitutional principles.

Common Law’s Christian Fathers.

The dejure (organized in law) government is the lawful, constitutional government, founded on the Common Law, which comes from Christian Biblical law. In the defense of the traditions and principles of Common Law, many dedicated men have labored and battled long and hard, often shedding

their blood in its support and defense, that they might maintain for their posterity the gift of its Christian heritage of freedom, The patriarch of the Common Law in the modem era was an

Englishman known as Henry of Bracton 3 (1203- 1268), an archbishop and a judge in the king's central court. He wrote De Legibus (Treatise on the Laws of England), which was the most authoritative and influential reference work on the Common Law during the 450 year period preceding Blackstone's publishing his Commentaries on the Laws of England. Every major figure that has had a guiding hand in the development of Common Law was a member of the Christian clergy. (Martin of Pattishall, William of Raleigh, etc.) 4

The Church and the State.

The first provision of the Magna Carta 5 , was to have a free church that was separate from state control. The scripture, "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are Gods." (Mark 12:17) was to have a revolutionary impact on the development of

law. Frederick William Maitland 6 , author of The History of English Common Law, was in accord with other Christian founders when he emphasized the significance of that verse. It clearly established that certain matters belonged under the sovereign control of the civil power, and others belonged under the sovereignty of divine power. However neither has sovereignty within the other. Each must conduct its own court and cannot decide matters pertaining to the other's venue. Though both systems might apply the same fundamental law, one has the power of the sword, the other the power of excommunication. The civil power, operating under the Common Law, might seek the opinion of the church on matters of doctrine, scripture, and the cannon law. While Moses was the civil authority in deciding offenses of the Mosaic Law, and Aaron the ecclesiastical authority in

dealing with the same, both stood equal before God, although each had a separate function in administering the law of Moses.

The Supremacy of God's Law.

When analyzing the Law of the Land, the discerning Christian will refer to scripture. He recognizes Christ as his King, and that Christ has chosen him to be His disciple, and he does not disobey the King's law. It is an established fact, a recognized maxim of law that whenever man's law dares to be at variance with God's law, the latter is to be obeyed in derogation of the former (Summa ratio est quae pro religione fact). That principle was clearly demonstrated in the Book of Daniel, on several occasions when he and his comrades were forced to defy the law of King Nebuchadnezzar in order to obey God's law, and God protected them from the punishment of the civil powers, both in the fiery furnace and in the lion's den. However, in today's court, divine law can only be taken into account when a man has become adequately prepared to perceive a violation of God's word, licitly object to it, and is willing to defend his God-given rights in a timely manner. Otherwise, the system presumes that he has chosen to forfeit such rights. If we are not actively obeying and defending God's law, we are Christians in name only, honoring Him with our lips, but having no substance in reality to what we say or profess or in living the laws of God. That is what we must be about, first and foremost, above everything else. Thus we show that we truly believe that God's law is binding upon all men who have received it. But men must become condemned by the law, except their conduct qualifies them to be cleansed by the blood of Christ, as taught in scripture. If one's life does not reflect the principles of Christianity, it will be difficult for him to invoke the immunities of the Common Law.

The Logic of the Common Law.

Though the founders and administrators of the Common Law during its first 400 years were ordinary Christian clergy, as Maitland studied their writings, he recognized in reading works on the Common Law, such as St. Germain's Doctor and Student, Glanvill’s

Treatise 7 , Brachton’s De Legibus, and Disconcordiatum, that he was not just reading the works of ecclesiastics, but was discovering the ideas of men with keen legal minds. An analysis of the Common Law reveals a cumulative history of traditions based upon hundreds of laws set forth in scripture, and being applied to all aspects of life, economics, politics, etc. All of those laws can be logically derived from one or more of the precepts upon which the Ten Commandments are based. Once a man has trained himself to analyze the full meanings of the scriptures, he recognizes that all the principles of law that might be necessary for the management of the activities of man have already been provided for.

God's Law Allows Maximum Freedom.

The Commandments were expressly stated in the negative form (thou shalt not), which was a necessity of construction in language and in history, to provide for maximum freedom in all things not prohibited in God's law. If they had been stated in terms of what "thou shalt" do, everything not expressly stated would be forbidden, which would substantially limit our freedoms. In contrast, man's law attempts to codify everything that people can and can't do (you must get a license, a permit, be inspected), supposedly for our best interest, thereby creating a system of specific performance. Thus we are burdened each year by thousands of pages of new laws controlling our lives. (I'm from the government, I'm here to help you). People are so willing, in their ignorance, to do whatever the legislatures impose through their statutes, that the

Supreme Court has pointed out that, "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights, due to ignorance." (U.S. v. Minker 350 U.S. 179, 187.)

But God's purpose has always been to give man a guide by which he might preserve the maximum liberty possible, that we might learn to be agents unto ourselves, making our own choices (All things lawful I can do in Christ (1Cor. 6:12, 10:13). While Paul teaches in Romans 13 that Christians are subject to the authority of the rulers, a careful analysis of the context shows that the authority spoken of is only that rule which is ordained and acceptable to God. In fact Paul specifically explains to Timothy that the laws of men only apply to those that refuse to conduct their lives in harmony with the laws of God (the Common Law) (1Tim. 1:8-


Christianity in the united States.

As Berman describes in books on Law

and Revolution 8 . certain men have consistently attempted to disconnected American law from its scriptural heritage, to obfuscate the fact of the historical impact of Christianity on the development of the united States of America. If the Common Law can be stripped of its Christian character, it can become a more compliant tool of the state. The Common Law was assigned as a guide [through the Constitution] to control the state and protect the rights and freedoms of the Christian Sovereigns from tyrannical restraint and abuse of government. It was not meant to give license for governmental control over a Sovereign Christian citizenry. However, as the Founders often repeated, the Constitution could only work in a society with high moral standards. Every area and major topic of consideration in Common Law derives its original force, effect, and authority from the scriptures, and the efforts of Christian men to

apply them in the administration of law to implement God's will and show His mercy on the acts of men. Outside of the Common Law, God's mercy cannot be provided for in the rule by government. If we remove the application of scriptural interpretation from the law, we end up with the statutory control as found in the harsh subjugation of Roman Civil law, the "municipal heaven" in which we are now living, as a result of our own disregard of God's word.

Promoting a New Religion of Humanism.

One of the modem movements to separate man's rights from their divine origins, has been the promotion of the theory of evolution in all institutions of public education, while making it illegal to teach any of the religious principles found in God's scriptures. If everyone is educated to believe that men evolved from the ape, rather than their being children of God, then they must also believe that their rights came from government, rather than from God, and that they can thus be taken away by the governing authority. While current law prohibits the teaching of the word of God in all public schools, the teaching of evolution, which is very much a part of the religion of humanism or secularism, is promoted. That is why some leaders (Dr. A.A. Hodge of Princeton Seminary, E.T. Benson, LDS President) have pointed out that our public education system has become "the most efficient and widespread instrument for the propagation of atheism which the world has ever seen."

Corruption of Common Law Principles.

The Common Law is the only system of law available to man which gives first consideration to his agency and liberty. Those who have wanted to gain control over the wealth and productive capacity of the American people needed to find a way to regulate and compromise such liberty. The current system, which subjects man to the state, was first given occasion during the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Agent

provocateurs had been sent to America by conspiring European bankers, such as financier

August Belmont 9 to the north, and lawyer Judah P. Benjamin to the South. They were planted to maneuver America into a civil war, and thus to "divide and conquer" the nation, thereby to ultimately destroy the economic freedom and undermine the Constitution. They recognized that this was necessary because the Constitution protected the traditionally vested rights of customs and usage that the Christian society had developed long before the Declaration of Independence had ever been proclaimed. For them, such a system of law which the Constitution promoted and protected, gave too much support to man's Christian character, his freedom and self determination, advocated in the Common Law.

Abraham Lincoln's Deception.

The opportunity for Roman Civil Law to be covertly imported into this country was provided when seven Southern states walked out of Congress on March 27, 1861, and the quorum to conduct business under the Constitution was lost. At the time that Lincoln issued the

Emancipation Proclamation 10 , on September 22, 1862, he also set aside the Constitution and then implemented the provisions of martial law. He had previously hired a law professor, named Francis Lieber. of Columbia University, to prepare a set of instructions to guide the conduct of the President during such conditions of martial law. They were based upon the international laws of war and they became known as the Lieber

Code. Article 1, section 1 11 of this code says that martial law is imposed by the mere presence of an occupying army in a foreign state, regardless of whether any public proclamation has been made to that effect. Though Lincoln is extolled in history for his accomplishments as a great liberator, his actions actually made great strides toward the agenda of

conquest of the leftist anti-constitutionists. His emergency actions advanced the ambitions of men of devious, deceitful, and anti-Christian strategy. He must have known exactly what he was doing when, by his acts he set-aside the Constitution. Why did he do it? We must take into consideration his statement, made on February 12, 1865, "The people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." If he was sincere, as his words seem to indicate he was, then we can only conclude that he was an instrument in the hands of divine providence to bring to an end the great heritage of freedom and to chastise a disobedient society that had been so blessed.

The Wicked Are Punished by the Wicked.

It is a matter of scriptural history, that when God's people became wicked, He allowed them to be taken captive and destroyed by their enemies, that they might be humbled unto repentance. It is not difficult to uncover the ripe condition of ungodliness that existed among the people of the American nation at Lincoln’s time in history. Not only did they refuse to relinquish the institution of slavery, but for sake of material gain they constantly broke their treaties with the Native Americans, and persecuted them and other minorities, such as the Mormons, Mexicans, Chinese, etc. And many a person professing to be a Christian, was often living according to the traditions of the heathen. We can only assume that the Lord had expected the American people to learn to appreciate the great heritage of freedom with which He had blessed them. If they would not, then they must perhaps experience their own kind of "Babylonian captivity", as had ancient Israel.

Congress Comes to an End.

When the delegates of the seven southern

states walked out of Congress, leaving insufficient bodies to have a lawful quorum to conduct business, the only lawful course of action left was limited to either restoring the participation to sufficient number in attendance to have a lawful quorum, or to setting a new time for meeting, and then adjourning. No other business could be lawfully conducted. They did none of the above, but merely left the premises, thereby causing Congress to become "sine dai". According to constitutional parliamentary rule, adjourning without setting a new date and time to reconvene, caused them to cease to exist as a lawful body.

The Beginning of Executive Orders.

Though Lincoln was the instrument by which the conquest was launched, it was surely the greed and malice which dominated the hearts of the people in both the north and the south, which was the true cause of the blood-shed and loss of liberty that followed. On April 21, 1861, Lincoln issued the first executive order in American

history. (Executive Order # 1) 12 , calling up 75,000 militia, mainly to protect Washington D.C., but also to attempt to bring the rest of Congress back at bayonet point. Upon reconvening, now as a tool of the conquest, Congress began rubber-stamping the President's orders without necessarily even reading them, because under martial law the commander-in- chief is the final authority. From that time forward, Congress has probably passed very little legislation of any kind without first receiving a preceding executive order to give the act force and effect. One of the most notorious examples of this was in 1933, when F.D. Roosevelt wrote executive orders to modify the Trading with the

Enemy Act" 13 of October 6, 1917. This was done while Congress was not even in session, and its purpose was to redefine Americans to be the enemies of the de facto government. Senate

Report 93-549 14 (1973) discusses the fact that this act enforced suspension of constitutional protection and the expansion of the martial law control which has predominated in the nation since that time, though most people are still not even aware that it has happened.

The Establishment of Martial Law.

Washington D.C. has actually been steadily extending martial law since September 22, 1862, the date of the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation. That document, though extolled as having freed the black man from the tyranny of the southern slave masters, actually transferred him to the jurisdiction of the federal government, and generated for the first time a body of federal “14th Amendment citizens”, people which could be used as a federal tax base, directly taxable from Washington D.C. Lincoln was empowered to deliberately and unconstitutionally invade the state's jurisdiction, seize control of all non- whites, and transfer them to the jurisdiction of the federal government (see Slaughterhouse

Cases) 15 . Because the Federal government is actually a foreign jurisdiction to that of the State government, it formerly had no jurisdiction over anyone outside of the federal district (Washington D.C.), or the United States territories (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, U.S. Constitution).

Within a few years after that, under the

Government Incorporation Act of 1868 16 , a federal corporation, called The United States Government, was created, adopting the names "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", and "America" as its trademarks. The act was at first rejected by the people, but by 1878 it had become firmly entrenched. Since that time, anyone claiming to be a United States citizen is actually volunteering to accept the jurisdiction of that foreign Federal corporation, forfeiting their State citizenship, and

entering into a ‘tacit agreement’ contract with the Feds. This subjects him to its rules and regulations, called the United States Code, and adds his name to the federal tax base. While this corporation operates outside of the authority of constitutional limitations, it mimics many of its provisions to keep the people unaware of the fact

of its operation as a parallel, outlaw government.

A careful Study of Public Law 94-583 17 , the

Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, shows actions of Congress to provide protection to Sovereign American Citizens from control of that federal corporation. This act amends certain

provisions of Title 28, United States Code, which

is the IRS Code. To be able to appreciate its

significance, one must understand the unique meanings of the deceptive terms that are used in the Acts of the Executive, Legislative and Judicial departments of the Federal Corporation. For example, ‘United States’ refers specifically

to the District of Columbia, and its ‘States’ refers

to its territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam,

Virgin Islands and American Samoa. But added to them are the State corporations and the ‘statutory citizens’ of those corporations. Every State of the Continental United States is a ‘foreign state’ with reference to the United States (corporation). Every State Citizen that is careful to retain his status of an ‘American National’ is a foreign sovereign with reference to the United States.

Emergence of the Internal Revenue Service.

Not coincidentally, during that time of "emancipation" of the black man (1863) the IRS came into existence. The Emancipation

Proclamation not only symbolized a declaration

of war against States sovereign rights, but also

against any private Christian who should contradict the executive orders of the President. He was now the acting autocrat in martial law, as well as the commander-in-chie1f of the armed forces, and thus, under martial law, he now had taken command over private individuals, as well.

With the Act of 1864 the emergency powers act had allegedly been set aside, but the ordering clause at the end reversed its intent by saying, "unless the President deems otherwise." As proof of this fact, although it is denied, from 1933 on, the President has re-implemented the national emergency status every year. Also in 1933, in conjunction with F. D. Roosevelt's actions, an unlawful Congress, in violation of the Common Law, gave the Supreme Court power, for the first time in history, to establish and enforce its own rules of procedure, violating the separation of powers doctrine, and giving it a means that it could nullify any provisions of the Common Law, and could prevent the citizenry from impeding the enactment of executive orders. Although executive orders are in violation of the Common Law, they are at least published in the Federal Register to create the illusion of preserving a venue for public objection. The abatement nullification process (chapter nine) is an important and effective tool of the Common Law, for the demonstration of such objection, and to impose limitations on the power of executive orders, as well as on any unlawful legislation.

The Liberal Campaign.

Those who claim to be able to understand the Constitution, but do not apply the scriptural foundation to its interpretation, effectively blind themselves to its fullest meaning. While it is often disputed that the Common Law is the connecting link of understanding between the scriptures and the Constitution, there is bountiful source material and documentation to defeat all opinions to the contrary. Those who fear to come face-to-face with the word of the eternal God, have tried to avoid dealing with the origins of the Common Law, saying they are "shrouded in the mists of time". In fact, the popular definition of the Common Law today, is that it, "consists of the rules of law announced in court decisions, including court interpretations of statutes,

regulations, and provisions in constitutions" (West's Legal Environment of Business, Cross & Miller, 1991, p. 9). But, in reality, the Common Law origins antedate all such courts, rules, statutes and constitutions. Those men who have knowingly, willingly, and deliberately ignored the hundreds of volumes of law history which contradict their favorite secular theories, are acting under deliberate inconsistencies. It is the practice of those of such a liberal mentality to avoid being intellectually honest. The alternative ‘law’ they have chosen is the repressive rules of the Roman Civil code, which has been organized into many volumes, such as the Justinian

Codification 18 , etc., and have been adopted into the statutory rules used by the modem State legislatures. But these can never be lawfully identified with the Law of the Land while they contradict the Common Law of the Constitution.

Institution of a Courts Martial.

A further evidence of the martial law

status which prevails across the united States, is the flag with the 2 1/2" gold fringe, which is displayed in every courtroom in the land. By law, that particular style of flag can only be flown as determined by executive order of the Commander-in Chief, and only by the United States Army and Military organizational divisions. According to Army Regulation 840-

10,2-3, b. and c. 19 , when flown indoors, such a flag is to be flown in military installations and in military courtrooms (Courts Martial, the court of Mars, the god of war). A military court can only try those subject to military law, such as military prisoners of war. {Manual for Courts Martial

1984-85) 20 , thus identifying the type of court that now assumes jurisdiction over the people of this American Society, and the fact that it has determined that the people are its enemy and its prisoners.

If we, being Christians, find ourselves

compelled to enter into such a court, our function should be to bring the grace of God, and His presence in the law, to that place, that His glory might shine through us. Then they will recognize who we are, and "how these Christians honor their covenants, for they keep the law of God."

Common Law in the Courts.

The true constitutional Federal and State governments are not common-law powers of themselves, but are bound by the Constitution to obey the Common Law (see for example Utah

Code, Title 68-3-1) 21 . Therefore such a thing as

a "Common-Law court" is not abstracted from

the civil power of a republican form of government, but from the provisions established

in its constitution by We The People (see Article

The existing courts which

have been created by legislative acts, can sit "at

Common Law", as well as at equity, or at admiralty, etc., depending upon who is controlling the action being pursued. A Common Law court could also exist in a venue of its own, to promote justice, if there is a lawfully

established republican body of men to support it (a Jural Society), but it cannot be established "out of necessity", without such an organization to support it, as some have attempted to do. Such a method implies an arbitrary and capricious act, which is no law at all. Such a court has no law and cannot claim to issue any decision in law. It

is such a declared "doctrine of necessity" that is

used by the head of a nation, which he alleges to

give him power to declare martial law, but the

will of the commander in chief is not law. While

it was the doctrine of necessity by which the

Declaration of Independence was imposed, it was prepared by a body of men chosen by the people to act on their behalf. The courts will only be required to sit at Common Law again when a dejure government is reestablished outside of the provisions of martial law, and the military flag is removed. "A court is a mere agency of the people, established by them in their sovereign

VII, Bill of Rights)

capacity for service of litigants". [Phelps Dodge Corp. v, United Elec., Radio and Mach Workers of America, 46 A.2d 453, 138 NJ.Eq. 3]

The Christian Form of Defense.

No true Christian can engage in aggressive warfare, but can only act in defense of a just cause. Not until his blood has been shed can he return fire or engage the enemy with force. That was the foundation of American foreign policy until the 1920's, and is based upon

John Knox's The Theology of Resistance 22 . But each time we have the courage to turn the other cheek, we will be more blessed yet. God gave us his law so that we would not have to stumble in the dark. As an act of grace, He instituted in our understanding the meaning of sin through the light of Christ which is in us. Outside of those restrictions, all else is permissible to us. The Common Law recognizes and embodies all the liberty found in God's law, which is a part of the Covenant God made with Abraham. Christ fulfilled that covenant on the cross, suffering to pay for all our sins, and allowing us to avoid condemnation by our living His law in keeping with our part of the covenant. His promise of the gift of liberty to us is worth sacrificing our time, our substance and even our blood to follow Him.

Our Christian Responsibility.

It falls upon our generation to clean up

the mess left by our unrighteous predecessors,

shalt be called The repairers of the

breach, The restorers of the paths to dwell in." (Isaiah 58:12). Our responsibility is to bring liberty, peace and justice to the people, that He may someday say to us, "Well done, thou good and faithful servant". God is the only true Sovereign, and His cloak of sovereignty rests upon us as a people, not as individuals, except within the confines of our own homes and stewardships. We are cloaked with sovereignty

thou "

only so long as we live by the laws of God. When we act outside of God's law we have no divine protection and no authority.

Common Law for All Nations.

Christ commissioned His followers to go unto all the world and preach the gospel to every nation, making disciples of all nations. That commission is meaningless if we step outside His law. We must pray for all those who are engaged in the work of restoring God's law, the Common Law. This movement has always been international. All the nations of the world have been blessed with the blood of Israel, and they have had the influence of these principles and standards that find their common basis in the precepts of the Bible. They have had them in possession since the foundation of the Christian

era. (Public Law 101-209) 2 Today jural societies are even being organized in Canada, where there are still courts which sit at Common Law.

The Jural Society Movement.

The term "jural" means "relating to rights and the law". A jural society is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as an organized political community. Those Common Law precepts originally brought here from Europe may be deemed as being "the foundation of American society, having been adopted so far as to form our own system of law." [The Guardians of the Poor v. Greene Binney 553,558 (Pa. 1813)] People in Spain have also heard of the jural society movement here, and have asked that we help them. When John Quaid, Spokesman for the American Jural Society, appeared on the Tom Valentine Show, to discuss the Common Law, the response to purchase that tape was the largest in the history of that show. People everywhere are hungry to know how to regain their lost freedoms. Our mission is to know the law of God and to live it, to be real sons and daughters of God, people of law and substance, not fictitious

entities (persons), created out of Roman Civil law, which rules over the natural man.

Man is Turned into Commerce.

The law of novation 23 , which is based on the presumption that people are "the natural man", turns babies into commerce at birth. Physicians are paid four thousand dollars for each live birth recorded, by taking the baby into temporary custody long enough to put his foot print onto a Department of Commerce certificate before it ever touches land, thereby pledging and hypothecating his future assets and productive ability to the state. People thus have become identified as ‘human resources’ of the State. This law of novation came into being after the war between the states as part of the effort to establish a Federal citizen tax base. Each birth certificate is recorded in the Department of Commerce, the state capital, the county recorder, the Census bureau, and eventually becomes a security traded in the







organizations as the China Trading Company 24 . (See United States Code, Title 15) To free ourselves and our posterity from the captivity of this system (Babylon) of the trafficking of the

souls of men, we must be of one mind and heart in seeking to live in the liberty with which Christ has made us free. We can only do that if we approach this battle armed with the sword of truth, the word of God, with the faith and knowledge that God will grant wisdom to all who seek it, that we may do battle armed with truth, not fiction, to know what and who we are, and what our purpose is here, to deal with the causes of law and liberty, the questions of all time and the incentives of all Christian men.

What can a Christian do?

In this cause no one that has the desire to uphold God’s law is insignificant. Even as Moses once asked Jehovah why He had chosen him to represent Him, so lacking eloquence and being slow of speech, all of us who have heard the Word, are called to the work of spreading truth and freedom. If we allow ourselves to become distracted by the things of this world or the honors of men. we'll fail in our calling, and lose the chance to become chosen. "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15) Then the day will come when we will feel confident, and be glad to see our Redeemer face to face.

Table of References

Table of References

Reference 1

PUBLIC LAW 97-280 - OCT. 4, 1982

Reference 2

PUBLIC LAW 101-209 - DEC. 7, 1989

Reference 3

Henry of Bracton

Reference 4

Chief Justice of the Common Pleas

Reference 5

Magna Carta – [Excerpts]

Reference 6

Maitland, Frederic William

Reference 7

Ranulf de Glanvill

Reference 8

Harold J. Berman - Law and Revolution

Reference 9

Judah P. Benjamin, and August Belmont

Reference 10

The Emancipation Proclamation

Reference 11

The Lieber Code of 1863 – [Excerpts]

Reference 12

- Executive Order – [Number One]

Reference 13


Reference 14

Senate Report 93-549 [On War & Emergency Powers]

Reference 15

SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES (83 U.S. 36) - [Excerpts]

Reference 16

Government Incorporation Act of 1868

Reference 17


Reference 18

Justinian Codification

Reference 19

Army Regulation 840-10 [Gold Fringed Flag]

Reference 20

Manual for Courts Martial 1984-85

Reference 21

Utah Code, Title 68-3-1 [Common Law in the Courts]

Reference 22

Theology of Resistance

Reference 23

Law of Novation

Reference 24

China Trading Company

Reference 1

Reference 1

PUBLIC LAW 97-280 - OCT. 4, 1982

Public Law 97-280 96 STAT. 1211 (97th Congress)

Joint Resolution Authorizing and requesting the President to proclaim 1983 as the "Year of the Bible".

Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people; Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation; Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States; Whereas many of our great national leaders --among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln and Wilson --paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country’s development, as in the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests"; Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families and societies; Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested before; and Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures.

Approved October 4, 1982



Mar. 31, considered and passed Senate. Sept. 21, considered and passed House.

Reference 2

PUBLIC LAW 101-209 - DEC. 7, 1989

Joint Resolution Public Law 101-209 Designating 1990 as the `International Year of Bible Reading'. (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)


One Hundred First Congress of the United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and eighty-nine

Joint Resolution Designating 1990 as the `International Year of Bible Reading'.

Whereas the Bible has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed Nation and people;

Whereas deeply held values springing from the Bible led to the early settlement of our Nation;

Whereas many of our great national leaders, such as Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and Wilson, paid tribute to the important influence the Bible has had in the development of our Nation;

Whereas President Jackson called the Bible `the rock on which our Republic rests';

Whereas the history of our Nation illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the Bible in the lives of individuals and of families; and

Whereas numerous individuals and organizations around the world are joining hands to encourage international Bible reading in 1990: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 1990 is designated as the `International Year of Bible Reading'. The President is authorized and requested to issue a proclamation recognizing both the formative influence the Bible has had on many societies of the world and the value of the study of the Bible.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

Reference 3

About Henry of Bracton

Henry of Bracton, (Henricus de Brattona or Bractona) also Henry de Bracton, (d. 1268), an English jurist noted for his writings on law, particularly De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (On the Laws and Customs of England). He was a judge of the court known as coram rege (later King's Bench) from 1247-50 and from 1253- 57, retiring in 1257, but continuing to serve on judicial commissions. Brachton’s chief claim to fame is his work with the above long treatise, ‘De Legibus’, commonly known as ‘Bracton’, which the noted legal historian F.W. Maitland described as "the crown and flower of English jurisprudence." It attempts to explain rationally the whole of English law, a task not again undertaken until Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in the eighteenth century. The work is remarkable both for its wealth of detail and its efforts to make sense out of English law in terms of its associates, the combination of Roman and canon law taught in the universities in Bracton's time.

While attribution of the work to Bracton is of ample antiquity, some believe the bulk of it was written in the 1220's and 1230's by persons other than Bracton. That it was edited and partially updated in the late 1230's, with additions being made to it between that time and the 1250's, the last owner of the original manuscript and the author of the later additions being Bracton. Others think the main part was compiled by Brachton himself, between 1250 and 1256; but apparently as an unfinished work, perhaps due to the fact that when he ceased to be a member of the king's central court Bracton had to surrender judicial records he had been using as raw material. Though unfinished it is the best work produced by any English lawyer in the middle ages. Published in 1569 by Richard Tottel, and reprinted in 1640, an edition (1878-83) with English translation was included in the Rolls Series. Another edition was published by the Selden Society, London (1968-77). Manuscript copies are numerous.

Bracton is called the Blackstone of the thirteenth century, b. probably in King John's reign and died about four years before the close of that of Henry III. Thus his lifetime almost coincided with the eventful period between the grant of Magna Charta and the defeat and death of Simon of Montfort, Earl of Leicester, at the battle of Evesham. By birth, property, and ecclesiastical advance he appears to have been a man of Devon, in which shire there are two parishes of the name of Bratton, viz., Bratton-Clovelly and Bratton-Fleming, one of them being likely his birthplace. Thus the correct form of his name is probably Bratton [variant – Bretton], by which he was doubtless known in his own day. In point of etymology, "Bradtone" (broad town) seems likely to have been the earlier form of the name.

It is said that Bratton prepared for his distinguished career in his youth at the University of Oxford, where he had taken the degree of doctor of civil and canon law. While possible, this is lacking of proof. He was taken into the service of King Henry III, where the kings curia had grown distinct from King's Council and a body of professional judges had come into existence. Henry Bratton became one of these skilled judges. In 1245 we first find him acting in a judicial capacity, and from then on he is either found as a justice in Eyre (in his native Devon and nearby southwestern counties, especially Somerset, Devon and Cornwall) or as holding pleas before the king himself, until the end of 1267. Thus he was surely a regular permanent judge, but never appears as holding placito de banco, sitting on the Bench at Westminster. While many special marks of royal favor are on his record, he was neither side's partisan in the civil broils of his time, and was respected and trusted by king and barons alike.

It appears Bratton entered the king's service as a clerk under the patronage of William Raleigh, who after long service as a royal justice died bishop of Winchester in 1250. Sitting as a judge in the king's central court, he heard those pleas which "followed the king"; in other words, he was a member of that part of the tribunal which

became distinguished as the king's bench. From there he retired or was dismissed in or about the year 1257, shortly before the meeting of the Mad Parliament at Oxford in 1258. Whether his departure was connected with the political events of the uneasy time is not certain. He continued as tribunal in the southwest, and in 1267 was a member of a board of prelates, barons and judges appointed to hear the complaints of the disinherited partisans of Simon de Montfort.

Like professional judges of his time, Bracton was an ecclesiastic. His known church preferments are Barnstaple archdeaconry, conferred upon him in 1264, but which he quitted that year for the chancellorship of Exeter cathedral, retaining this dignity until his death in 1268, where he enjoyed a cononry, and prebend as well, in Exeter cathedral church, as in the collegiate church of Bosham. All these benefices were of the Bishop of Exeter's gift, though as the king's clerk engaged in the kings business, Bracton could seldom or never have kept residence. His body was buried in Exeter cathedral, before an altar at which he had founded a perpetual chantry for his soul.

Of "De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ", Professor Paul Vinogradoff (the Athenæum, 19 July, 1884) writes that it "testifies to the influence of Roman jurisprudence and of its medieval exponents, but at the same time remains a statement of genuine English law, a statement so detailed and accurate that there is nothing to match it in the whole legal literature of the Middle Ages." The number of decided cases therein referred to (Bratton's law is naturally case-law) amounts to four hundred and fifty. The first printed edition was published in 1569 in folio, and reprinted in quarto in 1640. A recession and translation of the whole work in six volumes, by Sir Travers Twiss, was issued in London (Rolls publications) from 1878 to 1883.

Reference 4

Prior to 1880, the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas was one of the highest judicial officials in England, behind only the Lord High Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice of the King's (or Queen's) Bench. In 1880, the office was combined with the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench and the Lord Chief Baron of the Exchequer to create the new office of Lord Chief Justice of England.

Chief Justices of the Common Pleas, 1217-1880

Martin of Pattishall 1217-1229

William Thirning 1396-1413

Sir John Vaughan 1668-1674

Sir Thomas of Moulton 1229-1233

Richard Norton 1413-1420

Sir Francis North 1675-1682

William of Raleigh 1233-1234

Sir William Babington 1423-1436

Sir Francis Pemberton 1683

Sir Thomas of Moulton 1234-1236

Sir John Juyn 1436-1439

Sir Thomas Jones 1683-1686

Robert of Lexinton 1236-1244

John Cottesmore 1439

Sir Henry Bedingfield 1686-1687

Henry of Bath 1245-1249

Sir Richard Newton 1439-1448

Sir Edward Herbert 1687-1689

Roger of Thirkleby 1249-1256

Sir John Prysot 1449-1461

Sir Henry Pollexfen 1689-1691

Henry of Bath 1256-1258

Sir Robert Danby 1461-1471

Sir George Treby 1692-1700

Roger of Thirkleby 1258-1260

Sir Thomas Bryan 1471-1500

Thomas Trevor, 1st Baron Trevor 1701-1714

Sir Gilbert of Preston 1260-1267

Sir Thomas Wode 1500-1502

Peter King, 1st Baron King 1714-1725

Martin of Littlebury 1267-1272

Sir Thomas Frowyk 1502-1506

Sir Robert Eyre 1725-1735

Sir Gilbert of Preston 1272-1274

Sir Robert Rede 1506-1519

Sir Thomas Reeve 1735-1737

Roger of Seaton 1274-1278

Sir John Ernley 1519-1520

Sir John Willes 1737-1761

Sir Thomas Weyland 1278-1289

Sir Robert Brudenell 1520-1530

Charles Pratt, 1st Baron Camden 1762-1766

Sir Ralph Sandwich 1289-1290

Sir Robert Norwich 1530-1535

Sir John Eardley Wilmot 1766-1771

John of Mettingham 1290-1301

Sir John Baldwin 1535-1545

Sir William de Grey 1771-1780

Ralph Hengham 1301-1309

Sir Edward Montagu 1545-1553

Alexander Wedderburn, 1st Baron Loughborough 1780-1793

Sir William Bereford 1309-1326

Sir Richard Morgan 1553-1554

Sir James Eyre 1793-1799

Hervey Stanton 1326

Sir Robert Broke 1554-1558

John Scott, 1st Baron Eldon 1799-1801

Sir William Herle 1327-1329

Anthony Browne 1558-1559

Richard Pepper Arden, 1st Baron Alvanley 1801-1804

Sir John Stonor 1329-1331

Sir James Dyer 1559-1582

Sir James Mansfield 1804-1814

Sir William Herle 1331-1333

Sir Edmund Anderson 1582-1605

Sir Vicary Gibbs 1814-1818

Sir Henry Scrope 1333

Sir Francis Gawdy 1605

Sir Robert Dallas 1818-1824

Sir William Herle 1333-1335

Sir Edward Coke 1606-1613

Robert Gifford, 1st Baron Gifford 1824

Sir John Stonor 1335-1341

Sir Henry Hobart 1613-1625

Sir William Best 1824-1829

Sir Roger Hillary 1341-1342

Sir Thomas Richardson 1626-1631

Sir Nicholas Conyngham Tindal 1829-1846

Sir John Stonor 1342-1354

Sir Robert Heath 1631-1634

Sir Thomas Wilde 1846-1850

Sir Roger Hillary 1354-1356

Sir John Finch 1634-1640

Sir John Jervis 1850-1856

Sir Robert Thorpe 1356-1371

Sir Edward Littleton 1640-1641

Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet 1856-1859

Sir William Fyncheden 1371-1374

Sir John Bankes 1641-1644

Sir William Erle 1859-1866

Sir Robert Bealknap 1374-1388

Oliver St John 1648-1660

Sir William Bovill 1866-1873

Sir Robert Charleton 1388-1395

Sir Orlando Bridgeman 1660-1667

John Duke Coleridge, 1st Baron Coleridge 1873-1880

Reference 5

Magna Carta – [Excerpts]

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.

KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, etc. (about 25 other church dignitaries and royal subjects are listed here)

[Approximately two-thirds of the clauses of Magna Carta of 1215 are concerned with matters such as land ownership, military service, titles, inheritances, and with the misuse of their powers by royal officials. As regards other topics, the first and the last clauses, conceding the freedom of the Church, and in particular confirming its right to elect its own dignitaries without royal interference, reflects John's dispute with the Pope over Stephen Langton's election as archbishop of Canterbury]:

(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity.

- - -(Body of Text) - - -

(63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fulness and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all places for ever. Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and many others. Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).

Reference 6

Maitland, Frederic William (May 28, 1850 - December 19, 1906)—English jurist and historian, son of John Gorham Maitland, he was educated at Eton and Trinity, Cambridge, was bracketed at the head of the moral sciences tripos of 1872, and won a Whewell scholarship for international law. Maitland's poems were reprinted by Sibbald in his Chronicle of Scottish Poetry (1902), and in 1930 by the Maitland.Club, named after him, and founded for the purpose of continuing his efforts to preserve the remains of early Scots literature. Called to the bar (Lincoln's Inn) in 1876, he became a competent equity lawyer and conveyancer, but finally devoted himself to comparative jurisprudence and especially the history of English law. Maitland did not claim to be a paleographer; but he taught himself by teaching others, and became esteemed an expert on MSS. Much controversy followed, and Maitland briefly reverted to the subject in the course of a very judicious contribution to The Cambridge Modern History 34 entitled “The Anglican Settlement and the Scottish Reformation.” His Rede lecture (1901) entitled English Law and the Renaissance, with its humorous half-outlook on the future, will not easily be forgotten. During part of his life as librarian at Lambeth, in an early work on the Albigenses and Waldenses (1832), Maitland treated the pretensions of Joseph Milner’s Church History with contempt, and in later articles, attacked both him and Foxe, the author of The Book of Martyrs. Maitland’s success is all the more notable in that he took no interest in philology for its own sake and that his work on the Year Books was done in the closing years of his life, under the handicap of illness and enforced absences from England.

His clear and steady perception of a need in historiography and his fidelity to the liberating and therapeutic principle of historical-mindedness were, it seems, the most distinctive factors in Maitland’s greatness as a historian. He did not employ the vocabulary of present-day semantics, which is not strange since the term itself was only beginning to come into English usage as the name of a theory, or science, of meaning toward the close of his life. He was the first major English historian to break with the classic Whiggish interpretation of English legal and constitutional history. His originality of outlook and his ability to comprehend the essential nature of a scholarly problem enabled him to break through the deeply rooted assumptions of English historiography, so widely accepted by 19th-century historical scholarship. Maitland was born in London to a professional family; his father was a fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge and secretary to the Civil Service Commission, his grandfather a noted historian, lawyer and


on since Maitland worked, specialists in the field still hold him in high regard for placing their subject on a sound footing. A thorough scholar, he founded the Selden Society which made historical legal records available in print. The Society was founded in 1887 by Maitland, with the support of the judges, the Inns of Court, the universities and the legal profession, in England, the United States and other countries, for the publication of early English documents and he edited many texts himself, such as Henry de Bracton's notebook and the Year Books of Edward II, Maitland's late, great essays on the historical origins of the state. He edited numerous other volumes for the Selden Society, including Select Pleas for the Crown, 1200- 1225, Select Pleas in Manorial Courts and The Court Baron; and among his principal works were Gloucester Pleas (1884), Justice and Police (1885), Bractons NoteBook (1887), History of English Law (with Sir F. Pollock, 1895; new ed.). Maitland begins The Constitutional History of England at the time of the death of Edward I and completes his review with the early twentieth century. Although he sees England as sovereign, he discusses the impact Rome, Ireland, and Scotland have had on the British constitution. And because for most of the nation's history, the only continuous records have been legalv records, there is in them a wealth of incidental information on every aspect of contemporary life and conditions to be found in no other source. His death at Gran Canaria deprived English law and letters of an outstanding representative.

Maitland himself started in law, but turned to reading history.

Although legal history has moved

Reference 7

Ranulf de Glanvill, (ra'n?lf glan'vil) , d. 1190, English jurist. He served Henry II in many offices, closing finally after 1180, as chief justice. He commissioned the production of one of the great works of English law, the Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliae [treatise on the laws and customs of the realm of England], a compilation that bears his name, known as ‘Glanvill’. It is based on the common law that was then evolving in the royal courts. Glanvill's work, produced as a legal treatise was probably written prior to 1188 and is organized around the writs and details of procedure of the time, though at intervals he seems to abandon the writs and begins to write in terms of substantive law, detailing the common custom. While there had been other books on English law written before his treatise, mainly The Laws of Henry I, they were not well organized works, nor did they reflect anything more than diversity of law. Glanvill is carefully arranged and reflects a growing centralized court. Moreover, if examined in excruciating detail, it shows the law in transition from the discretionary justice before 1176 to greater adherence to rules of law, including the change from tenures as contractual arrangements to tenures as property. Glanvill is, in the final analysis, our best look at early law. We have written records (plea rolls) from the king's court from 1194 that have been presered. Although a bit sparse at the beginning, by 1200 the records have survived almost intact down to the twentieth century, constituting the longest run of European secular court records. Glanvill however, is an overview of the law that was written at least six years before the plea rolls begin. The information from the early plea rolls is difficult to glean, but the author of Glanvill was both literate and knowledgeable about the law. Thus the work is of immense help in gaining insight into what was happening at the beginnings of English common law. The information, as always, is not without ambiguity. There is currently much debate about the interpretation of much of Glanvill. (If interested in seeing the difference between schools of thought about the origins of the law, see Palmer, "The Feudal Framework of English Law," 79 Michigan Law Review 1130-1140 (1981).)

Reference 8

Harold J. Berman, a Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law; James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Emeritus; Harvard Law School; B.A., Dartmouth College, 1938; M.A., 1942, LL.B., 1947, Yale University; LL.D. (hon.) Catholic University of America, 1991; D.H.L., Virginia Theological Seminary, 1995; D.H.C., University of Ghent, 1997; D.H.C., Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of State and Law, 2000, awarded to Emory in 1985 from Harvard University, where he taught for thirty-seven years. A leading authority on comparative legal history, jurisprudence, Russian law, and international trade law, has lectured widely in the United States and in Europe and Asia. He taught courses in American law at Moscow University in 1962 and 1982 and has traveled often to Russia with both trade missions and research and teaching programs.

Berman is a fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University and the author of more than 300 learned articles and twenty-four books, including Justice in the USSR: An Interpretation of Soviet Law (revised edition, 1963), Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (1983), Faith and Order: The Reconciliation of Law and Religion (1993), and Law and Revolution, II: The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition (2003). He is the Director of the World Law Institute of Emory Law School and principal founder of the American Law Center in Moscow, a joint venture of the Emory University School of Law and the Law Academy of the Russian Ministry of Justice, which from 1991 to 1997 conducted three two-year programs of instruction in American law.

Review- Law and Revolution : The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition

Berman illustrates the revolutionary character of the papal reformation and overturns ideas commonly upheld by Church historians, positivists, Marxist historians, and analysts of the law. Law and Revolution, an incisive book, obliges the scholars of many university disciplines to readjust their focus and to see in law a radical cultural force. The roots of modern Western legal institutions and concepts go back nine centuries to the Papal Revolution, when the Western church established its political and legal unity and its autonomy from emperors, kings, and feudal lords. Out of this upheaval came the Western idea of integrated legal systems consciously developed over generations and centuries.

Berman describes the main features of these systems of law, including the canon law of the church, the royal law of the major kingdoms, the urban law of the emerging cities, feudal law, manorial law, and mercantile law. Their coexistence and rivalry is a crucial source of the Western belief in the rule of law. Written simply yet bracingly, with much detail for the scholar, and an alluring story for the layman, the book deals with vast questions of our heritage and future. A main theme is the interplay between periodic outbreak of ominous revolutionary upheavals and the Western belief in legal progress. He disputes accepted nationalist theories of legal history, which have ignored common roots in Western legal systems, and questions traditional social theory, which has paid deficient attention to the origin of modem Western legal systems and has misjudged the nature of the crisis of legal tradition in the twentieth century.

This view of the interaction between law and religion in seventeenth-century England is a historical account of what Berman calls the Western legal tradition, shaped by a dominant thesis about the relationship between law and revolution, and augmented by a secondary thesis of the role of religion in the development of Western law. Berman's account of the English revolution does not define or identify the great variety of Protestant religious teachings of the day, so the potential impact of these beliefs on the law of England is not greatly explored. While this limits the ability to determine to what extent religious beliefs of specific Protestant parties shaped the progress of the Western legal tradition, Berman provides a brilliant and provocative, if attenuated, account of law and religion in seventeenth-century England.

Review - Law and Revolution, II : The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition

A moving work highlighting important aspects of the evolution of European law largely neglected, it

maintains a balance between the general and the specific based on original research of sources that are neither easily accessible nor easy to interpret. It relates the interaction of evolution and revolution in the development of Western law, exploring two successive revisions of the Western legal tradition under the impact of the sixteenth- century German Reformation and the seventeenth-century English Revolution, with emphasis on Lutheran and Calvinist influences. Berman examines the consequences of these looming political and social upheavals on the systems of legal philosophy, legal science, criminal law, civil and economic law, and social law in Germany and England and throughout Europe as a whole.

A significant work, advancing knowledge of the social outcome of the Protestant Reformation for

ensuing Western history. Here Berman sustains his stirring analysis of theological and ecclesiastical roots of the

legal tradition as developed in the West for nearly a millennium. This second book of Law and Revolution is a merger of legal and theological scholarship, as well as the integration of the intellectual, ecclesiastical, and political outgrowth crucial to the claims of this book. The author excels when illustrating the effect that a judicious study of law has on our grasp of Western history. His careful and spirited analysis of the theological and philosophical roots of the German legal academy and the English adversarial system is instructive to a degree surpassed only by his previous work in Law and Revolution. His intuitive call to unify jurisprudence needs to be heeded, and is arguably becoming the norm in legal practice, though perhaps not in legal theory.

This work is of real value to the general reader seriously concerned about the moral direction of our troubled time. He will find much to learn and ponder in this compendious book, as Berman gives close attention to the efforts of Lutheran theologians, jurists, and politicians to reconcile divine law and natural law, the former revealed in Scripture, the latter accessed by reason. Berman steadily depicts the connection between history, religion, and law in this unique contribution to the history of the Western legal tradition. A master at merging elements with larger themes, he presents details in a way that the point is never lost. Much material will be almost entirely new to English-speaking readers.

Professor Berman’s handling of the outgrowth of jurisprudence within Protestant Germany is notably astute, the shaping yet preserving the essence of the Western legal tradition under the influence of revolution is a substantial accomplishment. An intensely stimulating work stressing important aspects of the development of European law that have been largely neglected, but here well written and lucidly presented, with good balance between the general and the specific, and based throughout on original research of little-known sources.

Reference 9

Judah P. Benjamin, and August Belmont: were allegedly leading B'nai B'rith— Rothschild allied figures who would serve as exemplars of the strategy for permanently dividing the Union.

B'nai Brith, an organization extending back more than 160 years, describes itself as "the independent voice of the Jewish community", representing its interests nationwide to government and the wider public, claiming to be respected for its efforts on matters relating to antisemitism, racism and human rights, its strong advocacy on the pressing issues of the day, and important social services it provides. However many believe the B'nai B'rith has always been an abject tool of British intelligence, run and directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, not the interests of Jews, nor even of B'nai B'rith members, that it is in fact a Masonic Order that represents British Freemasonry, blaming Jews for its Luciferian "world government" agenda. Thus it pretends to fight anti-Semitism, but in reality uses Jews in the advancement of its globalist agenda, ensuring that they are blamed for the emerging New World Order.

Judah P. Benjamin [1811 to 1884], was born in the British West Indies to Sephardic Jewish parents who moved to Charleston, South Carolina in 1827, and was inducted into the Charleston Hebrew Orphan Aid Society, a precursor of the B'nai B'rith. Attending Yale College in New Haven, Connecticut, Benjamun was forced to drop out under a cloud of scandal, surfacing in New Orleans to win the patronage of John Slidell, a United States Senator who was to play a pivotal role in the Confederacy and sponsor the career of August Belmont who married Slidell's daughter. With Slidell's help, Benjamin became a prominent attorney, even serving for a period of time as United States Attorney for New Orleans, gaining notoriety for covering up the growing terrorist activities of the Scottish-Rite-sponsored Knights of the Golden Circle while serving as the local federal prosecutor.

In 1852, Benjamin was elected United States Senator, a post he retained until the outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 when he resigned to serve the Confederacy. The first Confederate Attorney General, he later served as Secretary of War and Secretary of State, at last running the Confederate Secret Service on behalf of Confederate President Jefferson Davis. As the Mossad does today, Judah Benjamin used Jews in the North, though opposed to the dissolution of the Union, to furnish information to the intelligence arm of the Confederacy. But he escaped to England following the defeat of the Confederate secessionist plot. It was Benjamin's Confederate Secret Service which organized and supervised such figures in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln as John Wilkes Booth and his accomplice John Serrat . He was charged with sedition for the Lincoln assassination, although never brought to trial due to his protected status in England.

With the help of Baron Pollock, a leading Rothschild political asset in England, Benjamin continued his legal career in London, but never abandoned his commitment to subvert and destroy the American republic. As a wealthy lawyer for the British merchant

oligarchs, he collaborated with other exiled Confederate and Masonic strategists in England such as James D. Bullock and Robert Tombs .

August Belmont, was Judah Benjamin's Northern counterpart, and another Rothschild and B'nai B'rith ally who enjoyed the political patronage of arch-Confederate John Slidell. A private secretary to the British House of Rothschild who arrived in New York City from London in 1837, Belmont rose to the Chairmanship of the Democratic Party, a position he held for 20 years. Belmont was a leading advocate of free trade and states' rights, both cornerstones of the British reconquest scheme.

Prior to his advent as a leading figure in the National Democratic Party, Belmont worked closely with the Charleston, South Carolina B'nai B'rith in fomenting radicalism among America's youth. The effort was, in this case, run directly by the Mother Lodge of the Scottish Rite in England, then under the command of Britain's Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston. At Belmont's behest, Charleston's B'nai B'rith leader, Edwin Deleon , wrote a pamphlet in the early 1850s entitled, "The Position and Duties of Young Americans". Deleon, whose family were slave traders, B'nai B'rith founders, and later leading Confederates, peddled free trade and openly advocated a strong Anglo- American alliance. While by today's standards the appeal for a strong Anglo-American alliance may seem palatable to some, back in the middle of the nineteenth century, this was borderline treason.

Belmont's ‘Young Americans’ were among the draft rioters and radical abolitionists who disrupted Lincoln's Union war mobilization to the benefit of the Confederacy and England. During the early phase of the Civil War, England tried repeatedly to intervene into the conflict with cease-fire plans that would have insured the permanent dissolution of the Union. Many of the 'establishment' families, like the Lehmans and Rothsteins were post-Civil War transplanted Confederates, who capitalized on the power of the British Rothschild family's Wall Street representative, August Belmont, to quickly establish themselves among the city's leading bankers and stock brokers. They had participated in the unsuccessful Confederate secessionist plot against the Union. Now, they would take a leading role in the British effort to direct a new opium war against the American people

Reference 10

The Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863 [A Transcription]

By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley,

Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Reference 11

The Lieber Code of 1863 [Excerpts]



WAR DEPT., ADJT. GENERAL'S OFFICE, Washington, April 24, 1863.

The following "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., and revised by a board of officers, of which Maj. Gen. E. A. Hitchcock is president, having been approved by the President of the United States, he commands that they be published for the information of all concerned.

By order of the Secretary of War:

E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General.


SECTION I.--Martial law--Military jurisdiction--Military necessity--Retaliation.

1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation,

under the martial law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring martial law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial law is the immediate and

direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its martial law.

2. Martial law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation,

ordered by the commander-in-chief, or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the

conditions of the same.

3. Martial law in a hostile country consists in the suspension by the occupying military authority

of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.

4. Martial law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of

war. Military oppression is not martial law; it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As martial law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity--virtues adorning a soldier even more than

other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed.

5. Martial law should be less stringent in places and countries fully occupied and fairly conquered.

Much greater severity may be exercised in places or regions where actual hostilities exist or are expected and must be prepared for. Its most complete sway is allowed--even in the commander's own country--when face to face with the enemy, because of the absolute necessities of the case, and of the

paramount duty to defend the country against invasion.

To save the country is paramount to all other considerations.

6. All civil and penal law shall continue to take its usual course in the enemy's places and

territories under martial law, unless interrupted or stopped by order of the occupying military power; but all the functions of the hostile government--legislative, executive, or administrative--whether of a

general, provincial, or local character, cease under martial law, or continue only with the sanction, or, if deemed necessary, the participation of the occupier or invader.

7. Martial law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or

aliens to that government.

8. Consuls, among American and European nations, are not diplomatic agents. Nevertheless, their

offices and persons will be subjected to martial law in cases of urgent necessity only; their property and business are not exempted. Any delinquency they commit against the established military rule may be punished as in the case of any other inhabitant, and such punishment furnishes no reasonable ground for international complaint.

9. The functions of ambassadors, ministers, or other diplomatic agents, accredited by neutral

powers to the hostile government, cease, so far as regards the displaced government; but the conquering or occupying power usually recognizes them as temporarily accredited to itself. 10. Martial law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the Army, its safety, and the safety of its operations.

- [The Lieber Code consists of ten sections containing 157 instructions] -

157. Armed or unarmed resistance by citizens of the United States against the lawful movements of their troops is levying war against the United States, and is therefore treason.

Reference 12

- Executive Order -

Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress April 15, 1861



Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the Marshals by law,

Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the

Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States

of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to

cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re- possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day

of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and

interest may seem to demand.

In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN By the President:

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

Reference 13




Sec. 5. Suspension of provisions relating to ally of enemy; regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold or silver, property transfers, vested interests, enforcement and penalties

(b) (1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—


investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of creditor payments between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and


investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or person as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as the President may prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold, or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these purposes; and the President shall, in the manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to any act or transaction referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the completion thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce the provisions of this subdivision, and in any case in which a report could be required, the President may, in the manner hereinabove provided, require the production, or if necessary to the national security or defense, the seizure, of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers, in the custody or control of such person.

Reference 14

Senate Report 93-549 [Excerpts]

War and Emergency Powers Acts

93d Congress 1st Session } Senate { Report No. 93-549





NOVEMBER 19, 1973






WILLIAM G. MILLER, Staff Director


THOMAS A. DINE, Professional Staff



Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national

emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.

These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.

Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens.

Reference 15

SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES (83 U.S. 36) - [Excerpts]

Opinion of the Court


We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other. Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.

Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens and the people within its jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.

The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too, if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.

In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 178, we decided that the Constitution of the United States has not

conferred the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the United States have no voters of their own creation in the States. In United States v. Reese et al., supra, p. 214, we hold that the fifteenth amendment has invested the citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right, which is, exemption from discrimination in the exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. From this it appears that the right of suffrage is not a necessary attribute of national citizenship; but that exemption from discrimination in the exercise of that right on account of race, &c., is. The right to vote in the States comes from the States; but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United States. The first has not been granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States; but the last has been.

Mr. Justice MILLER, now, April 14th, 1873, delivered the opinion of the court.

The first section of the fourteenth article to which our attention is more specially invited opens with a definition of citizenship -- not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those, therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether [p73] this proposition was sound or not had never been judicially decided. But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled, and if was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen were still not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.

To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.

The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and established. [p74] Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him

a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of the Union.

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.

The language is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose.

Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment. [p75]

If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United States as such and those belonging to the citizen of the State as such, the latter must rest for their security and protection where they have heretofore rested, for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment.

Reference 16

Government Incorporation Act of 1868

With the intent of better handling the business interests and needs of government, Congress decided the government must form a corporation. To prepare the way they passed the Government Incorporation Act of

1868. Then in 1871 the United States Congress formed a separate corporation named, "The District of Columbia" (Corp. USA) by enacting The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Its function was to fulfil the business needs of the government in the martial law aftermath of the Civil War. As part of its provisions it trademarked the names: "United States Government", "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "USA", and "America". This was done under the constitutional authority given to Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of

Washington, District of Columbia. [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: The Congress shall have Power

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]

This corporation was not well received by the people, and by the end of 1873, it was nearly defunct. But it was reinstituted in 1878 along with its trademarks. In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution (United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United Stateas of America) except that it was missing the national constitution's 13th Amendment. A new 13th amendment was written and the original 13th amendment of the national constitution, (an Amendment that targeted attorneys who were members of the Bar association, to prevent them from holding any public office -- thereby preventing them from passing legislation that might serve the greedy and nefarious interests of the crown) was replaced in the corporate constitution.


BAR – British Accreditation Registry. This missing 13th Amendment suppressed and even stopped the forming or continued existence of any Bar association for over four decades, from 1822 to 1867, and evidence of the existence of this amendment has also been found in over 10 different states and territories throughout the United States.

The corporation began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay them. Seven very powerful families had been buying up the bonds and in 1912 they demanded their timely redemption. When Corp. U.S. couldn't come up with the money due, its owner, the Treasury of the United States of America, was obligated to pay. Since it did not have sufficient funds to cover the bonds either, to satisfy the obligations the seven families seized the Treasury with all of its possessions. Said families settled the debt by accepting payments of all of Corp. U.S.' assets and all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.

By 1913 there was still no money to operate the government/corporation, and if Corp. U.S. didn't do something the people would revolt against them, so they went to those seven very powerful families and asked if they could borrow money from them. The families refused to make the loan (Corp. U.S. had already demonstrated that they could not repay their debts). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name "Federal Reserve Bank". Corp. U.S. formed a relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via debt notes rather than with money. Notice that this relationship was between two corporations and did not involve the Constitutional government. That is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system, which has no government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements but the remaining elements remain in full force and effect.

Reference 17



90 STAT. 2891

Public Law 94-583 94th Congress

An Act

To define the jurisdiction of United States courts in suits against foreign states, the circumstances in which foreign states are immune from suit and in which execution may not be levied on their property, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976".

Sec. 2. (a) That chapter 85 of title 28 United States Code, is amended by inserting immediately before section 1331 the following new section:

"1330. Action against foreign states"

Sec. 3. That section 1332 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (a) (2) and (3) and substituting in their place the following:

"(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state

"(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties- and

"(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different States

" Sec. 4. (a) That title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 95 the following new chapter:


§ 1602. Findings and declaration of purpose

"The Congress finds that the determination by United States courts Of the claims of foreign states to immunity from the Jurisdiction of such courts would serve the interests Of Justice and would protect the rights Of both foreign states and litigants in United States courts. Under international law, states are not immune from the Jurisdiction of foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned, and their commercial property may be levied upon for the satisfaction Of Judgments rendered against them in connection with their commercial activities. Claims Of foreign states to immunity should henceforth be decided by courts Of the United States and of the States in conformity with the principles

set forth in this chapter.

§ 1603. Definitions

"For purposes of this chapter

"(a) A 'foreign state', except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a political subdivision of a foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b).

"(b) An 'agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' means any entity

"(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and

"(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and

"(3) which is neither a citizen of a State Of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.

"(c) The 'United States' includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.

"(d) A 'commercial activity' means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference to its purpose.

"(e) A 'commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state' means commercial activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States.

§ 1604. Immunity of a foreign state from Jurisdiction

"Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of enactment of this Act a foreign state shall be immune from the Jurisdiction of the courts of the United States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter.

§ 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state

"(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the Jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the States in any case

"(1) in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication, notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver which the foreign state may purport to effect except in accordance with the terms of the waiver;

"(2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United States;

"(3) in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or any property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state- or that property or any property exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States

"(4) in which rights in property in the United States acquired by succession or gift or rights in immovable property situated in the United States are in issue or

"97. Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States".

SEC. 5. That section 1391 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(f) A civil action against a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title may be brought-

"(1) in any Judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated;

"(2) in any judicial district in which the vessel or cargo of a foreign state is situated, if the claim is asserted under section 1605(b) of this titles

"(3) in any Judicial district in which the agency or instrumentality is licensed to do business or is doing business, if the action is brought against an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in section 1603(b) of this title, or

"(4) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if the action is brought against a foreign state or political subdivision thereof."

SEC.6. That section 1441 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

"(d) Any civil action brought in a State court against a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title may be removed by the foreign state to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. Upon removal the action shall be tried by the court without Jury. Where removal is based upon this subsection, the time limitations of section 1446(b) of this chapter may be enlarged at any time for cause shown.

"SEC.7. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any foreign state is held invalid, the invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or applicationc, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.

SEC.8. This Act shall take effect ninety days after the date of its enactment.

Approved October 21, 1976.

Reference 18

Justinian Codification

The development of the legal system of Roman law continued for over a thousand years, from the law of the twelve tables (from 449 BC) to the codification by Emperor Justinian I (about 530). The Roman law retained in Justinian's codes became the foundation for legal practice in the Byzantine Empire and eventually in continental Western Europe. It was not only the legal system of ancient Rome but was the law throughout most of Europe until the end of the 18th century. In some countries like Germany the practical application of Roman law lasted even longer. Thus many modern legal systems in Europe and elsewhere are heavily influenced by Roman law, especially in the field of private law. Even the English and North American Common aw was influenced by Roman law although its effect on the English legal system than on the legal systems of the continent.

The Roman Republic saw the development of the first legal text which is known in some detail, in the law of the twelve tables. Drafted by a committee of ten men (decemviri legibus scribundis) in the year 449 BC, fragments that have been preserved show that it was not a law code in the modern sense. Though it did not aim to provide a complete and coherent system of rules or to give legal solutions for all possible cases, it did contain a number of specific provisions designed to change the customary law in existence at the time of the enactment. While they pertained to all areas of law, the largest part seem to be dedicated to private law and civil procedure.

The lex Aquilia of 286 BC, regarded as the root of modern tort law, also came from the Republican era, but Rome's most lasting contribution to European legal culture was the emergence of a class of professional jurists and of a legal science, achieved in a gradual process of applying the scientific methods of Greek philosophy to the subject of law which the Greeks themselves never treated as a science.

Traditionally, about 300 BC Gnaeus Flavius is said to have published the formularies containing the words which had to be spoke in court in order to begin a legal action. Prior to that time these formularies are said to have been secret and known only to the priests. Once published, it became possible for non-priests to explore the meaning of these legal texts, thus jurists became active and legal treatises were written in larger numbers the 2nd century BC. During the republican period a jurist, Quintus Mucius Scaevola wrote voluminous treatises on all aspects of the law, which was very influential in later times. By the time the Roman republic was replaced by the monarchical system of the principate in 27 BC a very sophisticated legal system and a refined legal culture had developed.

Classical Roman law evolved during the first 250 years AD, the period during which Roman law and Roman legal science reached the highest degree of perfection. The literary and practical achievements of the jurists of this period gave Roman law its unique shape. Their several functions were to give legal opinions at the request of private parties, to advise the magistrates entrusted with the administration of justice, most importantly the praetors, whom they helped to draft their edicts at the beginning of their tenure. In these they publicly stated their method for handling their duties and the formularies for conducting specific proceedings. The jurists also produced all kinds of legal

commentaries and treatises, and some held high judicial and administrative offices.

A standard form of the praetor's edict was drafted about 130AD by the jurist Salvius Iulianus, and used by all praetors thereafter. It detailed descriptions of all cases in which the praetor would allow a legal action and in which he would grant a defense, thus functioning as a comprehensive law code. Though it lacked the force of law, it implied the requirements for a successful legal claim and became the basis for extensive legal commentaries by later classical jurists like Iulius Paulus and Domitius Ulpianus .

Some notable new concepts and legal institutions developed by pre-classical and classical jurists are:

the legal right to use a thing (ownership) as distinguished from the factual ability to use and manipulate the thing (possession). the standard types of contract (sale, employment, services, etc.) regulated in most continental codes, the features of each of these, and the distinction between contract and tort as sources of legal obligations.

a system of private law dividing all matter into personae (persons), res (things) and actiones (legal actions) invented by the jurist Gaius (around 160). In used for many centuries, it is recognized in legal treatises like William Blackstone 's Commentaries on the Laws of England and the French Code civil.

Post-classical law saw a decline of the general political and economic situation by the middle of the 3rd century when the emperors took control of all aspects of political life, impeding the growth of a refined legal culture. This political system retained some features of the republican constitution but it was gradually transformed into the absolute monarchy of the dominate. The legal system of jurists who saw law as a science, rather than a tool to achieve the political goals of the monarch, was not well received into the new order, and their writings were edited to conform to the new situation. Scholarly advance all but ended, though legal science and education did abide somewhat in the eastern empire. But much of classical law came to be lost and forgotten in the west, and was replaced by so-called vulgar law. The suppression of learning increased with the instituting of Roman Christianity as state religion under emperor Theodosius II, which contributed to the deterioration of Roman legal culture.

Justinian's codification ensued in the early sixth century when Emperor Justinian I temporarily regained control of larger parts of the empire previously lost to Germanic tribes. To restore Roman law he commissioned the production of three great law codes, thus preserving most of our current knowledge about it:

1. Codex Iustinianus (the Code), published in 529, reissued in 534, a collection of imperial laws from the time of Hadrian (117138) to Justinian himself.

2. Digesta (the Digest) or Pandectae, published in 533, was the more important work, a collection

from the writings of the classical jurists. Consisting of the legal opinions of the jurists, these excerpts were given the force of law. The Digest is our most valuable source of knowledge on classical Roman law, as just a few traces of the classical writings have survived outside this collection.

3. Institutiones (the Institututes), a textbook for beginners ordered by Justinian, using the textbook of

Gaius as a model, published in 533.

Though Justinian had planned to finish his codification with a series of new statues enacted after the publication of the Codex, this plan was never realized, a private collections of later statutes (called

novellae—new laws) being all that have remained. In the middle ages these four works received the collective name of Corpus Iuris Civilis (body of the civil law).

Roman law in the provinces as revived in Western Europe in the 11th century seems more rigid than

it was in practice on people's lives. As Rome expanded, she saw reason to deviate from Roman

practices granted in many treaties with individual conquered cities. These were publicly posted in print,

of which of which fragments remain. Often the new rulers were given wide latitude in the terms under

which they made rulings, subject to the imperium of Senate or Emperor. Roman private law recognized an individual's right to be judged relative to his status and under the law of his origin.

Roman law in the eastern empire was retained with the Justinian codes as the basis of legal practice, and the emperors Basileios I and Leon VI appointed the translation of the Code and the Digest into Greek, which was known as the Basilika. As preserved in the Justinian codes and the Basilika, Roman law continued to be the basis of legal practice in the courts of Greece and the orthodox church, even after the Byzantine empire fell and the Turks conquered.

Roman law in the west was almost disregarded. Though the Code and the Institutes were known they had little influence on legal practice of the early middle ages and the Digest was ignored until its manuscript was rediscovered in Italyin about 1070. From that time, scholars began to study the ancient Roman legal texts and to teach others what they learned from their studies. The center of these studies was Bologna, where the law school gradually developed in one of Europe's early universities.

The students who learned Roman law in Bologna (and other places later) found that much of Roman law was more suited to regulate complex economic transactions than the rules customarily applied in Europe, so some provisions borrowed from it began to be re-introduced into legal practice, centuries after the end of the Roman empire. Many kings and princes actively upheld this trend, employing university-trained jurists as counselors and court officials seeking to benefit from rules like the famous Princeps legibus solutus est (The sovereign is not bound by the laws). The salvaged Roman law dominated legal practice in most European countries by the middle of the 16th century.

A new legal system emerged, mixing Roman law with elements of canon law and of Germanic custom,

especially feudal law. This legal system, known as Ius Commune was adopted by all of continental Europe (and Scotland), and the legal systems based on it are usually referred to as civil law in English- speaking countries. However England did not share in this induction of Roman law, as its own legal system was already more developed than that of Europe and the benefits of Roman law were minimal

to English practitioners, though some concepts from Roman law made their way into the common law.

Because Roman law was allied with the Holy Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church and with absolutism it was repugnant to the English, though early 19th century lawyers and judges began to borrow rules and ideas from continental jurists and Roman law.

During the 19th century each nation began to draft its own code and the era of the European Ius Commune came to an end, along with the practical application of Roman law. However in Germany the creation of a national code of laws impossible, due to its political situation, and Roman law continued to be applied until the German civil code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) was adopted in 1900.

Roman law today is allegedly not applied in legal practice, yet some states like South Africa and San

Marino still base their legal systems on the old Ius Commune. Furthermore, the legal codes of most states apply many rules derived from Roman law: No modern code has really dismissed its fundamental objective of control over its presumed subjects. Rather, its provisions have been modified to fit more coherently into the system it seeks to control and are phrased in the national language. Thus a knowledge of Roman law is indispensable to understand modern legal systems, and generally a required subject for law students in civil law jurisdictions. As steps are being taken towards unification of the application of private law in the member states of the New World Order, the old Ius Commune, which was the common basis of legal practice, allowing for many local variants, is seen by many as a model.

Reference 19

Army Regulation 840-10 [Gold Fringed Flag]

According to Army Regulations, (AR 840-10, Oct. 1, 1979.) "the Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2 1/2 inches wide," and that, "such flags are flown indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms." And that the Gold Fringed Flag is not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations."

Restrictions "The following limitations and prohibitions are applicable to flags guidons, streamers, and components."

Unauthorized use of official flags, guidons, and streamers. Display or use of flags, guidons, and streamers or replicas thereof, including those presently or formerly carried by U.S. Army units, by other than the office, individual, or organization for which authorized, is prohibited except as indicated in below.

The adornments (FINIAL) on the top of the flag pole are for military use only. The gold eagle is for the use of the President of the United States only, and only in time of war. The gold spear ball is for military recruiting centers only. The gold acorn is for military parades only. (Army Regulation 840-10, chapter 8).

President, Dwight D Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a Yellow Fringe border on three sides."

FLAG Martial Law; "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3;Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on three sides. The president of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.

FLAG Martial Law; The U.S. Attorney General has stated: The Placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of

the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the discretion of the President as commander in Chief of the Army and Navy…ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on

regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other

such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulations, No. 260-10." The Adjutant General of the Army, March 28, 1924,

(1925); 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483, 485.

.the use of

"The use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulation no. 260-10." 34 Ops. Atty.Gen. 483, 485.

By Army Regulation 260-10, the gold fringe may be used only on regimental "colors", the President's flag, for military courts martial, and flags used at military recruiting centers. "A military flag emblem of a nation, usually made of cloth and

flown from a staff; FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT flags are of two general classes

masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name of flags.

The later are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and standards are more nearly square than flags and are made of silk, with a knotted fringe of yellow on three sides.


flown from stationary


Colors -- "A flag, ensign, or standard borne in an army or fleet." (Webster's 1971)

Color -- An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facie or apparent RIGHT. Hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack or reality; a disguise or pretext. (Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.)

Color of law -- The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal RIGHT. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under "color of state law." (Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186, 188)

Reference 20

[Excerpts] Executive Order 12473 -- Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, April 13, 1984

By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution of the United States and by Chapter 47 of Title 10 of the United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice), I hereby prescribe the following Manual for Courts-Martial to be designated as ``Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984.''

This Manual shall take effect on August 1, 1984, with respect to all court-martial processes taken on and after that date: Provided, That nothing contained in this Manual shall be construed to invalidate any restraint, investigation, referral of charges, designation or detail of a military judge or counsel, trial in which arraignment had been had, or other action begun prior to that date, and any such restraint, investigation, trial, or other action may be completed in accordance with applicable laws, Executive orders, and regulations in the same manner and with the same effect as if this Manual had not been prescribed;

The Manual for Courts-Martial, 1969, United States (Revised edition), prescribed by Executive Order No. 11476, as amended by Executive Order Nos. 11835, 12018, 12198, 12233, 12306, 12340, 12383, and 12460 is hereby rescinded, effective August 1, 1984.

The Secretary of Defense shall cause this Manual to be revised annually and shall recommend to the President any appropriate amendments.

The Secretary of Defense, on behalf of the President, shall transmit a copy of this Order to the Congress of the United States in accord with Section 836 of Title 10 of the United States Code.

Ronald Reagan The White House, April 13, 1984.

[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 1:53 p.m., April 16, 1984]

Note: The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, is printed in the Federal Register of April 23, 1984.

Like the civilian counterpart one of the basic requirements of military law is the concept of jurisdiction.

A military court-martial must have both personal jurisdiction over the accused, and subject matter

jurisdiction over the offense. Subject matter jurisdiction is easily shown by reference to Part IV of the Manual, which contains the punitive articles of the UCMJ. The punitive articles consist of Articles 77 –

134 which are a comprehensive list of the prohibited crimes for military personnel. Personal jurisdiction

is established by reference to Article 2 of the UCMJ, (Section 802 of Title 10 United States Code). Article

2 lists twelve categories of individual that are subject to trial by court-martial. Court-martial jurisdiction

is most commonly exercised over active duty personnel, and personal jurisdiction begins with enlistment

or commissioning, and terminates with the delivery of a valid discharge certificate. The remaining categories under Article 2 covers such individuals as, reserves, retired, cadets, prisoners, members of the

Public Health Service etc. Another unique aspect of military jurisdiction is that it necessarily has world wide application. That is, the UCMJ applies wherever the military is deployed.

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 802 § 802. Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter

Release date: 2005-07-12

(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter: (1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces,

including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it. (2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and midshipmen. (3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members

of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in

Federal service. (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay. (5) Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force. (6) Members

of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. (7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a

sentence imposed by a court-martial. (8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces. (9) Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces. (10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an

armed force in the field. (11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party

or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed

forces outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. (12) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.

(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the

armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and a change of status from civilian

to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.

(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who— (1) submitted

voluntarily to military authority; (2) met the mental competency and minimum age qualifications of sections 504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority; (3) received military pay or allowances; and (4) performed military duties; is subject to this chapter until such person's active service has

been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.

(d) (1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings

under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be ordered to active duty involuntarily for the purpose of— (A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article 32); (B) trial by court-martial; or (C) nonjudicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15). (2) A member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an offense committed while the member was— (A) on active duty; or (B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case

of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only

when in Federal service. (3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised under regulations prescribed by the President. (4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces. (5)

A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the

Secretary concerned, may not— (A) be sentenced to confinement; or (B) be required to serve a punishment consisting of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty (other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).

(e) The provisions of this section are subject to section 876b (d)(2) of this title (article 76b(d)(2)).

Reference 21

Utah Code, Title 68-3-1 [Common Law in the Courts]

Utah Code -- Title 68 – Statutes

68-3-1. Common law adopted. The common law of England so far as it is not repugnant to, or in conflict with, the constitution or laws of the United States, or the constitution or laws of this state, and so far only as it is consistent with and adapted to the natural and physical conditions of this state and the necessities of the people hereof, is hereby adopted, and shall be the rule of decision in all courts of this state. 68-3-2. Statutes in derogation of common law liberally construed -- Rules of equity prevail. The rule of the common law that statutes in derogation thereof are to be strictly construed has no application to the statutes of this state. The statutes establish the laws of this state respecting the subjects to which they relate, and their provisions and all proceedings under them are to be liberally construed with a view to effect the objects of the statutes and to promote justice. Whenever there is any variance between the rules of equity and the rules of common law in reference to the same matter the rules of equity shall prevail.

Some Court invocations of this principle:

20 We begin by identifying the source of our authority to award damages for constitutional violations. Except for the Takings Clause, the Utah Constitution does not expressly provide damage remedies for constitutional violations. Thus, aside from the Takings Clause, there is no textual constitutional right to damages for one who suffers a constitutional tort. Nor has the legislature enacted any laws authorizing damage claims for constitutional violations in general, or the violation of the Due Process Clause or the Open Education Clause in particular. Thus, there is no express statutory right to damages for one who suffers a constitutional tort. In the absence of applicable constitutional or statutory authority, Utah courts employ the common law. See Utah Code Ann. § 68-3-1 (1996). Under the common law, "individuals had access to remedies of money damages for violations of their individual rights, and these rights, enumerated in fundamental documents, were the forerunners of many of the provisions adopted in federal and state bills of rights." Bott, 922 P.2d at 739 (citations omitted). Hence, a Utah court's ability to award damages for violation of a self-executing constitutional provision rests on the common law. The Restatement (Second) of Torts supports this view. Restatement section 874A states that when no specific remedy is mentioned, a court may accord an appropriate remedy to one injured from the violation of a constitutional provision. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874A & cmt. A (1979).

Reference 22

Theology of Resistance

John Knox a pioneer in the Protestant Reformation was one of the leaders in developing the theology of resistance to tyranny, which promoted the concept that the common people had a right and duty to resist the civil rulers when they governed contrary to the will of God, as was taught Bible. The prophet Daniel and his companions were prominent examples of man’s obligation to obey God rather than corrupt rulers. To do otherwise would be rebellion against God. Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson voiced this exact sentiment. Jefferson stated that, "To resist tyranny is obedience to God", while Madison stated it this way, "To resist tyranny is service to God".

Another leading reformer that played a prominent role in developing this Protestant political theory was a Presbyterian name Samuel Rutherford (1600-1660). In 1644 he wrote his famous, "Lex Rex: or The Law and the Prince". Lex Rex translated from Latin means ‘the law is king’. In this writing it was taught that the laws of man must necessarily be founded on the Laws of God and that the king or government must rule in harmony to the God’s will or they were to be disobeyed. The government, being ordained and instituted by God was to administer justice according to the principles of God's Law.

In articulation of this Christian doctrine. the Apostle Paul taught Tyranny was defined as ruling without the sanction of God. That is what the colonists meant when they accused the king of tyranny; that he was committing acts contrary to the rule of God's Law. Though we must always be subject to the office of the magistrate, we are not required to be subject to the man in that office who commands what is contrary to the revealed will of God. A ruler need not be deposed for a single breach of the contract that he has with the people. He is only to be relieved of his position when his continuing acts are knowingly destroying the fundamental governing structure of society. Rutherford set forth 3 appropriate levels of resistance for the private Christian person:

(1) Defend himself by protest (complaint), this in our society would be legal action, redress of grievances, contacting our legislators, lobbying, etc.

(2) If the efforts of protest are ignored, then flee if possible (leave the unlawful system)

(3) Apply the use of force to defend oneself to increasing degrees, and only if flight is impossible.

These 3 premises were taken from the life of David as recorded in the Old Testament.

Another reformer that drew heavily from the Presbyterian tradition regarding the proper role of government was John Locke. When he laid down his 4 basic points, he was advocating concepts that were well understood by the Founding Fathers, and were used by them as fundamental guidelines:

(1) that all men have unalienable rights that come from God

(2) that government must be by consent of the governed

(3) that there must be a separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers

(4) that the governed retain the right to resist immoral or unlawful authority.

Reference 23

Law of Novation – Doctrine of Parens Patriae

Doctrine of Parens Patriae. Parens Patriae is Latin for "parent of the country", referring to the objective of the State to act as Sovereign and guardian over the lives of anyone it can identify as being under “legal disability”. Parens Patriae comes from the abuse of English common law where the King took royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons incapable of defending their rights.

In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act [Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, chapter 135] was passed creating birth "registration", known as the "birth certificate." This provided the state (the sovereign) legal title to its ‘human resources’ and gave it the responsibility to take care of its subjects. Under the doctrine of Parens Patriae, the federal government, now had the mechanism to take over all the assets of the American people and put them into debt into perpetuity. While the Federal Maternity Act was eventually repealed as unconstitutional, appropriate parts of it have been perpetuated in legislative acts of the States, thus continuing the parens patriae ownership of the ‘certificate of title’ to your child.

According to the Common Law each of us is born free as a "citizen of the soil," an American National. But parents educated in government schools are ignorant of their fundamental rights (this is the ‘legal disability’ of the children) and are led to apply for a "birth certificate," thereby making their child a citizen of the government corporation known as the ‘United States’. The government recognizes its new citizen as a corporate legal fiction, a ‘statutory person’ under the laws of the State. The State agents are paid tocollects the birth information and turns it over to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The national debt of the ‘United States’ transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of another through the process known as "Novation." Novation is defined as "the substitution of a new contract between same or different parties; The substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one; The substitution of one debtor for another or of one creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished. According to this doctrine the debt of an individual is extinguished at his death, and the same debt is then transferred to a new individual when he/she is born through the registering of the birth, thereby creating a new corpus that will again reside in the hands of the trust.

In United States v. Chamberlin, (2) the Supreme Court of the United States Decided: “It may be considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as belonged to the King in his capacity of Parens Patriae, or universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British Constitution." United States v. Chamberlin 219 U.S. 250, 55 L. Ed. 204, 31 S. Ct. 155, January 3, 1911

Under Title 15, U.S.C. the Federal government has delegated federal Parens Patriae authority to the State attorney generals. In derogation of your rights the State agents can now enforce all legislation involving your personal life, the lives of your children, and your material assets - [see TITLE 15, United States Code, Sec. 15h. Applicability of Parens Patriae actions: STATUTE- Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall apply in any State, unless such State provides by law for its non-applicability in such State.]

The subject of every birth certificate is the child, deemed a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can perpetuate the economy and contribute wealth to its masters by its labor for many years. He/she is the asset of the trust set up through the birth certificate, the "Title" to your child, who is now owned by the State corporation. Agents of the State oversee the life of the ‘corpus’ of the trust and provide benefits to the beneficiary -- the corpus and beneficiary being one and the same -- the citizen of the corporation, or the ‘statutory person’ -- first as child, then as adult.

Each ‘corporate citizen’ is considered an asset of the bankrupt United States, which acts as the ‘Debtor in Possession.’ We are designated by this government as ‘HUMAN RESOURCES’, with new additions to such resources being added (born) continually. The bankruptcy is a receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy, thus its debts are merely serviced, but never paid or discharged. The Human Resources perpetually service the debt, as it continues to grow with time.

The government, through the doctrine of Parens Patriae, has already instituted its control of our children through the legislative process. Medical treatments are enforced through the court, which threatens you with the loss of your child if the treatment is challenged. Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in the loss of your child under the guise of "child neglect" (failure to preserve the trust corpus). If you spank your child or cause him/her any indignities or embarrassment, you are also at risk of having your child taken from you under the guise of child abuse (damaging the trust corpus). Some states have legislation either pending or passed to give social workers arrest authority.

School nurses may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. Warrantless searches of your home are tolerated by the courts, all in the name of safety for the child. Limits on the ability of divorced parents to relocate when minor children are involved have been clarified by the State Supreme Courts, though the Common Law right of travel has traditionally been held as an element of personal liberty. Restraint upon this right was a well-known feature of slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite of the right to appropriate the use of another man was to become the master of his natural power of motion. The control by government courts (supra) of an individuals' freedom of locomotion is sign of ownership of the individual, or slavery.

Parens Patriae legislation covers every area of your personal life. It has been reported that in California, early in the year 1996, an assembly woman, in regard to education policy, made the statement "the children belong to the STATE." We are told that “it takes a village” to raise our child. But the Founding Fathers knew that the primary responsibility of a State is to protect it's citizens from the tyranny of the Federal government. A state may sue the Federal government for protection for its citizens if federal legislation violates the Constitutions of the several states and brings harm to its citizens.

The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of its Code against any State legislation that brings them an injury by depriving them of a civil right. But the 14th Amendment did not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights. While positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment, they are only

secured by accepting Federal citizenship and prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those

rights and privileges of their Federal citizens.

ruled that: “A State may not, as Parens Patriae, institute judicial proceedings to protect her citizens (who are no less citizens of the United States), from the operation of a federal statute upon the ground that, as applied to

them, it is unconstitutional.” The Parens Patriae power has been recognized and exercised from time immemorial as being under the rule of a tyrant.

To conserve the ultimate Federal control, the Supreme Court has

Reference 24

Marketing Birth Certificates

Americans now live under a system of government and religion that is ruled by the international banking

families, firmly established in England. The Federal Corporation instituted by them in America has replaced the original Common Law system inherited from ancient Britain,, with maritime admiralty law. Technically we are deemed to be born from the water of our mother's womb, which under maritime admiralty law makes us a maritime "product." In reality we are ‘human resources’ of the United States, a foreign-owned corporation set

up in 1868.

Our birth certificates state “Department of Commerce” and are traded on the stock exchange, where they serve

as collateral for the U.S. corporation's loans from the international bankers. Originally traded for $630,000, our

birth certificates are now valued at more than $1 million each. Your name as it appears on official documents, is always in capital letters, like the letters on a tombstone, indicating that you are not considered a living ‘being’, but a ‘corporate fiction’, a ‘statutory person’, that you belong to the State.

The mother completes the birth certificate, using her maiden name for I.D. purposes, thus changing, reducing or removing the father's ancient legal status. When through the "legal" process of birth, the father is removed from the long established system of law where family rights pass from the father to the children, then the child "legally" has no father. Yet the courts assign legal responsibility of ‘maintenance’ to the biological creator of the ‘statutory person’.

Our mothers signed our birth certificates, assigning ownership of our life to that corporation.

The modern legal sense of the word "family" is no longer one of relation to parents but of individuals living in a household. This is how "legal system" views the "family". The definition you might have in mind when using the word "father", "family" etc. may carry a very different meaning in the court's mind, but the court's interpretation stands unless you have already established a mutual understanding of the what legal meaning the words will carry. This is the rule of the Uniform Commercial Code that has been adopted by every corporate State.

Blacks Law Dictionary 4th pg 727 + 728 FAMILY. The word is used to denote many relationships. In a broad or primary sense "family" means: a collective body of any two persons living together in one house as their common home for the time

NOTE: Examine the "Certificate of Birth" application form in the Vital Statistics Department. The one for BRITISH COLUMBIA is titled "APPLICATION FOR BIRTH". How can you apply for a baby to be born, or a mother be denied the birth of her child unless she applies? This is obviously not an application that pertains to the birth of the living being, but is used to create the legal fiction (artificial person), with an all capital name, recognized thereafter by the legal system, but assigning the living being as the fiduciary.

A "Certificate of Birth" and a "Birth Certificate" are not the same thing. A private "automobile" changes legally

into a State owned "motor vehicle" when you register it with your government/state/insurance company. A private property "gun" become a seizable "firearm" when you register it. When you register anything you transfer the "title" to the entity (government or agency) with which you register it. That's when they gain legal jurisdiction to come and take your "private property". When you registered your private property you assign the

title to another, just by "submitting an application".

Once the artificial person has been created and the ownership has been established, the Birth Certificates are traded on international money markets. Each new birth creates a lifelong taxpayer with a lifetime value that can value in the millions. Such are the types of assets suitable for the futures markets.

Chapter Two

Chapter Two

Chapter Two

The Plot to Enslave America's Free Society

Our Rights and Freedoms Come From God.

Our Founding Fathers recognized that it is God's purpose that man should be a free agent. They made this clear in the Declaration of Independence when they proclaimed, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life,


other words, man should be able to choose for himself what he will become. With that understanding, they later set forth that great document of freedom known as the Constitution of the united States, to protect man from government tyranny. Notice that, as in the Declaration of Independence, we do not choose to capitalize the word "united" here, because that would now refer to the foreign Federal corporation, and we mean to indicate the union of States that were united under the Constitution that was inspired by God. Be aware that God's word warns us, "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." [Ephesians 6:12]

Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness

The Plot to Enslave Mankind.

There have always been those among the society of man who have sought to exercise power and control over the souls of others. The above-quoted scripture implies that such people would be motivated by influences which are not of flesh and blood, by those that have gained positions of power in the hidden places darkness of this world, and which have achieved control in high places. They would naturally seek places of dominion in government and in all other possible positions of leadership, from which to exert their

influence and supposed authority over man. This

is true particularly in religious organizations, as

those are the places where people have learned to depend most to receive guidance from 'divine providence', the creative powers of the universe. Indeed the Scriptures testify to the availability of

such divine guidance. But they also warn us about the 'wolves' that would enter into the flock. God himself alluded to the existence of such beings, when He said to Lucifer, "And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed." [Genesis 3:15] God confirmed that there would be those among men who would be of the "seed of Satan", and enemies to the rest of mankind. They would participate in the devil's plot to enslave the children of God. Christ spoke to such men in addressing the scribes and Pharisees, saying, "Ye "

(John 8:44]. Paul

are of your father the Devil

referred to such a man as well, “And [Paul] said,

O full of all subtilty and all mischief, [thou] child

of the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord?” [Acts 13:10], as did John saying, “In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother.” [1John 3:10]. Such persons hate and use their fellow man. It is only logical to expect that they would seek to gain power over them and to enslave them.

Government Takes Control of Churches.

The religious organizations were instituted through divine influence for the purpose of guiding God’s children and protecting them from evil and deception, so how have they fallen under the control of the ‘seed of Satan’? Again, it has come about through man’s love of

the ‘riches of Babylon’. The leaders of the churches all seem to have a plan wherein they can collect tithes and offerings from their devotees, which is be perfectly acceptable if said donations are strictly dedicated to the purposes for which God has intended them. But almost without exception those given responsibility for stewardship over such funds use a percentage of them to invest in the commerce of Babylon. While tithes and offerings are tax exempt, the profits from commercial investments are not. So the churches end up owing the government a substantial amount of money. But the government offers a plan wherein such churches can become exempt under the provisions of the ‘non-profit corporation’. The requirements for such a corporation are detailed in Title 26,

United States Code, chapter 501(c)(3) 1 . They basically allow the church to keep its money as long as the Church leaders do not say or do anything to interfere with the government agenda.

Through Deception Comes Slavery.

How then, have we been transformed from being free men under the Common Law, to becoming men in bondage under the Roman Civil code? It has been a gradual process of the reeducation or ‘dumbing down’ of our minds as to our understanding of concepts, words, and meanings. Even many of the ancient prophets referred to such a condition of ignorance among the people in the last days. Isaiah said, “Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because [they have] no knowledge: and their honourable men [are] famished, and their multitude dried up with thirst.”[Isa 5:13] and Hosea foretold, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.”[Hosea 4:6]. For example, most of us have been taught to think of ourselves as persons,

human beings, and natural men. But let us look at the original meanings of some of these words, as recognized by government:

Mejancoffs Dictionary of American Legal

Usage: Person - a human being; without regard to sex, legitimacy or competence, the central figure in law as elsewhere characterized by personal attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses, morality common to human beings, with rights and duties under the law. This is the person sometimes called an individual (IRS Code) and often referred to in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from an artificial person. A person as used in the 14th Amendment does not include the unborn. Person includes natural person, individual Indian, corporation, partnership, association, trust, estate, or any other public or private entity, including state or local government or Indian tribe. The court

defines a natural person, for statutory purposes, as a human being, and not an artificial or juristic person.” [Shamat Bank NA v, Valley Farms]

Natural Persons are Human Beings.

Perhaps these definitions as to the standing of a ‘person’ in the eyes of the government might not at first seem unreasonable, but we must further examine what they are saying. They tell us that natural ‘persons’ and individuals are under their jurisdiction as human beings, so let us refer to some of the original applications of the meanings associated with the term ‘human’ and how they specifically identify them as someone that rejects God, being natural, rather than spiritual beings:

Ballantine's Dictionary of Law [1948]:

Human being - see monster Monster - human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal. A monster has no inheritable blood and cannot be heir to any land.

Human laws - man's laws, with man as the author, as distinguished from divine laws, with God the author.

Oxford Dictionary 1901:









distinguished from God or super human beings, pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man with implication of limitation or inferiority; mundane and secular, often opposed to divine.

Random House Dictionary:

Human - secular- of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred:

temporal; not related to or concerned with religion:

opposed to sacred: concerned with non-religious subjects; not belonging to a religious order; one of the secular clergy, of or pertaining to this world. Secular humanism - any set of beliefs which promotes human values without specific allusion to religious doctrine, secular spirit or tendency, especially a system of political or social philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith or religious worship; the view that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted without the influence of religious beliefs.

What kind of Beings Are We?

If we put all of this information together, a natural person, which is the subject of the statutory law, is a "human", a being of worldly and inferior attributes and questionable morality, detached from that which is sacred or divine, opposed to and rejecting that which includes faith in any form of religious worship or spiritual beliefs. In other words, he is a godless being without moral standards. This might be a very applicable description for those who live according to the ethics which are typical of ‘Babylon’ [society], but the sons of God, who conduct their lives in accordance with the Christian ideals upon which this nation was founded, are specifically excluded from such a foreign jurisdiction. The natural person or ‘human’, as defined in law, obviously needs to be controlled by such statutes as those found in Roman Civil Law. Men will identify themselves into this category of being, based upon the way they talk, and act, and how they live. We have all been educated in the government school system to think of ourselves as humans, rather than the mortal children of God, as taught in the scriptures. In the education

system and in the media it has become illegal and politically incorrect to espouse the things of God. Instead they emphasize the human ideals, human rights, and the "triumph of the human spirit". By our daily life choices we determine whether or not the agents of the government will correctly view us in this lower status.

The Natural Person vs. the Moral Man.

A good illustration of the way that the law differentiates as to the types of persons or beings, (natural compared to moral) which it makes its chosen subjects is found in a quote

from Lord Edward Coke 2 , a 16th century Chief Justice in English law. He said, "As to the state and the degree of the statute to be added, we must observe a state is defined by the civilians, the capacity of moral persons, for as natural persons have a certain space in which their natural existence is placed, and in which they perform their natural actions ,so have persons in a community a certain state or capacity in which they are supposed to exist to perform their moral acts and exercise all civil relations." This might be summed up by saying that the degree to which the state must impose statutory control is based upon the actions of its civilians, and to the degree that the natural person needs to be controlled. But it also recognizes separate capacity of a moral person, one we recognize to be a sovereign Christian that controls himself in accordance with the divine precepts of God's word, as found in the Scriptures and the Common Law.

The Natural Man is an Enemy to God.

People are generally referred to in law as "natural persons", and the Random House


unenlightened or unregenerate; unrepentant, unconverted to a particular religion, sect or movement; wicked; sinful; dissolute. Scripture says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are






foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (2Corinthians 2:14) “For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be for ever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man…” (Mosiah 3:19) These natural men are the ‘persons’ under the jurisdiction of government rule, the Civil Code, rather than under God's law. But there is a certain mind set that is found in agents of the government that wants to bring us all into this category, and under their control. For this purpose we have been deliberately ill-educated to misunderstand our own identity, so that our erroneous concepts and our words might be used against us. In addition, immorality is promoted everywhere, and all kinds of idolatry and perversion and false traditions are encouraged in the members of society, so that those who would enslave us might justify their actions against our rights. If we don't learn to understand true principles of our freedom and rights, and the meanings of the terms being used against us in law, we can be controlled and ultimately enslaved by those who use our ignorance against us.

The Re-education of America.

There are clear indicators of the efforts made to keep men illiterate concerning their true identity and their rights, and of the original intent of the laws that are now being used against them. They can be discerned by studying Black's Law Dictionary. It was once regarded as the most authoritative source of information concerning the true meanings of words at law, but it has gone through six editions over the last centuries, and has been watered down significantly, eliminating many Common Law terms and much important information valuable to our understanding. For example, in the early editions, under the word ‘Christianity’ there were cited at least 50 court cases showing that it is embodied in the Common Law, but the later editions

merely say Christianity is the religion founded by Jesus Christ.

Significance of Our Christian Name.

One of the determinants as to the class of beings we are recognized to be in the law is in the way we permit our own names to be used by government agents. They use our names in inappropriate and fictitious ways to convert us into a ‘persona designata’ in order to separate us from our Christian character, and to put us under their jurisdiction. They make a rather subtle, but significant change, by printing our names in all upper-case letters. Have you ever wondered why they do that? When we accept such a fictitious designation we are voluntarily receiving the status of the ‘statutory person’ over whom they claim jurisdiction. However, take notice of a ruling from Matthew Bacon's Abridgement of the

Law Vol. III (1846) 3 . that states, "If the Christian name be wholly mistaken, it is regularly fatal to all legal instruments, declarations, pleadings, grants and obligations, because it is repugnant to the rules of the Christian religion that a Christian be without a name of baptism or have two Christian names Therefore, if a person enters into a bond by a wrong Christian name he cannot be declared against by the name in the obligation and his true name be brought in an alias, for that supposes the possibility of two Christian names, and you cannot declare against a party by his right name and aver he made the deed by his wrong name, for that sets up an averment contrary to the deed, and there is this sanction allowed every solemn contract, that it cannot be opposed by a thing of equal validity, and if he be impleaded (accused) by the name in the deed, he may plead that he is another person and that it is not his deed." This ruling shows the importance of using the correct Christian name, and some of the consequences of changing it. There is a good example available that illustrates the fact that you are not considered to

be the same person as the one that is indicated by printing your name in all CAPS. This can be discovered by closely examining the personal check forms provided by the banks for you to be able to make drafts and withdrawals from the account that was created under that name. The name for the account is printed in all CAPS on the upper left corner of the check form. This represents the statutory person, the legal fiction created to designate you, but is controlled by the government corporation. If anyone else other than that ‘person’ is to make drafts on this account, he must have been previously authorized to sign on the account, and must

provide an authorized signature 4 in the space indicated. Since the legal fiction can never sign for himself, the check can only be signed by the authorized person, and he must have an authorized signature card on file. The signature ‘line’ is not really the line that it appears to be. If you examine it closely with a good magnifying glass, you will see that it iss really made up of the words ‘authorized signature’, printed in microscopic size over and over, to cleverly conceal the fact that you are not the ‘person’ represented on the account, but you are the fiduciary authorized to sign for him.

Wrong Name is Used Against Christians.

If the form of a name, or even one letter is altered, the identity or the character of the man is thereby changed to someone else. In the government process, the names of people are always and deliberately altered on their documents, thereby revealing that they are dealing with a fiction, a "persona designata" or a ‘statutory person’. Why do they do this? In international law (Wharton Commentaries on

Law, 1884 5 ), during time of war, when one alien enemy maintains an action against another alien enemy he uses an alias known as a "nom de guerre", meaning ‘war name’ or indicating a ‘slave name’ [such as the slaves chained to the rowing galley in ancient Roman warships]. This

can also be achieved by merely writing the name

in all uppercase letters. An alien is defined to be

a person that owes allegiance to another state;

one that is strange; inconsistent or opposed to normal local customs. These definitions reveal

the true nature of our oppressors, who thereby

reveal that they consider our own local customs

to be alien to their foreign state.

At War with a Defacto Government?

The martial-law status of our courts and our country tells us they government has declared war against us. Our own representatives in Congress also have said in their reports that we are in a state of war. The law-enforcement officers of today are trained to function in the typical military manner and are the equivalent of armed troops in the streets. In the Senate Report 93-459 referred to in chapter one, which was made in the year nineteen seventy-three, the senators made attempts to put an end to the effects of the legislation known as the "War and

Emergency Powers Act 6 ". This act was a modification of the war measure known as the "Trading with the Enemy Act" of October 6, 1917, but the restrictions and provisions which had been originally applied strictly to doing business with enemies, have now become applied against all Americans! Our own senators attempted to demonstrate in their report that the United States Government Corporation has determined that We The People are, and have been identified and treated as its enemy, since the year nineteen thirty-three. The introduction to this report makes such statements as, "Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.", "A majority of people of the United States have spent all their lives under emergency rule.", and "For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency." That is the reason all

agents of this alien de facto government, which has now taken control of all Federal, State, county, and local agencies of the system, use upper-case letters to convert our "names" into the fictitious, statutory ‘nom de guerre’ form.

Immediate Correction Must be Made.

If we would free ourselves from their jurisdiction, we must secure that our full, proper Christian appellation (name) must include proper upper and lower case letters, and that no initials or abbreviations are allowed. Any alterations create a misnomer, which means a wrong or fictitious name is being used to identify us and bind us to the requirements of a legal document. When the government uses, and gets you to use or accept any alteration of the proper form of your Christian appellation, it has caused you to step out of your Christian character, and voluntarily become a natural ‘statutory’ person, over whom they have jurisdiction. The Supreme Court says, "Where a party was sued by a wrong name and suffered judgment to go against him, without attempting to rectify the mistake, he could not afterwards, in an action against the sheriff for false imprisonment, complain of an execution issued against him by that name," [See GRANNIS v. ORDEAN, 234 U.S. 385 (1914)] Whenever you receive any process from the government, it is important that you answer immediately with an abatement (nullification) of their process (see chapter nine). If you otherwise respond to the ‘nom de guerre’ fiction or misnomer, you thereby abandon your Christian character, and it is automatically assumed that you are the statutory person over whom they have claimed jurisdiction.

Dealing With Misnomers Against Us.

According to their law. "If a man seeing what he is served, willfully abstains from looking at it, that is virtually a personal service", so we must appropriately deal with their action. Where the defacto government agency is operating

outside of the Common Law, they have no law. They are operating under the statutes of their implied contract with you. Therefore, their action can be abated (nullified). According to the Common Law, whenever you are accused of a crime, where there is no damaged party, or victim (corpus delicti), there is no crime. So they must depend on your cooperation and acquiescence in order for them to proceed against you and presume jurisdiction over you. Those in power have deliberately kept us in ignorance of the law and our rights, so that we would more readily cooperate with them. That is what the Supreme Court meant when it pointed out that, "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights,

due to ignorance." (U.S. v. Minker 350 U.S. 179,


That is how a nation or a people is legally raped. We have allowed it to happen, as a gradual process over a long period of time,

because of our preoccupation with acquiring the wealth of Babylon. From Matthew Bacon’s Of


"Misnomer is a good plea in abatement, for since names are the only mark or indicia which humankind can understand each other by. if the name be omitted or mistaken, there is a complaint against nobody".[Bacon’s Abridgement, page 7, 1832.]







Everything Must be Recorded in Writing.

Whenever any government agent or employee approaches you; before you give them your name or any information or your ID, ask them who they are and what they want. Their badge or other identification mean nothing to you, because they do not give you enough information to defend yourself, and prosecute them, if necessary, so always have with you a

"public servant questionnaire 7 " ready for them to fill out. It should request all needed information

about them, including their name, address and official capacity, their surety bond number, whether they have taken an oath of office, how the information which they request from you will be used, what law requires you to give up your personal and fundamental right to privacy, under the Constitution, and requires you to give them information, etc. Have them sign it. This is not unreasonable when you consider that if you give them any information, you can be sure that it will be used against you. Hence, after they fill out that questionnaire, if there are any questions they might have, require that they submit them in writing, so that you can answer carefully, if you determine that they can and should be answered at all. When this is pursued in court, it is known

as a ‘proper summons and a formal information’ Such procedure is required under their own law, known as the Right to Privacy Act (Public Law

93-579 8 ). You must be very firm and require that they fill these things out, but don't be rude or belligerent. When servants of God were approached by the agents of King Nebuchadnezzar, and accused of obeying the laws of God rather than the laws of the king, they recognized the inherent problem of responding under the conditions of confrontation in which they found themselves, and replied, "we are not careful to answer thee in this matter." (Daniel 3:16) As representatives of Jesus Christ, we must be careful, and seek to handle these situations carefully and with prayer and study.

Table of References for Chapter Two

Reference 1.

Religious Corporations [501(c)(3)]

Reference 2.

Lord Edward Coke

Reference 3.

Matthew Bacon - Misnomers

Reference 4.

Authorized Signature

Reference 5.

Wharton – Nom de Guerre

Reference 6.

War and Emergency Powers Act

Reference 7.

Public Servant Questionnaire

Reference 8.

Right to Privacy Act (Public Law 93-579)

Reference 1

The ‘Church’ that Becomes a ‘Non-Profit Corporation’

The true "corporate status" of the Church of Jesus Christ is well-established in Scripture:

“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bound or free; and have been all made to drink into one

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in

Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many

particular” (1 Corinthians 12:12-14, 27).

Christ “

his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” (Ephesians 5:23b, 30).

is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body

For we are members of

“[Christ is] the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Colossians 2:19).

The Christian Church should be the visible manifestation of Christ's Kingdom on earth, and as the Lord Jesus Himself stated, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). His Church is ‘in’ this world, but it is not ‘of’ the world.

When a church becomes a ‘non-profit corporation, according to the United States Supreme Court:

“A corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises and holds them subject to the laws of the

state and the limitation of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and ascertain

if it has exceeded its powers.”

[Hale v. Henkel (1906), 201 U.S. 43.]

In Black's Law Dictionary we find: “Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state. An association of persons created by statute as a legal


Such an

entity subsists as a body politic under a special denomination, which is regarded in law as having a

.” [Black's Law Dictionary (St.

personality and existence distinct from that of its several

Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company, 1991; Sixth Edition), page 340. ]

The corporation is distinct from the individuals who comprise it (shareholders)

An Early Court decision: “A corporation can have no legal existence outside of the boundaries of

sovereignty by which it is created. It exists only in contemplation of law


and where that law ceases to

the corporation can have no existence.” [Phoenix Insurance Company v. Commonwealth (1868), 5

Bush 63, 96 Am.Dec. 331.]

As Taught in Law School: “A corporation derives its existence and all of its powers from the State and, therefore, has only such powers as the State has conferred upon it. Power is used here to mean the legal capacity to execute and fulfill the objects and purposes for which the corporation was

created, and the source of this power is the charter and the statute under which the corporation was


specified conditions.” [Len Young Smith and G. Gale Roberson, Smith and Roberson's Business Law (Saint Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company, 1966), pages 796, 931.]

Corporate existence is a privilege granted by the sovereign upon compliance with

Title 26, United Statets Code, Chapter 501(c)(3) - Exemption Requirements:

To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates. According to IRS Publication 1828 [p.8], "An organization will be regarded as 'attempting to influence legislation' (commonly known as 'lobbying') if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members of a legislative body for the purposes of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation." This prohibition extends, to the endorsement of a political candidate, and any other attempts to ‘influence legislation’, including taking a public stand against such politically-protected abominations as abortion or homosexuality.

When such an organization is judged for compliance, neither the Bible nor any historical Christian creeds or standards, may be allowed in a trial if they are "not contained in the body of [the] contract." Outside of its own walls, and sometimes even within, the incorporated church may not stand on the ultimate authority of the Scriptures regarding any political or civil issue. It is contractually bound by the governing law of the State. For a simple tax deduction, the church ceases to be the ‘salt’ and ‘light’ to society as commanded by Christ.

Whether a profit-making or a non-profit business, a business is still a business in the eyes of the government. An incorporated church must accept the fact that it has requested permission of the State to operate as a business. It has its charter and articles of incorporation on file with the Secretary of State and is required to list a President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer. Christ did not ordain men to control the business dealings of a worldly corporation, but to teach and administer the sacramental duties of the Body of Christ.

Many churches list the minister and other ecclesiastical leaders as ‘employees’ for Social Security purposes. A Form W-2 is issued to the minister enumerating his gross income, and the IRS

collects taxes on income that is internal to the Government. In the Internal Revenue Code, Section

3401(c), an ‘employee’ is defined as: “

elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof

income’ in the Internal Revenue Code is that “which is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within the United States.” [Section 872(a)], and ‘trade or business’ is defined as including “the performance of the functions of a public office.” [Section 7701(a)].

If you are an employee of a government created and controlled church corporation (see legal descriptions above), then you are a government employee” who earns “gross income,” and one who enjoys a special privilege or derives some benefit from the U.S. Government. The minister of an incorporated church is often the one who accepts the title of “registered agent,” or “one who represents and acts for another under the contract or relation of agency.” [Black's Law Dictionary, page 63]. He represents the Government to the corporation. In addition, a registered agent is required “to act with


term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or ”

The term ‘gross

complete and utmost loyalty and fidelity regarding his responsibilities to the principal [the State]. The law very strictly enforces this duty; it will not allow the agent to have any conflict of interest with the principal.” [William T. Schantz, Commercial Law For Business and Accounting Students (Saint Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company, 1980), page 757].

A minister’s duty is to be a representative of Christ to His flock, to teach the truth, and to warn the people about violations of their God-given rights and freedoms, to “obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). The Scriptures teach us not to obey the laws of man in violation of God’s laws, not to uphold conspiracies (Ether 8:22-26), and warn against the acceptance of a gift from the ungodly (i.e. Social Security benefits) for it “doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous” (Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:19) and “destroyeth the heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:7).

Reference 2

Sir Edward Coke (pronounced "cook") (1552–1634), his writings on the English common law were the definitive legal texts for some 300 years. As an early English colonial financier and jurist, it appears that in 1606 Coke helped write the charter of the Virginia Company, a private venture granted a royal charter to found settlements in North America. He was director of the London Company, one of the two branches of the Virginia Company. He became a Member of Parliament in 1589, Speaker of the House of Commons in 1592 and was appointed England's Attorney General in 1593, a post for which he was in competition with his rival Sir Francis Bacon, during which period, he was a zealous prosecutor of Sir Walter Raleigh and of the Gunpowder Plot conspirators.

Lord Coke wrote the 4-volume "Institutes of the Laws of Englands", one of the great treatises on the English common law. Though ‘Institutes’ was published in the 17th century, the U.S. Supreme Court still cites them. E.g. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 1864 (2000). The Supreme Court has explicitly endorsed the value of Coke’s treatise on a number of occasions. E.g., Brogan v. United States, 522 U.S. 398, 408 (1998) (referring to Coke’s Institutes as "his illustrious treatise"); Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213, 225 (1967) ("Coke's Institutes were read in the American Colonies by virtually every student of the law."); Payton, 445 U.S. at 596 n.36 ("Foremost among the titles to be found in private libraries of the time were the works of Coke, the great expounder of Magna Carta").

Appointed Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas in 1606, Coke was elevated to Chief Justice of the King's Bench in 1613, where he continued his defense of the English common law against intrusion by the ecclesiastical hierarchy, local courts controlled by the aristocracy, and meddling by the King. Bacon encouraged the King to remove Coke as Chief Justice in 1616, for refusing to hold a case in abeyance until the King could give his own opinion in it. In 1620 Coke rejoined Parliament, and proved so troublesome to the crown that he was imprisoned, with other Parliamentary leaders, for six months. Coke was one of the drafters of the Petition of Right, and in 1628 under his leadership, the House of Commons forced Charles I of England to accept the Petition by retaining revenues wanted by the king until he capitulated. The Petition of Right was the forerunner of the English Bill of Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights.

One of Coke's greatest contributions to the law was to interpret Magna Carta to apply not only to the protection of nobles but to all subjects of the crown equally, which effectively established the law as a guarantor of rights among all subjects, even against Parliament and the King. He famously asserted: "Magna Charta is such a fellow, that he will have no sovereign." Coke's reinterpretation of Magna Carta provided an argument for universal liberty in England and gave American colonists a basis for their condemnation of British colonial policies. Copies of Coke's writings arrived in North America on the Mayflower in 1620, and every lawyer in the English colonies and early United States was trained from Coke's books, particularly his Reports and Institutes, the most famous of which was his property book, The First Institute of the Lawes of England, or a Commentary on Littleton. Both John Adams and Patrick Henry argued from Coke treatises to support their revolutionary positions against the Mother Country in the 1770s. It is said that Lord Coke's contribution to constitutionalism was "a fundamental one" and that "[t]he influence of Coke may be seen at all of the key stages in the development of the conflict between the Colonies and the mother country”.

In one of his most famous cases, much argued about by historians but which is seen by lawyers as the origin of judicial review of legislation, Lord Coke said: “[I]n many cases the common law will controul acts of Parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common right or reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it and adjudge such Act to be void.” [Dr. Bonham's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a, 118a, 77 Eng. Rep. 638, 652 (C.P. 1610)]. Then Coke's

opinion in Calvin's Case established that subjects of Scotland born after King James VI became James I of England could hold land in England as well as in Scotland, because both Scots and Englishmen owed allegiance to the same king. This became important in supporting the idea that English colonists in North America had the rights of Englishmen.

In Semayne's Case, Coke gave us the origin of many of the rights to freedom from arbitrary searches; the Case of the Monopolies, important in anti-trust; Sutton's Hospital, a seminal case in corporations law; and William Aldred's Case, may be the birth of environmental law. Published after his death, the Prohibitions del Roi detail his discussion with the King in which he (briefly) convinced a reluctant James that the law is based on "artificial reason" and must be left to lawyers to decide, rather than to the monarch.

Lord Coke "was Speaker of the House of Commons and Attorney General under Queen Elizabeth, and James I

made Coke first his Chief Justice of Common Pleas and then his Chief Justice of King's Bench." Payton v. New

York, 445 U.S. 573, 596 n.36 (1980).

from Bonham's Case "has been the foundation of the practice of 'judicial review' of legislation in America." J.H. Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History 182 (2d ed. 1979). The U.S. Supreme Court has also recognized the influence of Lord Coke's opinion in Bonham's Case, stating that "although Coke's dictum [in Bonham’s Case] was to have a somewhat greater influence in America, that influence took the form of providing an early foundation for the idea that courts might invalidate legislation that they found inconsistent with a written constitution." Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 162 (1996) (Souter, J., dissenting).

One of the leading historians of English law writes that his statement

Lord Coke also published 13 volumes of reports of common law cases, with extensive commentary, called Coke's Reports (or simply "The Reports"). Coke’s Reports were an influential predecessor of the modern case

law reporters. One commentator states that it was “the publication of Coke's Reports, more than any previous

collection of cases, that made the development of the modern English doctrine of precedent possible

Harold J. Berman, "The Origins Of Historical Jurisprudence: Coke, Selden, Hale," 103 Yale L.J. 1651, 1733



One law professor ranked Lord Coke 11th on a list of 100 individuals who have influenced the law most. Darien McWhirter, The Legal 100: A Ranking of the Individuals Who Have Most Influenced the Law 70-73 (1998). Calling him an "uncommon common lawyer," four journalists who ranked the 1,000 most important people of the millennium ranked Lord Coke as number 282. See Agnes H. Gottlieb, Henry Gottlieb, Barbara Bowers & Brent Bowers, 1,000 Years, 1,000 People: Ranking the Men and Women Who Shaped the Millennium 84


Further, Lord Coke is also said to have originated or influenced: the idea that judges should decide legal questions and juries decide fact questions, the maxim of cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipse lex ("the reason of the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases"), the principle that no person should be allowed to judge his own case, and -- bane of first-year law students -- the Rule in Shelley's case.

Reference 3

Matthew Bacon was an eighteenth century lawyer of the Middle Temple, Esq., and a commentator on the laws of England. His major work, A New Abridgement of the Law, was a collection of court cases that would be of interest to lawyers looking for precedents, described in abridged form. Bacon's Abridgement became a standard law text that was referred to frequently. In fact, the principal textbooks of the colonial lawyers were Sir Edward Coke’s Institutes on the Laws of England and Bacon’s A New Abridgment of the Law

While Coke’s Institutes were considered a perfect Digest of the law as it stood in his day, new laws were continually added by the legislature, and new developments of the old laws by the Judges, until they had become so voluminous as to require a new Digest. It was recognized that this was ably executed by Matthew Bacon, although unfortunately under an Alphabetical instead of Analytical arrangement of matter.

Since Bacon died before completing the text; the titles commencing with Simony and ending with Verdict, were added by Serjeant Sayer and the residue of the titles by Owen Ruffhead. This is known from the preface to the 5th edition where we find written, "It is well known, that Mr. Bacon did not live to carry the work any farther than to the title 'Sheriff', inclusive, and that the remainder was added by Mr. Serjeant Sayer and Mr. Ruffhead"--

While Bacon's Abridgement was often used in teaching, it also became invaluable as well in court, and the Jefferson Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson edited by John Foley in 1900, gives us this note about Bacon’s Abridgement under the heading "Lawyers":

“This gives numerous applications of the old principles to new cases, and gives the general state of the English law at that period. Here, too, the student should take up the Chancery branch of the law, by reading the first and second abridgments of the cases in Equity. The second is by the same Matthew Bacon, the first having been published some time before. The alphabetical order adopted by Bacon, is certainly not as satisfactory as the systematic. But the arrangement is under very general and leading heads, and these, indeed, with very little difficulty, might be systematically instead of alphabetically arranged and read.”

The first American edition of Matthew Bacon’s New Abridgment of the Law, became a common law staple, and was originally published from the 6th London edition of 1809, with Large Additions and Corrections by Sir Henry Gwyllim and Charles Edward Dodd, Esq. This included Notes and References made to the Edition and the addition of the later English and American decisions by Bird Wilson, Esq. To these were also added NOTES AND REFERENCES TO AMERICAN AND ENGLISH LAW AND DECISIONS, by John Bouvier, published in Philadelphia, by a Pennsylvania state judge (Printed for Farrand and Nicholas [etc.], in 1811. The 7th edition, consisting of 8 volumes, was published in London, in 1832.

One of the great early treatise-writers, John Jay quoted extensively from Matthew Bacon, invoking his formulation of the prohibitions he had summarized, and then continuing with selections from Bacon’s litany of particular situations that had created incompatibility. Citing an example

involving two incompatible judicial offices: ‘a Judge of the Common Pleas, made a Judge of the King’s Bench’, Jay and his colleagues had the common law on their side, as the incompatibility doctrine barred them from holding two judicial offices, one of which reviewed decisions of the other.

The implication of this argument was that their occupation of positions on the Supreme Court automatically deprived the Justices of their authority to also sit on circuit. The well-settled remedy for the holding of incompatible offices was the automatic forfeiture of the prior (and presumably inferior) office: “if the offices are incompatible, acceptance of the second vacates the first.” But Congress and the President refused to accept the Justices’ invocation of incompatibility, and thus they were stuck with their circuit duties.

Bouvier's Edition of Bacon’s Abridgment was published in 1856 at Philadelphia,by T. & J. W. Johnson & Co. again with Large Additions and Corrections, by Sir Henry Gweyllim; and Charles Edward Dodd, Esq.; and with The Notes and References Made to the Edition Published in1809 by Bird Wilson, Esq. to which are added Notes and References to American and English Law and Decisions. Footnotes by Bacon were by paragraph and represented by (a), (b) etc. Comments by

English editors over several additions, last updates in 1831 are noted with ¶…¶ or [ ]. Comments and notes by the American editor John Bouvier are noted by ß…£ and are current up to the date of 1843.

Page number to the publication are noted with *'s, for example [*431*.] Dates marked [* the readers convenince.]

] added for

Reference 4

Authorized Signature

What is the meaning of 'Authorized Signature' and why is that term hidden microscopically within the signature line of the checks that you sign?

Definition: An authorized signature is the signature of a person given authority to sign [for another] on particular documents, such as credit card slips, bank deposits, etc.

Also Known As: Approved Signature

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE CARD INSTRUCTIONS - The Authorized Signature Card designates individuals with direct authority and related responsibility to commit funds of the account and fund number listed on the form. The Signature Card is valid through the end of each fiscal year. For sponsored projects, the Signature Card is valid through the fund ending date. The representative of the organizational entity is responsible for updating the Authorized Signature Card when approval changes occur.

Accounting Information - If the invoice indicates a unique invoice number, enter the number in the indicated location. If an account custodian other than the individual signing the check request must sign for the expenditure of funds, use the authorized signature line to do so.

You should ask yourself, “Who or what are you authorizing with your signature?” A languages expert might tell you a name written in all upper-case, such as the one printed on your bank account indicates a 'nom de guerre', which has two meanings. One is 'war name' and the other is 'slave name'. A bank manager might claim that the concealed words on the check signature line are for security. But this does not really explain the reason for the hidden authorization in ultra small printing. The fact is that a person's name, when printed in all upper case, does not follow normal language usage, and a financial wizard might employ a new term, using the phrase 'straw man'. It seems that we have all become identified as two entities, one a natural man and the other an artificial 'person', a fiction, straw man or corporation. Reason would lead to the conclusion that we are considered to be two beings in every financial or legal situation.

Straw man - “A ‘front’; a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a ”


[Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

The term is also used in commercial and property contexts when a transfer is made to a party, the straw man, simply for the purpose of retransferring to the transferor in order to accomplish some purpose not otherwise permitted.” [Barron's, 3rd Edition]

So the straw man is an artificial person created by law shortly after you were born via the registration of the application for your birth certificate, your name in all-capital letters, an artificial entity which exists only “by force of or in contemplation of law.” The all-caps name is not your “true name” which consists of the given (Christian) name plus the surname (family name), and appears with only initial letters capitalized. The all-caps version of your name is a TRADE NAME, the name under which you “do business.” That is why you, the real being, must have authorization to sign a check for the statutory or artificial person created by the agents of the Corporate Democracy

The straw man, being artificial, lives in the artificial place called the public.

Reference 5

Wharton – Nom de Guerre

Francis WHARTON, (1820-1889), was an American attorney, legal writer, ecclesiastic, and educator. Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 7th of March 1820, he graduated at Yale in 1839, was admitted to the bar in 1843, became prominent in Pennsylvania politics as a Democrat, and in Philadelphia edited the North American and United States Gazette. He was professor of English history and literature at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, in 1856-1863 and took orders in the Protestant Episcopal church in 1862 and in 1863-1869 was rector of St Paul's Church, Brook-line, Massachusetts. In 1871-1881 he taught ecclesiastical polity and canon law in the Protestant Episcopal Theological School at Cambridge, Massachusetts, and at this time he lectured on the conflict of laws at Boston University.

Wharton then traveled in Europe for two years, and after two more years in Philadelphia he went to Washington, D. C., where he lectured on criminal law (1885-1886), then was professor of criminal law (1886-1888) at Columbian (now George Washington) University. In 1885-1888 he was solicitor (examiner of claims) of the Department of State, and from 1888 to his death in February 1889 was employed on an edition (authorized by Congress) of the Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States (6 vols., 1889, ed. by J. B. Moore), which superseded Sparks's compilation. A broad churchman Wharton was deeply interested in the hyninology of his church. He received the degree of LL.D. from the university of Edinburgh in 1883, and was the foremost American authority on international law.

Wharton published numerous informative treatises, “A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States" (1846; often reprinted); “State Trials of the United States during the Administrations of Washington and Adams” (1849); “A Treatise on the Law of Homicide in the United States” (1855); with Moreton Stille, “A Treatise on Medical Jurisprudence” (1855); “Modern Theism” (1859), applying rules of legal evidence to modern sceptical theories; “A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws” (1872; 3rd ed. 1905); “A Treatise on the Law of Negligence” (1874); “A Commentary on the Law of Agency and Agents” (1876), “Commentary on the Law of Evidence in Civil Issues” (1877; 3rd ed. 1888); “Companion work on Criminal Evidence; “Commentary on the Law of Contracts” (1882); “Commentaries on Law” (1884); and “Digest of the International Law of the United States” (3 vols.


As Wharton explained, under International Law, during a state of war, all adversary parties to a cause (legal action) must appear by nom de guerre, because an "alien enemy cannot maintain an action during the war in his own name". See Alien, Wharton's, Pennsylvania Digest, ¤ 20.94. The dictionary definition for nom de Guerre: (noun) a fictitious name used when the person performs a particular social role; a pseudonym, an alias; literally a war name; hence, a false name, or one assumed for a time. See the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd. ed., Clarendon Press (1989).

By international doctrine the use of a nom de guerre indicates a state of war. The government establishes ‘personas’ (Greek – masks) through the use of these fictitious names, with the enforcement of specific performance (admiralty jurisdiction) by vi et armis (a kind of trespass accompanied by force and violence) to inform us that by way of public law, their ‘public servants’ are waging war against the citizenry by using this name typed in all capital letters on driver’s licenses, social security cards, court documents, process, and credit cards, This is done despite the Common-Law contracts the Private Citizen has in regards to each and every Public Servant that are a matter of Public record.

You are an Enemy of the State since the Amendatory Act on March 9, 1933 to the U.S. version of the Trading With the Enemy Act October 6, 1917, the United States government corporation has formally been at war with the sovereign men and women (private citizens) of America. Australia followed suit with its version of the Trading With the Enemy Act September 9, 1939. Both versions use the legal-fiction artifice of the "right to presume" on your behalf. Each new born baby is assigned the nom de guerre using the information obtained on the registration of birth. This document is in-fact an admiralty/maritime commercial contract known as a bottomry bond that perpetuates the fictitious all-capital letters Trade-Name depicted on your birth certificate.

A full description of this "economic war" against the sovereign men and women of the united States of America (the lawful ‘dejure’ government), waged by the United States of America (corporate ‘defacto’ government) can be found in the Digest of International Law, Volume 10, and pages 95-127. Here you will find that the Departments of State, Justice, Commerce, and the Treasury - all in agreeance with the unlawful administrative orders of the President - conduct an "Alien Enemy Program"; the sole purpose of which is to militarily seize all private properties of the people with the aid of maritime hypothecations such as a bottomry bond, etceteras.

Reference 6

War and Emergency Powers Act (Trading With the Enemy)

On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. In his inaugural address, given during the Great Depression, he said:

"I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to a speedy adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will confront me. I shall ask the Congress for one remaining instrument to meet the crisis -- broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."

President Roosevelt was going to ask Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him under the War Powers Act. On March the 5th, in Proclamation 2038 he asked for a special session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at noon. At that session he presented an Act to provide for relief in the existing national emergency in banking and for other purposes.

The enabling portion of that Act stated: "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national application."

The ‘doctrine of necessity’ is a rule of law which states that necessity knows no law. An example of the application of this rule is the concept of self defense. While the fundamental law is, "Thou shalt not kill", when your life is being threatened, necessity gives you an absolute right to self-defense, even if you are required to kill to protect yourself. Thus the doctrine of necessity nullifies other laws, allowing one to do that which would normally be unlawful. The wording in the enabling portion of the Act of March 9, 1933 [War and Emergency powers Act] Implied that what followed might be something that would be against the law, against the Constitution of the United States, or else the rule of necessity would not have been invoked.

Title 1, Section 1 of the Act stated: "The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 [Trading With the Enemy Act], as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."

.The Act of March 9, 1933 reaffirmed those powers and has never been canceled and the Rule of Necessity is still in operation. So a declared state of national emergency has been in uninterrupted existed, since 1933. The authority for this action had been conferred in Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. The top right-hand part of the page states:

"An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes."

Section 5 (b) of the Act states: "That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such

rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)".

The United States was involved in World War I and it recognized that there were enemies or allies of enemies of the United States living within the continental limits of our nation. The Act identified the transactions of those declared to be enemies of the United States, and gave the government authority to do as it saw fit with those enemies. But in Section 2(c), and also at the bottom of the page was specified, "other than citizens of the United States." This exclusion of American citizens from the war powers over the enemy was specified because in 1917 it was assumed that the citizens of the United States were certainly not its enemies.

Thus Citizens and their transactions made wholly within the United States, were strictly excluded from the war powers of this Act. They were still protected by the Constitution because they were not the enemies of the government, and it did not exercise authority over them, while over the enemies it was empowered to do anything it deemed necessary. This contrast between the way enemies and citizens of the United States were dealt with was about to change!

Section 2 of the Act says "Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 1, 1917, (40 Stat. L 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows;"

"During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by persons within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

From now on, during any ‘emergency’, where commercial, monetary or business transactions were concerned, the United States Citizens were regulated by the same controls originally directed solely at the enemies of the country. The phrase from the Act of 1917, imposing restrain only over trade “other than… transactions to be executed wholly within the United States” was replaced with "by any persons within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." All monetary transactions, whether foreign or domestic, were placed within the regulatory control of the President of the United States through the amendments provided in the Act of 1933.

While previously Congress in 1917, had clearly differentiate between the regulatory control to be exercised over all transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental borders, and the exclusion of such restraint afforded to citizens of the United States, now Section 2 of the Act of March 9, 1933, regulated all trading "by persons within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof." United States Citizens became subject to the controls of the Trading with the enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, previously intended only to regulate the enemy, and from that time Citizens have been treated no differently than enemies.