10,000 Leagues Under the SEE
Britain was first invaded in 55 BC. by Julius Caesar, then again in 54 BC. In
63 AD.
Joseph of Arimathea was sent by the Pope in Rome
to try and establish the Catholic Church in Britain. In 77 AD. Britain was taken over through conquest
by Rome.
The Imperial
governor Julius Agricola was put in place to rule over Rome's new
territory. Britain
was as of 77 AD. subject to
Rome,
with
Roman law.
In
407
AD. Emperor Constantine III withdrew the Roman troops from Britain
leaving a political vacuum.
The Celts (Irish) and the Vikings (Scandinavians) saw an opening to
obtain
land. In 410 AD. Britain
won
its independence from Rome, when the
Goths
ransacked Rome.
In
446
AD. the British government sought help to defeat the invading arms of
the
northern countries. Rome
was unable to send troops because it was defending itself from Attila
the Hun.
So Rome offered mercenaries to aid Britain, Britain
hired these barbaric mercenaries which were from northern Germany,
they as you know are
called Saxons.
In
450
AD. the Saxon barbarians began to massacre the Britons and take their
land; in
this manner they occupied the country of Britain. The Saxons were
pagans
some believed the Druid religion, others worshiped the same gods Rome worshiped,
mercury
and Venus, etc. etc.
The
long
and short of it is the Saxons were not responsible for a Common law by
themselves. They were not Christians and did not support Cannon or
ecclesiastical law, and their law was influenced greatly by Roman law.
The
major difference was the Saxon king called himself king of the English,
and
William the Conqueror called himself king of England, meaning, William
the
Conqueror claimed he owned the land and the Saxon king made no such
claims.
Under Saxon law citizen meant freeman, and under Roman law, continuing
in England
in 1066 under William Conqueror, citizen meant subject. Under both
systems you
were forced to pay taxes to support the government. A tax payer is
always a
subject, so under William the Conqueror, he left no doubt as to your
status,
the Saxon kings were more subtle, the outcome is the same. Taxation and
the
subjection it confirms, is not always a bad thing. It depends on the
government. Case in point, those that are Christians, are subject to
Jesus
Christ and are taxed 10% to support His government.
Look
at
what happened at Runnymede with the
Magna
Charta, the Barons thought they were gaining freedom, by the king
granting
those rights under the Charta. However, if they had stopped to read the
1213
Charta, wherein the king granted and ceded the Pope all of his lands,
they
would have known the king could not grant the rights without the
blessing of
the Pope. Did not the Pope sign off on the Charta of 1215, as a party
to the
Contract? Ask yourself this, did the granted rights end their tax
obligations
to the king, or the Pope? No. So is the granting of rights a problem or
hindrance to the money lenders? No. Did the 1215 Charta in anyway
overturn the
obligations of the 1213 Charta? No, and they could not. Here is another
reason.
Guess
what America, and the rest of the free world, that claim their rights
come from
the Magna Charta, which was ratified by Pope Innocent III and of course
the
king under duress on June 15, 1215, on August 24, 1215, Pope
Innocent III Declared that the Magna
Charta was null and void, [(Geary) 49.3 August 24, 1215
parliamentary origins in
England, Internet Medieval Source Book.]
To
continue, Edward I, in 1297 was forced to re-declare the 1215 Magna
Charta,
because the Pope forbid his monks and bishops etc. etc., to pay taxes
to the
king, so the king began to tax the Barons again, and they drew their
swords.
King Edwards action holds less weight than that of his predecessor king
John,
because as of August 24, 1215 the Charta was an invalid
document. Not to mention the
issue I raised earlier concerning debt
obligations of a previous Charter could not be voided.
The
Pope
by his confirmation of the Magna Charta was jerking the chains of the
Barons,
so to speak. As I said in earlier papers, there was no way the Pope
would give
up what was granted/ceded to him in the 1213 Charter. The Magna Charta
could
not void an earlier Charter which contained a debt
obligation between parties, without all parties agreeing.
Since the
parties of the 1213 Charter would continue to be born, it was an
irrevocable
trust.
As
example, read the 1689 Declaration
of Rights,
which became law. Did it, or could it overturn any financial
obligations under
previous Charters? No. Read the third section of the 1689 Declaration
of
Rights. It says if any provision of the Declaration comes into conflict
with
earlier Charters, the Declaration will be as if it were never written.
Do
you
see how not only Americans, but the entire world have been conned into
thinking
we are free? Every time the king has been challenged, the king grants
rights to
the combatants and they go home saying "WE WON", however nothing
changed, because the king retained his power to tax, through previous
Charters
and new tax obligations created by accepting the kings benefits.
Another
example, the Declaration of Independence and the war of Independence that
followed, is no different
than any other time in the history in challenging the king. The king
said, OK,
I will grant my created Corporations, the states, Independence and allow them to
establish
their own governments. But the
governors
retained the power granted by the king and the council of state. The states then consolidated their
corporate Charters
under one Charter, called the U.S. Constitution. Could the
tax
obligations of previous Charters be removed by our Declaration of
Independence,
or a war which did not remove the control of the king, which is obvious
since
in the peace Treaty of Paris he was granting us land? No.
No
where
in the 1783 Paris
peace treaty will you find granted rights to the inhabitants of the
states. No
where in the treaty will you find where the taxes of gold, silver and
copper
(mineral rights) were ceded to the states. So much for allodial title
in the
states, freeman status and allodial title are synonymous, you can't
have one
without the other. Since the king did not cede all of his corporate
enterprise
he retained his taxation and the subjection of those that enjoy his
benefits.
"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, 1663
"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
Nothing
has changed the parties of interest still rule. It is our pitiful lack
of
knowledge and understanding of history, which causes us to hang our
hats (Independence)
on documents
that maintain and did not change our subjection. Does this sound
familiar to
what has happened to the blacks? They assumed, since they were made
citizens
and given more rights, that they were now free. As you know a 14th Amendment citizen is subject to its creator, who granted their rights,
the
corporation and the trusties, subject to the contracting parties, the
Crown and
the Pope. Maybe, now you know why history repeats itself, it has the
same
authors.
[Tripoli Treaty Article 11 signed on November 4, 1796]
In
a late
18th century treaty reached by America
with certain Muslim pirates of the African coast, one part of which,
Article
11, states:
“As the government of the United States of
America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself
no
character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of
Musselmen,-and
as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against
any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext
arising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the
harmony
existing between the two countriesâ€
“No! We're not a Christian Country. We've
never been a
Christian Country. We're a secular Country, by our constitution. In
which
Christians live and which many Christians have a voice. But we're not a
Christian Country.†[Billy Graham May 30, 1997]
U.S. Constitution: Article VI
Clause 2. Supremacy of
the Constitution, Laws and Treaties
The
Constitution is not the Supreme Law of the Land just as much as Case
Law is
not. The Supreme Law of the Land are the Contracts, Agreements, and/or
Treaties.
Article
VI, Section 2, of the U.S. Constitution is known as the Supremacy
Clause
because it provides that the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States
… shall be the supreme Law of the Land." It means that the federal
government, in exercising any of the powers enumerated in the
Constitution,
must prevail over any conflicting or inconsistent state exercise of
power.
This Constitution, and the
Laws of the United States which
shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which
shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the
Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
King
George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman
Empire and of the United States of America." [Treaty of
Paris
1763 & The
Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 8 U.S. Statutes at Large 80]
Exchequer is
“That
department of the English government which has the charge of the
collection of
the national revenue; the treasury department. [Black’s Law 5th Edition pg 506]
The Holy Roman
Empire, Great Britain,
France,
Spain, Portugal, and Ireland signed the [Treaty
of Paris
1763] which stated that they would not fund each others adversaries in
a time
of war.
In violation of the [Treaty of
Paris 1763] France loaned
the Charters of Britain's North American Colonies eighteen (18) million
livres
(gold coin) in the Colonies efforts to defend “their selves and their
posterity†(financial interests of the Charters) from Great
Britain’s  taxation over the [Stamp Act 1765]
and
the [French and Indian War of 1763].
On
February 6, 1778, the United States
entered into a Treaty of Alliance with France
(8 Stat. 6). On July 16, 1782, they borrowed substantial sums
from King Louis
XVI of France,
via an agreement signed by
French Foreign Minister Charles Gravier de
Vergennes.
King
George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman
Empire and of the United States of America." [Treaty of
Paris
1763 & The
Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 8 U.S. Statutes at Large 80]
The Declaration of
Independence was signed by 56
signatories in 1776 thereby claiming their international right of self
determination. They pledged “their†lives†theirâ€
liberty “their†sacred honor, and “their†prosperity.
They gave 100% of everything they had for “their†sovereignty and
ability for self governance. The rest of “the people†were still
under Britain’s
Authority as subject citizens.
Great Britain then purchased the debt
that France
loaned the Britain North
American Colonies to amend the violation of the Treaty of Paris 1763.
Now Great Britain
owned the debt of the Colonies.
The
rich
ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender.
[Proverbs 22:7]
“The Founders†(56 signers
of the compact) had
hired mercenaries from the borrowed money via France to fight King
George due
to Stamp Act and various legislative parliament acts. The mercenaries
demanded
that they be paid. The state Georgia
refused to pay stating they were sovereign. They were NOT. [CHISHOLM
v. GEORGIA
1793]
Citizens
are not sovereign they are subjects, and subjects are slaves. The 56
signers were
truly sovereign. The 56 signers maintained the power to tax the
subjects/citizens of the states jurisdictions through concurrent
jurisdictions
set up through the various Royal Charters by the King i.e. Virginia
Charter, Massachusetts Bay Co. East India
Trading Co. for the repayment of the
debt via
land grants. And something that is granted may be un-granted. This is
why rent
is paid because TENANTS don’t own land.
 The conscripted mercenary
armies surround the
“Founders†in Philadelphia
and demanded they be paid. The Founders had to flee to Annapolis and
sued the king for peace. [Paris Peace Treaty 1783] The King agreed and
recognized those
56 signers as sovereigns. Sovereigns without subjects! The rest of the
subjects
still belonged to the King. Citizens are not sovereigns, and tenants
rent land.
The King of
England financially backed both sides of the Revolutionary war. (Treaty at Versailles
July 15, 1782,
Treat of Peace 8 Stat 80)
On
January 22,
1783 Congress
ratified a contract for the
repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received
dating from February
28, 1778
to July 5,
1782.
The UNITED STATES owed Great Britain
money which was due January 1, 1788
to King George. [Contract
Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America,
signed at Versailles
July 16, 1782.]
King George was not just the
King of England; he was also
the King of France. [The Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783
U.S.
8
Statutes at Large 80.]
“One
thing only I must remind you of in point of form. When a treaty is
signed
between two Crowned Heads in order to prevent disputes about
presidency, the
name of the one stands first in one instrument and that of the other in
the
other but when the Treaty is between a crowned Head and a Republic, the
name of
the Monarch is mentioned first in each instrument. I believe if you
will
inquire upon this subject among the Corps Diplomatique, you will find
this to
have been the constant practice.
Hartley replied
as follows under date of
September 1:
The treaties
are drawn out for signature
as you have expressed it viz: giving precedence to the Crowned Head. The American Ministers never had a thought
of
disputing the priority or equality of rank & therefore I have had
no
occasion to mention the subject.†[British-American
Diplomacy Treaty of Paris
- Hunter Miller's Notes]
BRITISH
TROOPS DID NOT LEAVE UNTIL 1796 [Republican v. Sweers
1 Dallas 43, Treaty of Commerce 8 Stat 116, The society for Propagating
the
Gospel & c. v. New Haven
8 Wheat 464, Treaty of Peace 8 Stat 80, IRS Publication 6209, Articles
of
Association October 20, 1774.]
And
once again, King
George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman
Empire and of the United States of America." [Treaty of
Paris
1763 & The
Definitive Treaty of Peace 1783 8 U.S. Statutes at Large 80]
Britain is
owned by the Vatican.
On
National Canon Law. Page 53
The Holy See and civil
governments may be annulled by the Pope. There can be
no
doubt that the Holy See is bound, as a general rule, to observe these
agreements. 15 We say,
as a
general rule; for it is commonly held by canonists that the Pontiff may
recede
from concordats when there are just reasons for so doing. In fact, it
is controverted
whether concordats are contracts proper or mere privileges. Again, it
seems to
be commonly admitted that in all agreements entered into by the Sovereign Pontiff this condition
is
understood: Nisi aliud exigat causa gravis et
extraordinaria propter bonum commune
ecclesiae. (In other words, unless you show cause
of
extraordinary evidence that you are not ruled by the Pope you’re
presumed
to be ruled by The Holy See.)
ART.
II.
Of
American Canon La\v, or of the National Canon Law of the United States.
106. Question. What is
meant by American canon law?
Answer. By the national
eccl. law of this country we under stand the various derogations from
the jus commune, or
the different customs that
exist among the churches in the United States, and are
sanctioned or tolerated
by the Roman Pontiff. 18 We
say, are sanctioned or tolerated by the Roman Pontiff; for, as was
seen, no
national law can become legitimate except by at least the tacit or
legalÂ
consent of the Pope. Again, the jus
particulare of a nation always remains subject to the
authority of
the Holy See in such manner as to be repealable at any time by it.
Hence, the
jus nationtie, or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the (continue)
Page
54 (continued) On National Canon Law.
United
States, may be abolished at
any time by
the Sovereign
Pontiff.
107. Peculiar Features of
our National Canon Law.
The Oo-eneral character
of the national canon law of the United States, as contained
in the
Plenary Councils of Baltimore and in the decrees of the Provincial and
Diocesan
Synods of this country, is that of a missionary country i.e., of a
country
which is not yet converted to the faith. Now, in missionary countries
the
disciplinary organization or regime of dioceses is naturally imperfect
and
inchoative in the beginning, and only develops itself gradually, in
proportion
as the faith spreads and the Church flourishes. As a rule, the S. C. de
P. F.
at first appoints for such a country a priest in the capacity of
Praefectus
Apostolicus. Afterwards, when the diocesan organization is more
advanced, it
appoints a Vicarins Apostolicus, who is made a titular bishop, i.e., a
bishop
in part. inf. Lastly, when the diocesan organization has progressed
farther,
bishops with residentiary sees are appointed. Still, even these bishops
and
their dioceses remain under the sole direction of the S. Congr. de
Prop. Fide,
and retain their missionary character until the diocesan regime becomes
perfected
to such a degree as to be in full conformity with the sacred canons.
108. The organization of
parishes in missionary countries progresses in a similar gradual
manner. At
first, there will be simple missionaries travelling from place to
place, and gathering
together small and scattered congregations which will be nothing but
missions.
As these missions or congregations grow and prosper, they assume the
character
of quasi-parishes with fixed limits, and the missionary becomes a
resident
rector or quasi- parocJnis, and should not be removed by the bishop
without
sufficient cause. Finally, when the quasi parish has acquired a stable
existence and become possessed of sufficient income for the maintenance
of
divine worship, whether in the form of pew-rents, collections, etc., or
of
other sources, it is raised to the dignity of a parish in the full and
canonical sense of the term, and its rector becomes a canonical parish
priest
proper. The decrees of the respective Plenary, Provincial, and Diocesan
Synods
regulating this peculiar condition of things constitute the national
canon law
of a missionary country.â€
Stated:
“It is
agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful
impediment to
the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts
heretofore contracted.â€
George
Washington divided the States
(Estates) into Districts. [Messages and
papers of the Presidents Vo 1, pg 99. Webster’s 1828 dictionary for
definition of Estate.]
“All bills of credit
emitted, monies borrowed, and
debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the
assembling
of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall
be
deemed and considered as a charge against the United States, for
payment and
satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."
On September 17, 1787 Nine State delegates
approve the Constitution. The other
four states silently acquiesced and it was ratified despite the rules under the articles of
confederation of a
unanimous decision. [Anti-Federalist Papers]The States have now become Constitutors.
Constitutor: “In the civil
law, one who, by simple
agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt.†[Blacks Law Dictionary 5th Edition page 282]
Constitutum: In the civil law,
an agreement to pay a
subsisting debt which exists without any stipulation in that it must be
for an
existing debt.†[Blacks Law 5th Edition
page
283]
Constitutio: “In civil law,
an imperial ordinance,
decree, or constitution, distinguished from Lex,
Senatus-Consultum, and other kinds of law and having its
effect from
the sole will of the emperor. A sum paid according to an
agreement.†[Blacks Law 5th edition page 282]
Constitutiones: “Laws
promulgated, i.e., enacted by
the Roman Emperor…The emperor had this power of irresponsible
enactment by virtue of a certain lex
regia,
whereby he was made the fountain of justice and of mercy.†[Blacks
Law 5th Edition page 283]
“‘Civil
Law,’
‘Roman Law’ and
‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible
phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence.â€
[Black’s 3rd p
332.]
Article XI section I of
the U.S.
Constitution
Keeps the loans from the King
valid it states; "All
Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of
this
Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this
Constitution, as under the Confederation."
Article I Section XIII
Clause II of the U.S.
Constitution
states that “Congress
has the power to
borrow money on the faith and credit of the United States.†This was needed so
the United States
(Which went into
Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788)
could borrow money and then because the States were a party to the
Constitution
they would also be liable for it.
The States were now liable for
the debt owed to the King,
but the people of America
were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it
was never
put to them for a vote.
An Act making provision for
the payment of the Debt of the
United States
was passed on August 4th, 1790 which can be found at [1 U.S.
Statutes at
Large pages 138-178.] This
Act
for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the
Districts. In
this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next
step was
for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790.
This had
to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the
debt.
The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for
a vote.
So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people
for a
vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain.
The people became
citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of
the United States.
A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is synonymous with
subject.
If one goes to 8
U.S.
statutes at large 116-132 you will find "The
Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation". This Treaty was signed on November
19th,
1794 which was
twelve years after
the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states that the King's Troops were still
occupying the United
States.
The troops would return to England
by June 1st, 1796.
On
September 30th, 1783 Benjamin
Franklin, Esquire,
John Adams, Esquire,
and John Jay, Esquire,
negotiated the terms of the debt
repayment to Great
Britain. [Definitive Peace Treaty of Paris
1783]
Benjamin Franklin Esquire was working for Great Britain,
United States, and France.
He was a triple agent who studied the works of Sir
John Dee of Great Britain, who was
known as Agent 007.
[Secret Mysteries of Americas
Beginnings]
Esquire defined in Merriam
Dictionary means:
1 : a member
of the
English gentry ranking below a knight
2 : a candidate for
knighthood serving
as shield bearer and attendant to a knight
3 —used
as a
title of courtesy usually placed in its abbreviated form after the
surname <John R. Smith, Esq.>
4 archaic : a landed proprietor
“When
people desired to come to this country for the purpose of settlement,
it was
necessary
for them to·
obtain permission from the government interested in that portion of the
new
country which they expected to occupy. The permits thus granted formed
the
basis of the new governments set upon this side of the Atlantic.
Sometimes these permits were granted by the king to a company, whose
members
either sent out colonists to the new country or came themselves as
colonists.
Such permits were known as Royal Charters and were in reality a form of
constitution granted by the king to the colonists, defining their
rights and
privileges. They usually outlined the form of government, providing for
a
governor and council. Sometimes these permits were granted to
individuals
called proprietors, and the governments set up by them were called
Proprietary
Governments. These proprietors in turn granted charters to their
colonists, so
that in general the government of charter colonies and of proprietary
governments was very similar. In time, however, all but a few of the
colonies
lost or surrendered their charters, passed under the direct
Government
of the mother country (England),
and came to be known as Royal Provinces. In the royal provinces the
king could
rule with greater freedom. He appointed the governor and the colonial
judges,
and everywhere except in Massachusetts,
the governor's council also.
Notwithstanding
this, the colonists' retained no small measure of self-government.†[Berle's_Self_Culture_p304]
These men were
"proprietors" of
companies...the East India Company being the "Grand Corporation" with
its "red, white, and blue" striped flag. In fact, here are some of the
flags of the East India Company....let's see if this gives you a clue:
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
You don't think
that they knew that they
were still subservient to the Crown.....read the letter from Hartley of
Parliament and US Foreign Affairs Secretary: Fox......
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/parisno.asp
NOTE REGARDING THE ALTERNAT
The form of the treaty was the subject of
some correspondence between
Fox, Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and Hartley. Copies of the
letters
are in Bancroft's Transcripts, Hartley's Negotiations, II, 53, 57, NYPL
On August
21, 1783,
Fox wrote to Hartley:
“One
thing only I must remind you of in point of form. When a treaty is
signed
between two Crowned Heads in order to prevent disputes about
presidency, the
name of the one stands first in one instrument and that of the other in
the
other but when the Treaty is between a crowned Head and a Republic, the
name of
the Monarch is mentioned first in each instrument. I believe if you
will
inquire upon this subject among the Corps Diplomatique, you will find
this to
have been the constant practice.
Hartley replied
as follows under date of
September 1:
The treaties
are drawn out for signature
as you have expressed it viz: giving precedence to the Crowned Head. The American Ministers never had a thought
of
disputing the priority or equality of rank & therefore I have had
no
occasion to mention the subject.†[British-American
Diplomacy Treaty of Paris
- Hunter Miller's Notes]
"Mr.
American"....since
"your American Ministers" never thought of disputing the priority or
EQUALITY OF RANK...that being the Crown had "Precedence".....then
where does that leave you? Subject that is "subjected", correct?
Article XI U.S.
Constitution
Statesâ€
All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the
Adoption
of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States
under this
Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the
Laws of the
United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all
Treaties
made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the
United
States, shall be the supreme
Law of the
Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
The Senators and
Representatives before
mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all
executive
and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several
States,
shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;
but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or
public Trust under the United States.â€
That’s
International Treaties dealing with the International Public Order
i.e., The
High Contracting Parties i.e., the Pope. All Treaties signed are the
Supreme
Law of the Land. Therefore Contract
Law is
the Supreme Law of the Land, not the con-stitution!
Furthermore, you cannot
dispute the debt or it will be in surmounting
of insurrection and rebellion. Slavery is illegal as involuntary
servitude.
However, voluntary servitude is not.
14th
Amendment, Amendment XIV Section 4 U.S. Constitution
States that “The validity of
the
public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including
debts
incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in
suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall
assume or pay
any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion
against the
United States,
or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such
debts,
obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.â€
Article
I Section
8 U.S.
Constitution
States
“The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties,
imposts
and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and
general
welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall
be
uniform throughout the United States;
“To borrow
money on the credit of
the United States;â€
“To define
and punish piracies and
felonies committed on the high
seas,
and offenses against the law
of nations;â€
The
constitution makes a reference to the “Law of Nations.†Ask a
constitutional expert what exactly is the “Law of Nations†and your
response might be shocking. They study the constitution, why don’t
they
study the Law of Nations? What is the Law of Nations? It is Public
international law. And it is the Supreme Law of the Land.
The Law of Nations is International Law. “the law
which
regulates the intercourse of nations; the law of nations. The customary
law
which determines the rights and regulates the intercourse of
independent
nations in peace and war.†[Blacks Law 5th Edition page
733]
“Public international
law concerns
the structure and conduct
of sovereign states, analogous entities, such as the Holy See, and intergovernmental organizations. To a lesser degree,
international law also may affect multinational corporations and
individuals.â€
“The field of study combines two main
branches:
the law of nations (jus
gentium) and international
agreements and conventions (jus
inter gentes), which have different theoretical
foundations and
should not be confused.â€
“Public international law should not be
confused
with "private international law",
which is concerned with the resolution of conflict
of laws. In its most general sense, international law "consists of
rules and principles of general application dealing with the conduct of
states
and of intergovernmental organizations and with their relations inter se,
as well as with some of their
relations with persons, whether natural or juridical.â€
What is the Holy See? The Holy See is From
the Latin Sancta Sedes,
Holy Chair. A term derived
from the enthronement-ceremony
of the bishops
of Rome.
The papal enjoyed
reservations of benefices, customary
in the Middle Ages.
The
terms "Holy
See" and "Apostolic See"
Every episcopal
see is considered holy. In Greek, the adjective "holy" or
"sacred" (á¼±ÎµÏ Î¬) is constantly
applied to all
such sees as a matter of course. In the West, the adjective is not
commonly
added, but it does form part of an official title of two sees: as well
as Rome, the Bishopric of Mainz (the former
Archbishopric of Mainz),
which was also of electoral and primatial rank, bears the title of "the
Holy See of Mainz" (Latin: Sancta
Sedes
Moguntina).
The
term
"see" comes from the Latin word "sedes", meaning
"seat", which refers to the Episcopal throne (cathedra).
The
term "Apostolic
See" can refer to any see founded by
one of the Apostles, but, when used with the definite article, it is
used in
the Catholic Church to refer specifically to the see of the Bishop of
Rome,
whom that Church sees as successor of Saint Peter, the chief of the
apostles. [Catholic Encyclopedia]
[Wikipedia]
The Pope
claims to own the entire planet through the laws of conquest and
discovery. [Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex]
The Pope has
ordered the genocide and enslavement of millions of people. [Papal Bulls of 1455 and 1493] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanus_Pontifex
The Pope's
laws are obligatory on everyone. [Bened. XIV., De Syn.
Dioec,
lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844)(Syllabus, prop 28, 29, 44][ Elements
of
Ecclesiastical Law Vol. 1 53-54]
Civil
Governments are the Popes governments. If there is any doubt to the
validity of
any and all references they can be found also in another location other
than
the Avalon Project of Yale as to provide a double witness to the
accounts that
have taken place which have formed history and the current state of
affairs.
You may find think link below titled “European Treaties Bearing on
the
History of the United
Statesâ€
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=23628818
Joseph
Phillips-
Contact
Minister
His
Church at Cottonwood
