oder ist er in den Fällen des § 258 Abs. 2 als Amtsträger zur Mitwirkung bei der Vollstreckung der Strafe oder Maßnahme berufen, so ist die Strafe Freiheitsstrafe von sechs Monaten bis zu fünf Jahren, in minder schweren Fällen Freiheitsstrafe bis zu drei Jahren oder Geldstrafe.
The VATICAN has owned Britain since 1213 thus the VATICAN owns the American Colonies – The United States..
The below Compilation of facts were taken from my research papers and excerpts of my email responses to others. I am trying to cut down on the size of the information and my commentary, to let the facts speak for themselves. I am using old email since the facts remain the same, along with questions possessed to me.
To help in researching the below facts I have broken them into differnt topics. You can do a text search of the following topics, or do a word search, using your word processor.
1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS.
2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS?
3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS.
4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM.
5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER.
6. THE KING RULES BY VAGUE STATUTES.
7. LAW OF MORTMAIN.
8. THE 1787 CONSTITUTION WAS ABROGATED BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT.
1. WHEN CONTRACTS OVERRULE DECLARED RIGHTS.
“The reason I guess no one has looked at the issue of the U.S. still being subject to Britain except for the Informer and myself up until now, can only be, as a rule no one looks beyond what is a settled fact/belief or foregone conclusion. In other words Independence from Britain was as settled in the minds of Americans as God Almighty sitting on the throne and His Son seated at His Right Hand.” (quote from my email response)
THE PARIS PEACE TREATY (PEACE TREATY of 1783):
“In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, KING OF GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND IRELAND, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and PRINCE ELECTOR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE ETC., and OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, to FORGET all past MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND DIFFERENCES that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to RESTORE,….”
“YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same, the yearly Rent of Twenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First payment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which shall be in the year of Our Lord One thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver Ore which, with the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time, happen to be found.”
(Feast of All Saints occurred November 1 of each year.) The Carolina Charter
The following quote is from section 25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights. Remember this when you read the 1689 Declaration of Rights, third section,
(contained in this paper).
“And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them.”
“But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it?”
MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70
“SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion due to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same; and Saving also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our Subjects of the English Nation which are now Planted within the Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;…”
The Carolina Charter, 1663
“KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, HAVE thought fit to Erect the same Tract of Ground, Country, and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullness of our Royal power and Prerogative, WE Do, for us, our heirs and Successors, Erect, Incorporate, and Ordain the same into a province, and do call it the Province of CAROLINA, and so from henceforth will have it called…”
The Carolina Charter, 1663
“Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an Act of Assembly of this State passed in 1787, to be law in this State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United States in 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the land. The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from each state, to whom were delegated by the articles of confederation, expressly, “the sole and exclusive right and power of entering into treaties and alliances”; and being ratified and made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and law of every state.
If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all necessary to make the treaty law here, it has been had and repeated. By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to be law in this State, and the courts of law and equity were enjoined to govern their decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty interferes with it, is annulled.”
“By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April, 1777, it was, among other things, enacted, “That all persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State.”
Treaties are the “Law of the Land” HAMILTON v. EATEN, 1 N.C. 641 (1796), HAMILTON v. EATEN. Ä 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.)
“The two main issues as I see them in British Colony are; one, the financial obligations of the 1213 Charter En #1, are still in effect, along with the Charters establishing America. Two, the last sentence of the 1689 Bill of Rights En #2, proves the following:”
“That the Charters of the Colonies could never be overturned by a Declaration of Independence, or the 1787 treaty, otherwise known as the Constitution, I’m talking about the real subject matter, financial obligation. Title for the land was transferred to the states and then ceded by Charter to the federal government under Cestui que trust, but the contracted debt and obligation of the Colonial Charters, and the 1213 Charter could not be negated.
Rights could be granted to the citizens, subjects or combatants, which ever the case may be, but the financial obligation cannot, nor could not be affected, because it involves parties not yet born. This why King Charles I said, the 1689 Bill of Rights would not free the kingdom from the obligation of the 1213 Charter. This is why the United States Bank was given right of Charter in America. George Washington had no choice but to succumb to the Rothchilds point man, Hamilton. Talk about deja vu, I mean does this not sound familiar. Our Bill of Rights was given to us, to give us the illusion of freedom. When the tax obligation of the Charters above marched along un-impeded and un-seen, by Americans and Britons alike. Read the Magna Carta again, they wanted the Pope’s blessing for the 1215 Charter, this same Pope is the Pope in the 1213 Charter where England and Ireland were given to him. He could not just give back his land, because of other parties not yet born. The Pope let the barons presume they were free and gave his blessing to the 1215 Magna Carta, knowing to do so would in no way lawfully overturn the grant made to him in the 1213 Charter. Also, it is apparent, it was recognized as law that you could not even create a Charter, wherein you declared a previous grant or Charter null in void unless the relevant parties agreed. How can a Charter be made void if parties to the Charter will never cease to be born, an heir can always be found. To prove this, again what did the new king Charles I do, even though the previous monarchy had come to an end, its obligations did not, this is why he had to included paragraph III, a clause to protect the other parties of an earlier Charter.”
(The U.S. Is Still A British Colony, part III)
Endnote #1
Britannia: Sources of British History (1213)
KING JOHN’s Concession of England and Ireland to the Pope
In the matter of the election and installation of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, King John, in the words of Pope Innocent III, had by “impious persecution”, tried to “enslave” the entire English Church. As a result, the pope laid on England an interdict (1208-14), a sort of religious “strike”, wherein no religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or innocent. When this didn’t work, the king, himself, was excommunicated. Caving-in under that pressure, John wrote a letter of concession to the pope, hoping to have the interdict and the excommunication lifted (1213). John’s concession which, in effect, made England a fiefdom of Rome, worked like a charm. The satisfied pope lifted lifted the yoke he had hung on the people of England and their king.
John, by the grace of God, king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to all the faithful of Christ who shall look upon this present charter, greeting.
We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope, we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign, moreover, of this our own, we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession we will establish that from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms, for all the service and customs which we ought to render for them, saving in all things the penny of St. Peter, the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling, namely at the feast of St. Michael five hundred marks, and at Easter five hundred marks, seven hundred, namely, for the kingdom of England, and three hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.
Endnote #2
Britannia: Sources of British History
BILL of RIGHTS, 1689
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following,
Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;
By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;
By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;
By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;
By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;
By prosecutions in the Court of King’s Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;
And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;
And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;
And excessive fines have been imposed; And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted; And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;
All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;
And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:
That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the king, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.
And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.
Having therefore an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.
And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.
I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.
I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.
Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties’ royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly.
Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come.
And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties’ royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, king and queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully and entirely invested and incorporated, united and annexed.
And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.
And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any king or queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be for ever incapable to inherit, possess or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every king and queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, “An Act for the more effectual preserving the king’s person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament.”
But if it shall happen that such king or queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such king or queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such king or queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.
II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by “non obstante” of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.
III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.
2. ARE OUR PERCEPTIONS CORRECT OF OUR HISTORY AND FORE FATHERS?
“In May, 1775, Washington said: ‘If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure [as separation from Great Britain], you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked’- He also said: ‘It is not wish or interest of the government [meaning Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence'”
Ingersoll, North American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in Sources of the Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis Stevens, 1927, page 36.
“Jay did not favor independence from Britain. His absence from the signing of the Declaration of Independence was noted by Thomas Jefferson.”
Copyright c 1995 by LeftJustified Publiks. All rights reserved.
“Mr. Chairman … I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my own mind. When I asked the question. I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: The fate of this question and America may depend on this: Have they said, we the States? Have they made a proposal of a compact between States? If they had, this would be a confederation: It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns. Sir, on that poor little thing–the expression, We the people, instead of the States of America. I need not take much pains to show, that the principles of this system, are extremely pernicious, impolitic and dangerous. Is this a Monarchy, like England–a compact between Prince and people; with checks on the former, to secure the liberty of the latter? is this a Confederacy, like Holland–an association of a number of independent States, each of which retain its individual sovereignty?….”
Patrick Henry’s speech of June 5, 1788
REMEMBER THIS PREDICTION OR PATRICK HENRY, WHEN YOU SEE WHAT WASHINGTON DID BELOW AFTER CALLING OUT THE MILITIAS.
“….My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights: or, of waging war against tyrants: It is urged by some Gentlemen, that this new plan will bring us an acquisition of strength, an army, and the militia of the States: This is an idea extremely ridiculous: Gentlemen cannot be in earnest. This acquisition will trample on your fallen liberty: Let my beloved Americans guard against that fatal lethargy that has pervaded the universe: Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia is put into the hands of Congress?”
Patrick Henry’s speech of June 5, 1788
“That Government is no more than a choice among evils, is acknowledged by the most intelligent among mankind, and has been a standing maxim for ages. If it be demonstrated that the adoption of the new plan is a little or a trifling evil, then, Sir, I acknowledge that adoption ought to follow: But, Sir, if this be a truth that its adoption may entail misery on the free people of this country. I then insist, that rejection ought to follow. Gentlemen strongly urge its adoption will be a mighty benefit to us: But, Sir, I am made of such incredulous materials that assertions and declarations, do not satisfy me. I must be convinced, Sir. I shall retain my infidelity on that subject, till I see our liberties secured in a manner perfectly satisfactory to my understanding…..”
Patrick Henry’s speech of June 7, 1788
“….Consider how the only remaining defence we have left is destroyed in this manner; Besides the expences of maintaining the Senate and other House in as much splendor as they please, there
is to be a great and mighty President, with very extensive powers: the powers of a King: He is to be supported in extravagant magnificence: So that the whole of our property may be taken by this American Government, by laying what taxes they please, giving themselves what salaries they please, and suspending our laws at their pleasure: I might be thought too inquisitive.
For I never will give up the power of direct taxation, but for a scourge: But I beseech Gentlemen, at all hazards, not to give up this unlimited power of taxation:
Patrick Henry’s speech of June 7, 1788
In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, 1789-1897 I discovered the following:
Gentlemen of the Senate:
Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled “An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same,” I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:
The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of the State of Georgia.”Page 99 March 4, 1791
In George Washington’s Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he declares the district of Columbia to be created and it’s borders established, he says further:
“And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States….”
THE FOLLOWING IS EMAIL THAT WENT WITH THE ABOVE QUOTE:
This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of ……This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of……, but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of….. was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.
Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.
The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. Washington extend this District without Constitutional authority. Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the District States. As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States. THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED. The Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the federal government could use the militias to crush the tax protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington’s order. Since the Judicial Districts already existed, why did they recreate them? Washington said he was dividing the United States into District States. He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE STATES, not creating districts in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you would not DIVIDE THEM, because the states were already divided. How can you DIVIDE, SEPARATE the states, made by the state and federal Charters/Constitutions? Why do this when Congress already had the power to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution? This was an excuse to DIVIDE the states into DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia/Congress and delegating to the President, authority given to Congress to suppress insurrection, under Art. I, sec. 8.
Second, the use of any military power before Congress declares war, by direction of the President is done by him as Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stop the President unless they impeach him, or when they declare war they can stop the President with their power of the purse, unless the President were to then declare a national emergency, as Commander-in-Chief, overriding Congress, in effect declaring himself king, or in our case anyone holding that office, which we now have. I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergency powers claimed by the President, but unless the Judiciary declares the President out of line, you or I cannot change this, unless you or I were elected President, and declared this power un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to protect public policy. Around and Around it goes. Again this power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction, insular capacity, see DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), which was allowed by the Judiciary, beginning with what Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare what Congress was doing as un-Constitutional, and up to Washington to not take power delegated to Congress. This power was affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the 1850’s by the insular cases. This created precedent for Congress to continue to cede power to the President, delegated to them in the Constitution.
Third, the Districts Washington created answered directly to the Commander-in-Chief, not Congress. In order for these Districts to be created by the President, Congress had to give the President power outside of the Constitution, as declared by Washington himself. Martial law can be used as soon as the military is called upon to put down insurrection or fight a war. Washington created District States, not state districts, and the military occupied the Pennsylvania District until the insurgents went home, Washington said these Districts were created for putting down the rebellion, however they were never disbanded when the rebellion ended.” END EMAIL
3. FACTS OF THE KINGS MIND SET CONCERNING HIS CHARTERS
(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared “That he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend.” The determined language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and Commons.
In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion “That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain.”
The History of the American Revolution, Vol. 2, Ramsay, 617-9
“If America gives you taxable objects on which you lay your duties here, and gives you, at the same time, a surplus by a foreign sale of her commodities to pay the duties on these objects which you tax at home, she has performed her part to the British revenue. But with regard to her own internal establishments, she may, I doubt not she will, contribute in moderation. I say in moderation, for she ought not to be permitted to exhaust herself. She ought to be reserved to a war, the weight of which, with the enemies that we are most likely to have, must be considerable in her quarter of the globe. There she may serve you, and serve you essentially. For that service – for all service, whether of revenue, trade, or empire – my trust is in her interest in the British Constitution. My hold of the Colonies is in the close affection which grows from common names, from kindred blood, from similar privileges, and equal protection. These are ties which, through light as air, are as strong as links of iron. Let the Colonists always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government, they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775
“But my idea of it is this; that an empire is the aggregate of many states under one common head, whether this head be a monarch or a presiding republic.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775
“What was it Franklin said, when asked what government have you given us, in reply he said a Republic. Our fore fathers were protecting their ass-ets and seeking to remain subject to the king in a hidden way. For which they were to receive further privileges. I would love to be able to look into the old English records and see if their personal land holdings in England increased, after the 1783 Peace Treaty and the 1787 Constitution/Charter were approved, by an unsuspecting public.”
(quote from my email response)
“Men may lose little in property by the act which takes away all their freedom. When a man is robbed of a trifle on the highway, it is not the two-pence lost that constitutes the capital outrage.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775
“The people heard, indeed, from the beginning of these disputes, one thing continually dinned in their ears, that reason and justice demanded that the Americans, who paid no taxes, should be compelled to contribute.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775
“Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”
Speech of Sir Edmund Burke, before the House of Commons, March 22, 1775
Adam Smith also gives incite into the kings mind set in regards to the colonies paying for the benefits they receive from him, and as to the contributions they should pay and how it is to be done.
“Their wealth was considered as our wealth. Whatever money was sent out to them, it was said, came all back to us by the balance of trade, and we could never become a farthing the poorer by any expense which we could lay out upon them. They were our own in every respect, and it was an expense laid out upon the improvement of our own property and for the profitable employment of our own people.”
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith
OUR FORE FATHERS WANTED THE BENEFITS AND PRIVILEGES WITHOUT PAYING THE TAX TO THE KING.
“Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council: and as the English colonists are not represented, and from their local and other circumstances, can not properly be represented in the British Parliament, they are entitled to a free and exclusive power of legislation in their several provincial legislatures, where their right of representation can alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject only to the negative of their sovereign, in such manner as has been heretofore used and accustomed. But, from the necessity of the case, and a regard to the mutual interest of both countries, WE CHEERFULLY CONSENT TO THE OPERATION OF SUCH ACTS OF THE BRITISH PARLIAMENT, as are BONA FIDE, restrained to the regulation of our external commerce, for the PURPOSE OF SECURING THE COMMERCIAL ADVANTAGES OF THE WHOLE EMPIRE TO THE MOTHER COUNTRY, and the COMMERCIAL BENEFITS OF ITS RESPECTIVE MEMBERS; excluding every idea of taxation, internal or ETERNAL, for raising a revenue on the SUBJECTS IN AMERICA, without their consent.” Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774 (The forefathers wanted the commercial benefits without paying the taxes that go hand in hand, it does not work that way Patriots.)
“Resolved, 7. That these, His Majesty’s colonies, are likewise entitled to all the IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES GRANTED and confirmed to them by ROYAL CHARTERS, or secured by their several codes of provincial laws.” Declaration of Rights, from September 5, 1774
“Need I say more, I have been ridiculed by some for what I have said, in respect to our continued subjection to England, and I am sure Al has to. The above quote is further evidence that the king did not relinquish his contract/Charters and land grants/patents to the United States. Instead he preserved his ability to receive gain through his taxes for his investment.
The below quotes will make you realize that the present tax system was put in place by the king and is completely British, and the way they chose to continue to receive the king’s profit from his investment, as declared in his Charters.”
(quote from my email response)
4. WHERE THE PRESENT DAY TAXES COME FROM.
“Before I enter upon the examination of particular taxes, it is necessary to premise the four following maxims with regard to taxes in general.
I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state. The expense of government to the individuals of a great nation is like the expense of management to the joint tenants of a great estate, who are all obliged to contribute in proportion to their respective interests in the estate. In the observation or neglect of this maxim consists what is called the equality or inequality of taxation. Every tax, it must be observed once for all, which falls finally upon one only of the three sorts of revenue above mentioned, is necessarily unequal in so far as it does not affect the other two. In the following examination of different taxes I shall seldom take much further notice of this sort of inequality, but shall, in most cases, confine my observations to that inequality which is occasioned by a particular tax falling unequally even upon that particular sort of private revenue which is affected by it.
II. The tax which each individual is bound to pay ought to be certain, and not arbitrary. The time of payment, the manner of payment, the quantity to be paid, ought all to be clear and plain to the contributor, and to every other person. Where it is otherwise, every person subject to the tax is put more or less in the power of the tax-gathered, who can either aggravate the tax upon any obnoxious contributor, or extort, by the terror of such aggravation, some present or perquisite to himself. The uncertainty of taxation encourages the insolence and favours the corruption of an order of men who are naturally unpopular, even where they are neither insolent nor corrupt. The certainty of what each individual ought to pay is, in taxation, a matter of so great importance that a very considerable degree of inequality, it appears, I believe, from the experience of all nations, is not near so great an evil as a very small degree of uncertainty.
III. Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it. A tax upon the rent of land or of houses, payable at the same term at which such rents are usually paid, is levied at the time when it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay; or, when he is most likely to have wherewithal to pay. Taxes upon such consumable goods as are articles of luxury are all finally paid by the consumer, and generally in a manner that is very convenient for him. He pays them by little and little, as he has occasion to buy the goods.
As he is at liberty, too, either to buy, or not to buy, as he pleases, it must be his own fault if he ever suffers any considerable inconveniency from such taxes.
IV. Every tax ought to be so contrived as both to take out and to keep out of the pockets of the people as little as possible over and above what it brings into the public treasury of the state. A tax may either take out or keep out of the pockets of the people a great deal more than it brings into the public treasury, in the four following ways. First, the levying of it may require a great number of officers, whose salaries may eat up the greater part of the produce of the tax, and whose perquisites may impose another additional tax upon the people. Secondly, it may obstruct the industry the people, and discourage them from applying to certain branches of business which might give maintenance and unemployment to great multitudes. While it obliges the people to pay, it may thus diminish, or perhaps destroy, some of the funds which might enable them more easily to do so. Thirdly, by the forfeitures and other penalties which those unfortunate individuals incur who attempt unsuccessfully to evade the tax, it may frequently ruin them, and thereby put an end to the benefit which the community might have received from the employment of their capitals. An injudicious tax offers a great temptation to smuggling. But the penalties of smuggling must rise in proportion to the temptation. The law, contrary to all the ordinary principles of justice, first creates the temptation, and then punishes those who yield to it; and it commonly enhances the punishment, too, in proportion to the very circumstance which ought certainly to alleviate it, the temptation to commit the crime. Fourthly, by subjecting the people to the frequent visits and the odious examination of the tax-gatherers, it may expose them to much unnecessary trouble, vexation, and oppression; and though vexation is not, strictly speaking, expense, it is certainly equivalent to the expense at which every man would be willing to redeem himself from it. It is in some one or other of these four different ways that taxes are frequently so much more burdensome to the people than they are beneficial to the sovereign.”
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith
“It is not contrary to justice that both Ireland and America should contribute towards the discharge of the public debt of Great Britain. That debt has been contracted in support of the government established by the Revolution, a government to which the Protestants of Ireland owe, not only the whole authority which they at present enjoy in their own country, but every security which they possess for their liberty, their property, and their religion; a government to which several of the colonies of America owe their present charters, and consequently their present constitution, and to which all the colonies of America owe the liberty, security, and property which they have ever since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the defence, not of Great Britain alone, but of all the different provinces of the empire; the immense debt contracted in the late war in particular, and a great part of that contracted in the war before, were both properly contracted in defence of America.”
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith
“The expense of the peace establishment of the colonies was, before the commencement of the present disturbances, very considerable, and is an expense which may, and if no revenue can be drawn from them ought certainly to be saved altogether. This constant expense in time of peace, though very great, is insignificant in comparison with what the defence of the colonies has cost us in time of war. The last war, which was undertaken altogether on account of the colonies, cost Great Britain, it has already been observed, upwards of ninety millions. The Spanish war of 1739 was principally undertaken on their account, in which, and in the French war that was the consequence of it, Great Britain spent upwards of forty millions, a great part of which ought justly to be charged to the colonies. In those two wars the colonies cost Great Britain much more than double the sum which the national debt amounted to before the commencement of the first of them. Had it not been for those wars that debt might, and probably would by this time, have been completely paid; and had it not been for the colonies, the former of those wars might not, and the latter certainly would not have been undertaken. It was because the colonies were supposed to be provinces of the British empire that this expense was laid out upon them. But countries which contribute neither revenue nor military force towards the support of the empire cannot be considered as provinces. They may perhaps be considered as appendages, as a sort of splendid and showy equipage of the empire. But if the empire can no longer support the expense of keeping up this equipage, it ought certainly to lay it down; and if it cannot raise its revenue in proportion to its expense, it ought, at least, to accommodate its expense to its revenue. If the colonies, notwithstanding their refusal to submit to British taxes, are still to be considered as provinces of the British empire, their defence in some future war may cost Great Britain as great an expense as it ever has done in any former war. The rulers of Great Britain have, for more than a century past, amused the people with the imagination that they possessed a great empire on the west side of the Atlantic. This empire, however, has hitherto existed in imagination only. It has hitherto been, not an empire, but the project of an empire; not a gold mine, but the project of a gold mine; a project which has cost, which continues to cost, and which, if pursued in the same way as it has been hitherto, is likely to cost, immense expense, without being likely to bring any profit; for the effects of the monopoly of the colony trade, it has been shown, are, to the great body of the people, mere loss instead of profit.”
1776, AN INQUIRY INTO THE NATURE AND CAUSES OF THE WEALTH OF NATIONS by Adam Smith
5. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SISTER OF THE EXCHEQUER.
Exchequer: “The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king’s debts and duties. It was called exchequer, “scaccharium,” from the checked cloth, resembling a chessboard, which covers the table.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary
Exchequer: “That department of the English government which has charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury department.”
Black’s Law Dictionary 4th ed.
Exchequer: “In English Law. A department of the government which has the management of the collection of the king’s revenue.”
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
Court of Exchequer: “56.The court of exchequer is infe
*****
Die 12 Schlüsselvermutungen
Die alten Preußen wussten schon, wer die größten Spitzbuben in ganzen Land sind. Deshalb verfügte Friedrich Wilhelm I am 15. Dezember 1726 per Kabinettsorder folgendes:
„Wir ordnen und befehlen hiermit allen Ernstes, dass die Advocati wollene schwarze Mäntel, welche bis unter das Knie gehen, unsere Verordnung gemäß zu tragen haben, damit man diese Spitzbuben schon von weitem erkennen und sich vor ihnen hüten kann.“
Diesen Spitzbubenerlass kennen heute leider nur noch die wenigsten Menschen. Leider deshalb, weil die vom Preußenkönig so verachteten Advocati heute noch viel schlimmer ihr Unwesen treiben als zu seiner Zeit. Die Knüppel, die man uns heute weltweit mit über 80 Millionen Gesetzen, Verordnungen, Statuten und Weisungen zwischen die Beine wirft, haben Methode – eine weltweite Methode, die zu durchblicken für den normalen Menschen absolut unmöglich geworden ist. Es ist auch überhaupt nicht wichtig, all diese Methoden der perfiden Unterwerfung zu kennen. Was wir jedoch wissen und kennen sollten, sind die 12 Schlüsselvermutungen der BAR. Denn damit knechten und unterdrücken sie uns. Wer diese Rechtsvermutungen kennt und diese rechtzeitig aus dem Weg räumt, hat gute Chancen, sich aus den „Mühlen der Justiz“ befreien zu können.
Haben Sie irgendwann schon einmal etwas von der British Accreditation Registy kurz BAR gehört?
Wenn Sie kein Anwalt sind, vermutlich eher nicht. Die BAR ist nämlich eine private Verbindung oder Gilde für Anwälte und Richter. Die BAR beherrscht heimlich und für den Laien unsichtbar, das Rechtssystem der Welt. Die Bar ist der Kern des auch bei uns in Deutschland angewendeten Rechtssystems. Über die quasi Zwangsmitgliedschaft in nationalen Anwaltskammern und Verbände sind praktisch alle Anwälte automatisch auch Mitglieder der BAR. Selbst die Bundesanwaltskammer ist direkt mit der IBA (International BAR Assosiation) verbunden. Das Spinnennetz der Advocati hat die ganze Welt im Griff.
Wer heute die richterliche Jurisdiktion eines Gerichtssaales betritt, der unterwirft sich ohne es zu wissen, den 12 Rechtsvermutungen der privaten BAR-Gilde. Frank O`Collins (www.one-haven.org), Forscher auf dem Gebiet des Kanonischen Rechts, hat diese Vermutungen des Rechts aufgedeckt und dabei geholfen, sie den Menschen zugänglich zu machen. Zunächst müssen wir erkennen, dass unsere so genannten Gerichte ohne Ausnahme von der privaten Gilde British Accreditation Registry (BAR) betrieben werden. Staatsgerichte gibt es bekanntermaßen in der BRD seit vielen Jahren nicht mehr. Im Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (GVG) stand einstmals unter §15 „Alle Gerichte sind Staatsgerichte“. Heute lesen wir dort „weggefallen“.
In ihrer Konstruktion erlaubt es die IBA, die aus der britischen, von Rothschild gegründeten BAR hervorging, den internationalen Bänkern die Herrschaft und Kontrolle über das weltweite Recht auszuüben. Das Gewohnheitsrecht (common law) der Menschen musste trickreich durch das Seehandels- und Vertragsrecht ersetzt werden, weil es die Menschen durch viele verfahrenstechnische Schutzmechanismen vor dem angestrebten Recht der Banken schützte. Sowohl das Seehandelsrecht als auch das Vertragsrecht basieren auf Römischem Recht und haben das Kanonische Recht der Kirche als Grundlage. Ein römisches Gericht arbeitet nicht nach irgendwelchen Rechtsgrundsätzen sondern mit Vermutungen des Rechts.
"Fiktion(Erdichtung) ist der Rechtssatz, der eine in Wahrheit nicht bestehende Tatsache als bestehend behandelt. Die Fiktion kann im Gegensatz zur Vermutung nicht durch Gegenbeweis entkräftet werden.‘ (Def. ‚Fiktion‘ S. 146)" Köblers Juristisches Wörterbuch
Wenn demnach die Rechtsvermutungen der privaten BAR-Gilde präsentiert und nicht von uns zurückgewiesen werden, erlangen diese den Status von Tatsachen und werden zur rechtlichen Wahrheit. Insgesamt gibt es mindestens 12 Schlüsselvermutungen der BAR. Diese werden automatisch durch Nichtwiderlegung wahr und sorgen so dafür, dass man uns unbedarfte Rechtsstaatsgläubige im Rechtssystem wesentlich leichter verwursten kann. Sie werden schnell feststellen, dass es sich immer um das genaue Gegenteil von dem Handelt, was wir selbst vermuten. Möglicherweise liegt es genau daran, dass wir vor Gericht fast immer den Kürzeren ziehen. Es geht dort nämlich nicht um Recht sondern ausschließlich um die Rechtsvermutungen der BAR.
1. Die Vermutung der Öffentlichen Aufzeichnung
Sie bedeutet, dass jede Angelegenheit, die vor ein untergeordnetes Römisches Gericht gebracht wird, eine Sache der Öffentlichen Aufzeichnung ist. Die BAR vermutet das genaue Gegenteil. Diese vermutet nämlich, dass die Sache eine geschäftliche Angelegenheit der privaten BAR-Gilde ist. Besteht man nicht ganz deutlich und klar darauf, dass das Verfahren als Angelegenheit öffentlich aufgezeichnet werden soll, verbleibt die Sache vor privaten BAR Gerichten immer im privaten Bereich der BAR Gilde. Damit unterwirft man sich, ohne es zu wissen deren privater Jurisdiktion.
2. Die Vermutung der Öffentlichen Dienstleistung
Alle Mitglieder der privaten BAR Gilde haben einen feierlichen, geheimen und absoluten Eid auf ihre Gilde geschworen. Indem sie zusätzliche Eide auf das Öffentliche Büro schwören, werden sie zu öffentlichen Agenten der Regierung und handeln als „public officials“. Dies widerspricht ihren privaten, höherrangigen Eiden, die sie ihrer Gilde geschworen haben. So lange man nicht offen mittels Anfechtung oder Zurückweisung widerspricht, besteht der Anspruch, dass die Mitglieder der privaten BAR-Gilde legitimierte öffentliche Bedienstete sind und deshalb als Treuhänder unter öffentlichem Eid stehen obwohl sie genau das Gegenteil tun.
3. Die Vermutung des Öffentlichen Eids
Diese besagt, dass alle Mitglieder der privaten BAR-Gilde in der Hoheitsbefugnis als „öffentlicher Bediensteter (public officials) handeln. Sie sind an den feierlichen öffentlichen Eid gebunden und gelten deshalb als ehrenvoll, unvoreingenommen und fair. Dies diktiert dieser öffentliche Eid. Wird diese Annahme nicht offen angefochten, bleibt die Vermutung, dass die Mitglieder der privaten BAR-Gilde unter ihrem öffentlichen Eid und im Widerspruch zu ihrem Gilde-Eid fungieren bestehen. Bei Anfechtung der Vermutung müssen sich solche Individuen für befangen erklären, da sie naheliegender Weise nicht unter öffentlichem Eid stehen sondern private Ziele der BAR verfolgen.
4. Die Vermutung der Immunität
Dies bedeutet, dass Schlüsselmitglieder der privaten BAR-Gilde mit der Handlungsbefugnis von „public officials“ als Richter, Staatsanwälte und Friedensrichter, die einen öffentlichen Eid nach Treu und Glauben geschworen haben, immun gegenüber persönlicher Beanspruchung oder Haftbarkeit sind. Ohne offene Anfechtung und ohne Einforderung dieses Eides besteht jedoch die Rechtsvermutung, dass diese Mitglieder der privaten BAR-Gilde als öffentliche Treuhänder in ihrem Amt immun gegenüber jeglicher persönlicher Rechenschaftspflicht für ihre Handlungen sind.
5. Die Vermutung der gerichtlichen Vorladung
Das Erscheinen vor Gericht erfolgt in der Regel auf eine gerichtliche Vorladung hin. Die Vermutung der gerichtlichen Vorladung bedeutet, dass eine Vorladung gewohnheitsmäßig unwiderlegt bleibt und dass von demjenigen, der vor Gericht erscheint, vermutet wird, dass er seiner Position als Beklagter, Schöffe oder Zeuge sowie der Jurisdiktion des Gerichts zugestimmt hat. Ohne Zurückweisung und Rückgabe der gerichtlichen Vorladung mit einer Kopie der Zurückweisung, die im Vorfeld vor dem Erscheinen protokolliert wurde, gilt die Jurisdiktion und die Position als Angeklagter als anerkannt. Darüber hinaus steht dessen Schuld bereits fest.
6. Die Vermutung der Bewachung
Gewöhnlich bleibt eine Vorladung oder ein Haftbefehl zur Arrestierung unwiderlegt. Deshalb steht fest, dass derjenige, der vor Gericht erscheint, vermutlich ein Gegenstand oder eine Sache ist. Dieser Gegenstand ist haftbar und deshalb durch einen Aufseher in Gewahrsam zu nehmen. Diese Annahme schließt die tote, legale Fiktion der nicht-Mensch Person ein, für welche die Bestimmungen und Regeln der Regierungskonzerne eigentlich geschrieben wurden. Aufseher können nämlich lediglich Besitztümer und Gegenstände rechtmäßig in Gewahrsam nehmen, jedoch keine menschlichen Wesen, die Seelen aus Fleisch und Blut sind. Solange man diese Vermutung nicht offen und unter Zurückweisung der Vorladung und des Gerichtes anficht, steht die Vermutung, dass man ein Besitzgegenstand ist und deshalb rechtmäßig durch Aufseher in Gewahrsam genommen werden darf.
7. Die Vermutung des Gerichts der Aufseher
Es wird vermutet, dass man Ansässiger eines Bezirks einer Kommunalregierung ist, dass man im Reisepass den Buchstaben P für pauper (arm) hat und deshalb unter der Aufsicht der Regierungskräfte und ihrer Agenten steht, die als „Gericht der Aufseher“ (Court of Guardians) fungieren. So lange diese Vermutung nicht offen zurückgewiesen wird, indem man anzeigt, dass man selbst Aufseher und Exekutor der Angelegenheit (Trust) vor dem Gericht ist, besteht die Vermutung, dass man ein Pauper (Armer) aufgrund Verzichts (by default) ist. Ebenso gilt man als schwachsinnig und muss deshalb den Vorschriften des Amtsvorstehers (Justiziar des Amtsgerichte) gehorchen.
8. Die Vermutung des Treuhandgerichts
Die Mitglieder der privaten BAR-Gilde nehmen an, dass man das treuhänderische Gericht als ein „öffentlicher Diener“ und „Regierungsbeschäftigter“ (Personal deutsch) akzeptiert. Dies wird allein schon deshalb unterstellt, weil man ein Römisches Gericht besucht. Da diese Gerichte nur für öffentliche Treuhänder nach den Regeln der Gilde und des Römischen Rechtssystems handeln, gibt es keinen Zweifel daran. Bevor diese Vermutung nicht offen bestritten wird, gilt diese Vermutung als einer der maßgeblichsten Gründe, mit dem sie ihre Jurisdiktion beanspruchen. Nur weil man vor ihnen erschienen ist. Es ist daher unabdingbar klar zu stellen, dass man nur zu Besuch und aufgrund einer Einladung anwesend ist. Man will nur einer Angelegenheit auf den Grund gehen und ist weder Regierungsbeschäftigter noch öffentlicher Treuhänder.
9. Die Vermutung, dass die Regierung in zweierlei Rollen (als Exekutor und Begünstigter) handelt
Die private Bar-Gilde ernennt den Richter/Friedensrichter für die bevorstehende Angelegenheit zum Exekutor, während der Staatsanwalt die Rolle als Begünstigter des Trusts übernimmt. Bevor diese Vermutung nicht offen zurückgewiesen wird und man dem Gericht nicht klar erklärt, dass man selbst der Begünstigte und Exekutor in der Sache (Trust) ist, gilt man als Treuhänder. Man ist in diesem Fall dann aufgrund von Verzicht den Regeln des Richters unterworfen.
10. Die Vermutung des Exekutor de Son Tort
Diese Vermutung bedeutet, dass angenommen wird, der Beklagte sei ein Exekutor de Son Tort, also ein „falscher Exekutor“. Wer seine Rechte als Exekutor und Begünstigter auf seinen Körper, seinen Verstand und auf seine Seele sicherstellen will, fordert damit den „rechtmäßigen“ Richter heraus. Deshalb gaukelt der Richter die Rolle des wahren Exekutors vor und hat das Recht, den „falschen Exekutor“ festzusetzen, zu inhaftieren, mit einem Bußgeld zu belegen oder in eine psychiatrische Untersuchung zu zwingen. Diese Vermutung bestreitet man, indem man sein Standing als Exekutor zusichert und dem Richter die Frage stellt, ob er als Exekutor de Son Tort zu handeln gedenkt. Der Richter wird vermutlich versuchen, Unterstützung von Gerichtsvollziehern und Vollzugsbeamten zu erhalten, um die falschen Ansprüche durchzusetzen.
11. Die Vermutung der Inkompetenz
Diese Vermutung unterstellt uns, zumindest unkundig in Rechtsdingen und deshalb inkompetent zu sein. Man bezweifelt die Fähigkeit, dass wir uns sachgemäß äußern und präsentieren können. Deshalb hat der Richter das Recht, uns festzusetzen, zu inhaftieren, uns mit einem Bußgeld zu belegen oder uns in eine psychiatrische Behandlung zu zwingen. Bevor man diese Vermutung nicht offen bestritten hat mit der Tatsache, dass man sein Standing als Exekutor und Begünstigter kennt und aktiv die gegenteilige Vermutung bestreitet und zurückweist, steht hinsichtlich des Plädoyers fest, dass man inkompetent ist und der Richter alles machen darf, um jemanden gefügig zu halten.
12. Die Vermutung der Schuld
Die Annahme, dass es sich bei der ganzen Angelegenheit um eine private Geschäftsaktivität der BAR-Gilde handelt, führt dazu, dass man schuldig ist, egal ob man auf „schuldig“, gar nicht oder auf „nicht schuldig“ plädiert. Zur Widerlegung dieser Vermutung eignet sich nur ein Affidavit der Wahrheit oder ein Beweissicherungsantrag mit eindringlicher Präjudiz in die öffentliche Aufzeichnung. Auch ein Einwand der mangelnden Schlüssigkeit (call a demurrer) kann vorgebracht werden. Bis dahin steht die Vermutung, dass man schuldig ist und festgehalten werden kann, bis der privaten BAR-Gilde eine Bürgschaft hinterlegt wird, die den Betrag abdeckt, den die Gilde für ihren Profit als ausreichend erachtet.
Wer diese Ausführungen leichtfertig als Blödsinn abtun möchte, ist hiermit gerne aufgefordert, die 12 Schlüsselvermutungen der BAR mit echten Beweisen zu widerlegen.
Dass Anwälte und Richter heute immer noch die gleichen Roben tragen, die Friedrich Wilhelm I einst anordnete, sollte jedem aufmerksamen Menschen allerdings sehr zu denken geben.
Dieser Artikel basiert auf Ausführungen von Al Whitney
*****
_001.png?template=generic)
_002.png?template=generic)
*****
