Deed Poll – Expatriation Part 1

27 Thursday OCT 2011

POSTED BY EOWYNDBH IN UNCATEGORIZED
≈ LEAVE A COMMENT
Tags
Getting Social Security back with interest, sovereignty documents

Deed Poll – Expatriation

A Collateral Notice

Introduction

Our Republic (at time of this writing) is now celebrating the 200th birthday of the Bill of
Rights to our Constitution. Through the wisdom of a few free – thinking men, we have come
incredibly far in 200 years. Our nation has been blessed with prosperity more than any
other in world history. The technology in this country compares with no other. Our
leadership in world politics and economics has no rival. Yet, all this has happened outside
the “house” our predecessors on this continent designed and built.

This fantastic and majestic political building, which our forefathers constructed with their
lives and sacred honor, has fallen into disuse and now sits empty. When it was new, it was
the most beautiful mansion in the world. There was nothing else like it for it was built on a
foundation called the “common law.” The walls were shaped in liberty by a unique
arrangement referred to as the separation of powers and its roof was made of transparent
material to let in the light of the Law. So all encompassing that it is adaptable to any people
regardless of color, race, creed or religion.

It didn’t crumble overnight. What took place was the result of a delusion for people would
never give up liberty knowingly – only through deception. Gradually the deceptive rot took
hold and, one by one, the citizens of the house called a “Republic” moved out for a third
rate structure called a “democracy.”

Napoleon said; “History is a fable agreed upon,” because he knew that history repeats itself,
especially when the history lessons have not been learned or remembered. Thus our history
lessons have fallen into disrepair. Our forefathers founded this nation because they believed
they had a God-given Right to walk away from enslavement to the King. Yet, the very
bondage they walked away from has opened the door for the most subtle slavery this world
has ever known. So subtle is this slavery that the citizens are entrapped by their own
ignorance through offers of enticements called economic benefits. Acceptance of these
benefits sets into operation rules and laws that operate outside the Constitution and thus we
have the largest and most unmanageable bureaucracy that has ever existed. A bureaucracy
bogged in debt because it has taught its people that government is the provider and
problem solver instead of “one people,” the subjects that used to live in that special
mansion known as the Republic, lighted in Law.

The people’s freedom has been lost more because of what they haven’t done than what
they have done. In the pages that follow, you are going to discover why you are an
economic slave and what you can do about the U.S. of A. the Republic. Yes, you can move
back into that mansion known as the Republic for that is what this treatise is about, finding
your key to liberty. Always remember that you are the only one that can take back your
liberty. No one else can do it for you. You can and you must act independently of the
masses. You and the Law are capable of awesome accomplishments in liberty. That is why
Thomas Jefferson’s statement in the Declaration of Independence is as important today as it
was in 1776,

“… it is their [your] right, it is their [your] duty … to provide new guards for their [your]
future security. … and such is now the necessity which constrains them [you] to alter their
[your] former systems of government.”
One man with the Law is a majority.

#########################################################
##################

Right of Expatriation

This Act was Enacted the Day Previous to the Enactment of the 14 th Amendment

And is intended as the Remedy from the said amendment

CHAP. CCXLIX – An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a “natural and inherent right” of all people,
indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;

and whereas in the recognition of this principle, this government has freely received
emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it
is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign
states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the
maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and
finally disavowed; Therefore, July 27, 1868.

Facts to be communicated to Congress.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any
officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of
expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this
government.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, that all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in
foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same
protection of persons and property that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations
and circum-stances.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President
that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under
the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to
demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be
wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the President shall forthwith
demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed
or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of
war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the
facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the
President to Congress. Approved, July 27, 1868.

Divine Right of Kings

Human enslavement has taken all sorts of forms since the beginning of time. The most
insidious form is when one individual, such as a king, claims that God gave him the right of
enslavement. This is called The Divine Right of Kings. At the root of this assumed right is
basic feudal slavery. The divine right, the King of England claimed, was the right to have
absolute authority over every one of his subjects so they could not leave his political-
religious jurisdiction. That is, the king’s subjects did not have the right to expatriate,
according to his assumed divine right over them.
The American Revolution of 1776 was the result of individuals who believed that the King
did not have the right to prevent the people from leaving his political-religious jurisdiction.
The Revolution was fought over liberty of choice premised upon the “Natural Right”. Our
Constitution is the political document that resulted from that struggle and it guarantees our
liberty to choose the political domain we want to be controlled by without compelled
performance. Therefore, if we want to move from one political jurisdiction to another, we
are guaranteed that natural right – entitled expatriation. We are guaranteed the right to
change our political territory at any time we so choose.

Few are aware today that their political choice has been made for them, and it is a political
choice that has taken away their absolute rights under the Constitution and its first ten
secured Amendments i.e. the Bill of Rights. They are unaware that they were given at birth
an economic privilege of an alternative political domain – allowed by the Constitution, but
operating outside of the original Constitution. This is an alternative (off shore foreign
corporation) and thereby, domain that employs the same Divine Right of Kings as did the
King of England. Thus, the original Constitution was abrogated circa 1871 and the District of
Columbia was instituted as a private City State doing commerce for profit under public
policy in lieu of Public Law.

When we ponder why our nation is in the midst of an economic crisis like we have never
seen before, we cannot understand it is the result of our ignorance. Ignorance of how our
silence has given our federal government and its political subdivisions (called “States”)
permission to tax its people without representation and confiscate their property when they
do not go along with the Codes and laws – especially the tax laws. Ignorance that has
allowed our federal government and its political subdivisions to compel us to perform to
laws that are destroying our business by exacting a fee – like a protection racket – for what
should be a right.

Instead, our absolute rights are now relative privileges, handed out like food in a
concentration camp. Instead of being able to stand as an individual for what you believe,
every special interest group has become our conscience. Laws and Codes by the hundreds
are feudalizing the will to produce from the soul of each person by making him pay for the
failures, inefficiency and greed of others – called limited liability. And still more laws are
teaching citizens of all ages that someone else – Uncle Sam – is responsible for us from
cradle to grave.
 Communalism Raises Its Ugly Head

The world has always filled with people with good intentions. Unfortunately, it seems that
the majority of those well-intentioned individuals end up trying to convince the rest that
their idea is the best. The extreme in some countries results in a dictator, while in the
United States there developed democracy with its ever present special interest groups
dictating the conscience of the masses. Yes, more problems are caused when good
intentions become compelled performance. As many are aware, “the road to hell is paved
with good intentions.” The result is always a loss of individual liberty of conscience.

In the beginning, America was a free Republic with vast unsettled wilderness open for
anybody who had the courage to take up its challenges. Thus, America became the melting
pot for religious and social ideals and experiments. Of the many social theories espoused
throughout Europe then, there were three theories that fit the mold for America, all three
were communatarian (communistic) in nature. The first communatarian idea was set up by
the religious sects made familiar by the Puritans, Quakers, Shakers, Rappites/1 Zorities,
etc.. The second communatarian idea was established by Robert Owen of Great Britain who
was born in 1771, and the third communatarian idea was of Charles Fourier of France who
was born in 1772. Both Owen and Fourier experienced the vast upheavals that accompanied
the French Revolution from the onslaughts of Napoleon. As a result of the slaughter, Owen
and Fourier came up with communatarian plans to transform the crises-warped society of
the 19th century into a more humane order.

In 1812, Robert Owen published a paper titled: “A New View of Society”.

His treatise discussed the formation of the human character, and he proposed ways of
changing society from what he called the poor working classes:

“…The society of the poor were trained to commit crimes’ the later resulting in punishment.
The rest of the population was instructed to believe, or at least to acknowledge, that certain
principles are unerringly true, but to act as though they were grossly false. The result was
filling the world with folly and inconsistency making society a scene of insincerity and
counter action. In this state the world has continued to the present time; its evils have been
and are continually increasing and if we longer delay, general disorder must ensue.”

Owen suggested that the governing powers of all countries should establish rational plans
for the education and general formation of the characters of their subjects. Plans must be
devised to train children, which would be taken from their parents at the age of two years,
to prevent them from acquiring false-hoods and deception, and their labor must be usefully
directed upon the communatarian view rather than the individual. One of his favorite
phrases was “train the young collectively.”

Owen deplored private property and he blamed the world’s problems of ignorance and
selfishness on it. He also disliked commercial competition. “It creates civil warfare, it
exploits the many and gives to a few favorable individuals which is injurious to the mass.”
Owen said, “Without equality of condition, there can be no permanent virtue or stability of
society.” Owen laid plans for Associations of All Classes of All Nations with a purpose
of “founding as soon as possible, communities of United Interest.” Owen wanted to
terminate the distinction between the rich and the poor, thereby creating a millennium.
Owen proposed not only a national system of education, but also public works projects
designed to guard the unemployed against the mis-educative effects of enforced idleness.
He was determined to set up a commune he envisioned, and he decided America was the
ideal location.

Owen’s ideas were put to the test when he established his commune called “New
Harmony” in 1825. In a letter to a Quaker leader, William Allen, Owen reveals more of his
ideals.

“The United States, but particularly the States west of the Allegheny Mountains, have been
prepared in the most remarkable manner for the New System. The principle of union &
cooperation for the promotion of all virtues & for the creation of wealth is now universally
admitted, to be far superior to the individual selfish system & all seem prepared or are
rapidly preparing to give up the latter & adopt the former. In fact, the whole of this country
is ready to commence a new empire upon the principle of public property & discard private
property & the uncharitable notion that man can form his own character as the foundation &
root of all evil.”
Owen had a lot of problems from the start. A major problem was poor production. The low
level of production was caused by the lack of trained and competent foreman, supervisors
and skilled craftsmen. His plan for equality was failing from the start because those who
were trained could go work in the open market and receive more pay. The first Constitution
that was drawn was short lived because of a crisis of morale. The land of milk and honey
that Owen promised did not materialize. Equality for all was running into trouble.

“No one is to be favored above the rest as all are to be in a state of perfect equality,”

wrote a wife of one of the members of the society, but she said;

“Oh if you could see some of the rough uncouth creatures here, I think you would find it
rather hard to look upon them exactly in the light of brothers and sisters … I am sure I
cannot sincerely look upon these as my equals and that if I must appear to do it, I cannot
either act or speak the truth.”

Social distinctions and religious differences had never been as sharp as they became in the
months following this brief experiment in forced and premature social unity. As the
problems mounted, Owen and the people disbanded one Constitution and drew up a new
Constitution.

In April, 1827; the New Harmony experiment came to an end. However, Owen’s influence in
communatarianism continued to spread from the east as far west as Texas.

In addition to Robert Owen’s ideas, Charles Fourier was developing and spreading similar
concepts. Fourier differed from Owen in that the former believed in religion and private
property/2 where the latter had an opposite view.

Fourier’s work was largely conditioned by an unfortunate event that took place early in his
otherwise uneventful life. His father, a wealthy merchant, died and left a fortune of nearly a
quarter of a million francs. However, the whole of Fourier’s inheritance was lost in the
French Revolution. Because of this event, he set himself to invent system of society that
would prevent the recurrence of revolution, preserve his own petit-bourgeois class, and
abolish the appalling conditions of labor prevalent everywhere. (Has a familiar “New World
Order” feel)
Charles Fourier never set a foot upon American soil, but his theories did. Albert Brisbane
was a young American of liberal education and at the age of eighteen, he went to Europe to
study social philosophy. Eventually Brisbane found what he was looking for in Fourier’s
treatise on “Association”/3 and he promoted Charles Fourier’s ideas and wrote extensively
upon the subject.

However, if we can organize the townships rightly, so that unity of interests, concert of
action, vast economics and general riches will be attained, that in spreading these rightly
organized Townships, and rendering them general, a Social Order will be gradually
established, in which peace, prosperity and happiness will be secured to all. The great and
primary object which we have in view is, consequently, to effect the establishment of one
Association, which will exhibit practically the great economics, the riches, the order and
unity of the system, and serve as a model for, and lead to the founding of others.

Even though there were other social experimenters, Owen and Fourier had the greatest
influence on the leaders of the U.S.A. and the corporate special interest groups. This
influence figured heavily in the formation of the Limited Liability Act of 1851, the Civil Rights
Act of 1866, and the 14th Amendment of 1868. It was these legislative Acts that opened the
door of the house called Democracy/4 that everyone moved into by ignorance and fraud in
the inducement.

Democracy and Communism

It is interesting to note that Karl Marx and Friedrich Engles were devoted students of Robert
Owen. Communism of the Bolsheviks was nothing new. It was incubating and maturing in
non-violent form right here in the (u)nited States of America almost 100 years before
Russia ever knew about it.

Today communism is believed to have been defeated as the world has turned to democracy.
However, is there any difference? In the case of Smith v. Allwright/5 the courts said, “The
United States is a constitutional democracy.” In other words, the court said the United
States (as distinguished from the (u)nited States of America, a Republic) is a democracy
that is allowed by the Constitution, but operating outside of it. This court case is
substantiated by the following: “What is futile is to puzzle ourselves as to whether the
American or Russian use of `democracy’ is the true or correct one”/6.

“…The first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the
position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy”/7.

“A government of Russia could not terminate its existence either by dissolution or by

merger, for it was a corporation formed under our laws, and its corporate life continued until
the law of its creation declared that it should end”/8.

Here we see the real meaning of democracy and its communal governing system. A
democracy is the opposite of a republic. More on this latter. However remember,
unknowingly you have been participating in a communal government to the loss of absolute
liberty, but it can be restored!

Private Law and Public Municipal Law

Let’s understand the meaning of private law versus public municipal law. Private law, also
called non-positive law and local law, is a term that is used to describe the principles and
regulations that an individual uses to direct his or her own life. It is also called the “law of
conscience.” That is, it is your personal philosophical and religious belief system that you
use to control your own life and decisions. For example, if you state that you believe that
abortions are not proper, then you are verbalizing a part of your private law. If you express
that you believe that it is not proper for you to own a gun, then you are again expressing a
part of your private law.
Private law’s only area of function outside your own conscience is in the area of contracts.
In other words, a person will always use his personal principles of conscience in negotiating
any agreement with another individual. An example of this would be the merchant who
works out a contract with a company to provide items for sale in a store he owns. His
reason for contracting with this particular company is because he believes the items they
manufacture should be in every household for health reasons. The merchant’s personal
beliefs or conscience are involved in this contract as in any contract.

Private law operates outside of the Constitution under the rights of private contract as
stipulated in Article I, Section 10. Article I, in its entirety, expresses all the private law that
is allowed in the operation of government of the several states of the union. Section
8 and clause 17 of this Article states that any other private law that is necessary for
operation of government for the commercial benefit of the several states of the union can
be legislated. It must be remembered that Article I is not entirely private law. There is some
public municipal law there. This public municipal law is for the establishment of public
services for private benefit, i.e., “Post Roads and Post Offices,” and the Public Laws of
Obligation of Contracts, etc.

It must be understood that private law, as referred to in the Constitution, operated in the
private sector as a part of negotiating bilateral contracts. Private law was never meant to
operate in the public sector as a basis for controlling public policy. Our founders made that
very clear. In the next section on Roman civil law you will be shown how private law was
made into public policy by entrapment to produce compelled performance.

Public municipal law (also referred to as positive law and general law in contrast to private
law) is the expression of all the laws that limit government and maintain the separation of
powers of the “states in this union”/9. Public municipal law is an expression of the people
limiting government for their own personal benefit and liberty. Remember, the people are
the government. What powers the people do not delegate for the administration of
government are kept by them. The Public Laws are laws that assure the people of
maintaining their private rights of bilateral contracts separate from any government
intervention or fraudulent inducement by departments of corporate government to waive a
natural right for the unconscionable circumstance to be regulated in commerce. The only
time that public municipal law is used actively for private purposes, in a legal sense, is when
a private right has been violated and the public municipal law is used in the court to address
the wrong and correct that wrong.
 “The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry
on his own private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no
duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an
investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State,
since he receives nothing there-from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His
rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the
State… He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights”/10.

As early as 1782, Jefferson told Monroe that it was ridiculous to suppose that a man should
surrender himself to the state. This would be slavery, and not the liberty which the Bill of
Rights has made inviolable, and for the preservation of which our government has been
changed.

[Changed from the Roman civil law to the Common Civil Law/11 – see section on Roman
Civil Law.]

Jefferson continued and said that liberty would be destroyed anytime there is,”…. the
establishment of the opinion that the state has a perpetual right to the services of all its
members”/12.

The term “that liberty” to which Jefferson refers is Public Law for private purposes and “that
liberty” is self-evident and comes before the State and is the opposite of “the Blessings of
Liberty” in the preamble of the Constitution – which is commercial/13.

Roman Civil Law

Those who have studied U.S. History from the traditional standpoint do not realize there is a
lot more to U.S. History. There is probably more about the history of the (u)nited States of
America/14 that you have not been told than what you have been told. Take for example
our federal government. The provisions for setting it into operation were written into the
Constitution, but its present look and function are a far cry from what our founding fathers
intended. What has happened to make such a difference from the original intent? In world
history, religion has always been a key center for accumulating wealth while ignorance and
superstition promote religion. Religion has been used by everyone from Kingly dictators to
preachers to persuade people to give up everything from gold and land to their own lives.
Wealth meant power and the power to get wealth was religion. The Roman Church
discovered this early and became a “storehouse” for the money and property the people
were persuaded to give in exchange for limited liability – go directly to heaven instead of
hell. As the people became more educated and saw what was really behind the power of
religion, the Roman Church fell under greater and greater criticism. This led to the
development of a banking system to handle and control church wealth and take the critical
focus of the church. In a nutshell, this was how the church’s influence has always figured so
heavily in the administration and control of world politics. The bank learned from the church
about limited liability. If you could get people to borrow money beyond their ability to pay
back, you could get them to keep performing on the debt (liability) without ever demanding
it back, thereby, loaning out that same credit to more than one individual or company. This
meant that the bank was limiting the liability of the borrower so he was not fully responsible
for the debt as long as he continued to perform by paying the interest. This way real money
(gold) became credit (paper money) by loaning to more than one person. Being involved in
this sort of commerce was called “private commerce.” With the churches control over
wealth, this private commerce became standard practice in world trade upon the sea –
private international or admiralty/maritime law became known as Roman civil law as it
began to figure heavily in the politics of every city and country it touched through
international commerce.

Among the many things that were important to our fore-fathers, the one thing that stood
out was to establish a government free of any relationship or influence of the private Roman
civil law operating in and controlling public policy. It was the oppression of the Roman civil
law, as the king and parliament dictated, that was at the foundation for seeking expatriation
from England under the king’s assumed divine right. The Roman civil law (also referred to
as “admiralty-maritime law”/15 or the “law of the sea” as well as “private international law”)
was the result of private church law operating for commercial purposes in the public sector.
The amalgamation of church law and civil government was derived from three ingredients;
Greece, Rome and Christianity. The political theory derived from the first two of these
ingredients was tempered to accommodate the third. Its originators and apologists were the
first Christian Emperor, Constantine, and the first historian of the Christian Church,
Eusebius of Caesarea. Through his writings, Eusebius had once and for all established the
new way to interpret history, and his followers applied the same political philosophy for over
1000 years.

Starting with Constantine, religious belief had come to be as important, for the state, as
religious practice. Constantine was, among other things, a “teacher of knowledge about
God.” The unity of a threatened empire was seen to depend on a unity of religious belief
among its subjects. So it was that in a theocratic society it was increasingly hard to be sure
where things temporal ended and things spiritual began.

“Where a necessary qualification for citizenship was Orthodoxy in religious belief, it was
natural that the canons of the church councils which had defined that belief should also be
the law of the land. Justinian had decreed that `the canons of the first four councils of the
church … should have the status of law. For we accept as holy writ the dogmas of those
councils and guard their canons as laws.’ …. But some emperors thought themselves
empowered to do likewise and to legislate on ecclesiastical or even doctrinal matters. Hence
there came into existence the collections known as nomocannones in which the laws of the
church and the laws of the state were set down side by side and compared, though the
former always precede the latter … The nomocannones and the commentaries of the
canonists advertised the fact that church and state went together. The two were
interdependent and it was generally believed that the one could not exist without the other
… In the last and apparently hopeless years of the empire’s existence, there were various
schools of thought about what had gone wrong. By far the most prevalent explanation was
that God was punishing the people for their sins. This was the favorite theme of sermons in
the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries … The only hope of salvation lay in a return to the
faith and practice of the pure, unadulterated Orthodox faith …”/16

Yes, history is being repeated even now as you read this. Guilt and self righteousness
compels the alteration of public policy in more bizarre ways by the pressure of the special
interest groups of the trust – and the inquisition is being repeated.
Church law first got involved with commercial ventures when the Roman Church started
funding the Roman Army during the time they were fighting Greece. From there it was an
easy transition to becoming directly involved in the civil government of Rome and then
converting the Roman Empire, what was left of it, into their own commercial state. When
the Roman Church set up their own state they became a commercial enterprise. It was from
that point on that Church law, controlling civil government, became known as Roman civil
law.

In simple terms, Roman civil law is a perversion of private law. That is, the conscience of
private law was never meant to operate in forming public policy of government. Private law
was always a part of establishing bilateral contracts and could be used in government only
for setting up private commercial relations between government and corporations called
“licenses.” But the conscience of private law could never operate without bilateral contracts
unless it was through a trust.

With the spread of commerce, the church’s influence and wealth grew. Around 596 A.D.,
Pope Gregory began a process of moving Roman civil law into England. Up until that time it
had not been a part of the English economy, but Pope Gregory was determined to have his
inspiration of Roman law and economy supreme there.

He [Pope Gregory] was inspired with the idea of converting England not to Christianity, [for
the British branch of the Catholic Church was already there] – but to the discipline of
Rome/17.

Moving Roman civil law into England was strictly using a commercial venture of the
mercantile Church to take over the economy and the country and enslave its people to the
private or conscience law of the Church. It was the authority and conscience of the Roman
Church that dictated the Statutes, Codes and Laws through the King and Parliament for
controlling human behavior that resulted in the best economic and commercial advantage
for the Church. Anyone who was not controlled by Roman civil law at that time was
considered to be pagan. That is, if you were operating free of the Roman civil law – under
the common law – you were a heathen as far as the Roman Church was concerned. It was
their intent to enslave everyone possible to the Roman civil law for a commercial advantage.
By the way, this Roman civil law was referred to as “Black Letter Law”/18.
To see how this law is acknowledged, look up the books in which your state’s Constitution
and Statutes are published. What many have found is that the titles to the first volumes,
that cover the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and the state’s
Constitution, are printed differently than the titles to the volumes that cover the
consolidated Statutes and Codes of the state. We are aware that in many states (possibly
all) you will find the titles to the volumes that begin the state Statutes will be printed in
black gothic letters. This confirms the fact the “black letter law” – Roman civil law – is the
basis of state Statutes that dictate public municipal policy via private laws of the trust. It
was this Roman civil law that had taken over all Europe and England and our founding
fathers wanted nothing of it in the “commercial law system of the American states.” It
represented to them the most insidious form of slavery of both body and mind, that is,
slavery by entrapment through one-sided or implied contracts the individual never was
aware he was getting into until he was hit with compelled performance.

Thomas Jefferson expressed this disdain of Roman civil law being introduced into English
common law in 1760 by Lord Mansfield/19. In fact, it was this decision that sparked the
American Revolution. After this date, Jefferson wanted nothing to do with the common law
of England because of the way it had been polluted with Roman civil (ecclesiastical) law by
Mansfield/20.

In a letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper in 1814, Jefferson goes into minute detail to show how the
private ecclesiastical law [Roman civil law] got mixed with the common law of England. He
outlines the fact that the common law was in England 200 years before Christianity. In
describing when Christianity was possibly included into the common law, Jefferson said:

“If it ever was adopted, therefore, into the common law, it must have been between the
introduction of Christianity and the date of the Magna Carta. But of the law of this period we
have a tolerable collection by Lambard and Wilkins… But none of these adopt Christianity
as a part of the common law”/21.

Yet the common law of England did become polluted with the compelled performance of
private church law and Jefferson’s understanding of the problem marked out the path for
the new commercial system of the American states to be protected from the slavery of
ecclesiastical authority dictating public commercial law i.e. (policy).
In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has never made their judges
accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being
contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap,
and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the
common law; … And thus they incorporate into the English code, laws made for Jews alone,
and the precepts of the Gospel, intended by their benevolent Author as obligatory only for
their conscience; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this,
too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue
laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict
them/22;

Unfortunately, because Jefferson saw the tyranny of private ecclesiastical law dictating
public commercial policy and compelled performance, he was attacked by the “do
gooders” as being a heretic. In reality, he saw so clearly the need for separation of powers
and how Public Law would be vital for private use to protect individual rights of the minority.
Thus he stood vehemently on the ground that private law has absolutely no place in
dictating, public policy. Those who opposed his views totally missed his solid Christian
principles based on liberty of conscience. “The common law protects both opinions [both his
and theirs], but enacts neither into law.” Those that did not thoroughly understand this
were the first to promote their private conscience (religious) opinions into Public Law
(policy) – the rope of compelled performance hanging us today.

“All honor to Jefferson – to the man who, in the concrete pressure of a struggle for national
independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into
a merely revolutionary document, an abstract truth, and so to embalm it there, that today
and in all coming days, it shall be a rebuke and a stumbling block to the very harbingers of
reappearing tyranny and oppression”/23.

One of the most important aspects of the common law before 1760 was that it did not
recognize unilateral contracts where there was no full disclosure and no meeting of the
minds. The right to the private law of contracting was basic to the common law. However,
those common law contracts always meant that all parties involved understood all the facts
and clauses and all parties had to agree by endorsement in order for the contract to be
valid. Everything was spelled out. No hidden implications or strings attached.
Roman civil law relies entirely on unilateral or implied contracts. This is where one party
agrees by the simple act of accepting a benefit(s) the civil government has to offer. In other
words, the individual has something offered to him that he accepts – usually an economic or
mercantile benefit. The act of acceptance, with or without a signature of acceptance, comes
with strings of compelled performance attached. This is because the very act of voluntary
acceptance (by your silence) implied your endorsement. The implied endorsement creates a
constructive trust/24 arrangement with the civil government for your assumed benefit. This
means the trust becomes the third party who can dictate the Statutes, Codes and laws by
its legislature and we are compelled to align our lives with them, because of our silent
volunteering. After accepting some benefit under Roman civil law and you discover the
hidden strings that you do not like, too bad, you are bound to perform or suffer the
consequence of those holding the strings. If you wrong the trust that you are involved with,
you are assumed guilty and the burden of proof is up to you to clear yourself. Your job,
under the Roman civil law, is to jump even when you didn’t have to. Their job – the civil
administrator and their courts – is to tell you how high. The Roman civil law is a perversion
of private conscience law because it is placing the private conscience of one or a few over
the private consciences of the masses. And it is done without full disclosure of bilateral
contracts. This allows government to always become a superior entity to the citizen by
binding him in constructive trust arrangements. This is why there is no separation of power,
only one power and that is government. The people are subservient because they are
involved in a constructive trust that controls their conscience and they are not even aware
of it.

Take a look at the illustration of “The Great Seal of The State of California.” This seal is a
dramatic representation of how the Roman civil law is the basis of the franchise of
the “several states of the union” granted by the people of the Republic. Each state has its
own corporate seal and most use much of the same symbolism. Remember, under Roman
civil law the corporate state is a diocese of the National Church of the 14th Amendment
trust.

Note: first the seal contains a woman seated on a rock wearing a Roman military uniform
holding both a shield and spear. This woman is the Goddess Minerva/25 from Roman
mythology. This represents the authority of the Roman civil law founded on the rock
(church) of private law of the woman (or law of changing conscience or “e-motion” that is
not absolute law), the mother of all private law. The shield itself has the indications of
Roman symbols denoting further private authority in the public sector. Across the top are 31
stars that represent the 31 states in existence at the time California was incorporated as a
state. This also shows the relationship with the other “several states of the union” who also
based their civil law from the Roman law. The word: “eureka” means: “I’ve found it.” It was
an expression that has been said to have originated with Archimedes, a Greek
mathematician and physicist. He used the expression when he discovered a method of
detecting the amount of alloy mixed with the gold in the crown of the king of Syracuse.
Archimedes also invented the Archimedean screw or “water snail” which, when rotated,
would move water uphill. Because of the symbolism of the seal, it most likely represents the
moving of the law of the sea [admiralty/maritime law] uphill and over to dominate the
substance of the law we know as the land. Also it could be saying the same thing by
expressing the fact that the substance of absolute law – gold/real property – is taken over
by the emotion of private law. Note also the sailing ships in the water. This represents the
law of the sea [admiralty/maritime law] as the vehicle for private commercial Roman civil
law in the state. In the left lower area of the seal is a miner digging and behind him is a
sluice box. This represents the labor and industrial control by the private Roman civil law.
There is also grain in the foreground as a symbol of the control of the land and its substance
called “food.” The bear represents the fact that the Republic is still there – the California
Republic is called the “Bear Republic.”

Federalism

There is no doubt about it! There is an economic advantage to individuals cooperating for
business purposes and our founders recognized that fact. What they did not want was the
compelled performance of entrapment by the implied contracts under the private Roman
civil law operating within and between the states. Theirs was to be civil law based on the
principles of the general common law/26 and its full disclosure bilateral contracts. It thus
became referred to as: “System of commercial law in the American states”/27. Under our
unique type of law, the government was to have no direct contact with the people – unlike
the Roman civil law. The federal government was there basically to oversee the economic
cooperation between the several states of the union – who were foreign to each other – to
provide for their common defense and to work out the commercial business of the several
states of the union as they relate to each other and world trade, this being based on public
municipal law not private law.

The common law principles that our forefathers brought with them were the basis of public
municipal law. This means the laws are bilateral in nature based on a two party agreement
where there is a meeting of the minds with full disclosure. Nothing is implied or hidden
where one could be entrapped into compelled performance by a third party trust. The public
municipal law was law that did not allow the private commercial government to have any
relationship with the individual citizen and his right of contract. This was true separation of
power.

~Private law, which the Roman civil law thrived on, was conscience law of
one “person” (trust) over another without their knowing how it happened. There was no
liberty of choice as to its terms. The terms of the contract or agreement (also called
an offer) are always based on the personal beliefs of the Roman civil government.
The offer is always unilateral where your acceptance is totally signified by your silence.
Everything the individual got involved in under Roman civil law had implications that
obligated him or her because of benefits being accepted by continued silence. There were
always strings attached that were considered a benefit. The agreement never has definite
limits. What is agreed on is only implied or constructed upon the circumstances. The
implications of a unilateral offer and acceptance would always create a third party
constructive or implied trust. This trust, being the third party, was always there to oversee
and to exact what it thought it was due through compelled performance to the rules of the
private trust that bound the persons who had private business dealings. There is no
separation of powers. In other words, there is no way to have a true bilateral general
common law contractual relationship because of the government having you in a trust
relationship making your position inferior, not superior. You become the trust and therefore
part of the government, while at the same time, the government becomes you and part of
the trust. You end up being your own enforcer as a volunteer. This is why the IRS keeps
telling you that taxes are voluntary. Your identity is lost in the trust relationship due to
purely moral ideas developed outside the legal system (because of a movement away from
Law) because it finds its chief reliance is on the power of the magistrate.

In order to have a separation of powers, each power must have and keep a separate and
distinct identity. That is, the people function as sovereigns. The government operates only
by the powers the people, as sovereigns allow, and those powers – Public Law for private
use – protects the identity of the people apart from the civil government. Roman civil law
does not allow this.

The federal government that was set up in the beginning was public commercial law, but it
was based entirely on public municipal law for private use. The federal government had no
direct contact with the people because the people had not contracted away their Law and its
separation of powers into a constructive trust of private conscience. The state is forbidden
to interfere with the peoples’ lives by the constitutional mandate of Article I, Section
10 which refers to there being no “Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” The individual
owed nothing to the state, thus the state could not interfere with personal and individual
contracts between individuals. Federalism, without Roman civil law as its base (public
federalism), could not come into Intervene with private contracts between two parties.
However, when federalism is based on Roman civil law (private federalism), where both
your identity and the governments are confused by the constructive trust arrangement,
they are constantly a part of the contracts – they are the administrators of your conscience
via the charitable trust. Under the Roman civil law, you are considered an incompetent
[unable to handle your private affairs] so the trust is involved as a third party in all your
private business affairs.

Under public federalism in the beginning, business and economic associations were formed
for various advantages. There was no compelled performance because all relationships were
based on bilateral contracts with full disclosure and understanding by the parties involved.
When a dispute arose between parties in a state, the courts ruled on the contract pure and
simple – no Codes involved, no implications to be explored. Likewise, when disputes arose
between parties from different states, then the federal courts were the referees for helping
solve the problem and the ruling was upon the contract (with jury assistance if demanded)
without Codes, Regulations or revised Statutes drummed up by a third party overseer.

So in contrast today, the substance of private federalism is purely the private law or
conscience of a private charitable trust – private Roman civil law of the 14th Amendment
with vested interest called “government” – moved into the public arena by voluntary (silent)
acceptance of 51% of the population/28 Anytime a civil relationship is established, it is
based on implied and indefinite trust principles. The result is a government that has created
a third party administrative bureaucracy that spends its time making and readjusting Codes
and revised Statutes that dictate public policy. This is in order to continue the compelled
performance of the citizen (beneficiary) to service the public debt and thus promote the
economic benefits of the government trust. The federal government has become a massive
public charitable trust which is using in excess of 2000% of every dollar for administration
and the “ship of state” is not staying afloat.

In fact feudalism (private federalism) is apt to appear whenever the strain of preserving a
relatively large political unit proves to be beyond the economic and psychic resources of a
society/29.

“I can … fight this Frankenstein which the New Deal has created and which is rapidly
gobbling up every vestige of right which the people have and enjoy today…. I feel it
necessary that the Congress take some steps against this bureaucratic invasion, not only of
the people’s rights, but of the right of Congress and of every other legislative and judicial
branch of our Government. … You are reducing them [the American people] to the status of
a serf”/30.

Take a look at the Titles of United States Code. The last time we looked, there were at least
fifty different Titles. Of the fifty, only twenty-two are public municipal law for private
purposes. The rest are simply private law. That’s right! Private law that has destroyed
individualism and the family unit, creativity and the individual incentive to produce. Private
law that has siphoned off all the wealth and natural resources of the wealthiest nation in the
world, all for assumed economic benefit. What a shame.

Two Federalisms

The United States Constitution starts out: “We the people of the United States.” This phrase
in referring to laws the commercial government of the United States used to assure
a “commercial law system in the American states,” without operation of Roman civil law,
except anywhere the tide ebbed and flowed. That is, the Roman civil law was left to operate
where it always had, as a part of the admiralty-maritime law of the sea in the seaports.
Only the individual, as “one people” – declared in the Declaration of Independence – has the
power to determine a Republican form of government as stated in Article IV, Section 4 of
the Constitution by calling on Public Law for private purposes. This is why the Declaration of
Independence was written first. It was the basis of the “one people” sovereignty which then
set up the Constitution.

Before the beginning of the nation and the signing of the Declaration of Independence in
1776, the Roman civil law was well entrenched in the colonies. This is because it was the
basis of the admiralty-maritime laws that governed commerce upon the seas internationally
as well as ports of call. When our founding fathers were planning on a new nation, they
understood the advantage of public commercial law for the economic benefit of the
American states. However, they did not want any of that public commercial law to be
adulterated with the private Roman civil law (as referred to previously) with its unilateral
contracts. Therefore, they met behind closed doors to develop a dual federalism that would
assure that “commercial law in the American states” would prosper without the compelled
entrapment of private Roman maritime law that would inevitably continue internationally.

Indeed, the main task was to get those old centers to surrender certain prerogative; and
the effect at reassuring them led to lingering ambiguities in our use of the
term “federalism.” In itself, this has to do with treaties (foedera) or alliances – the neutral
use at, e.g. Jefferson Papers, 1:311. But there was an emphasis, in the 1780s, on the ties
that connect those under treaty – on union and united force, as in the term “federal [i.e.
covenant] theology.” Federalists were, therefore, thought to stand for federal power over
against the states. But in explaining their position, Madison and Hamilton labored in the
Federalist Papers to show the states they had nothing to fear from this central (federal)
power. Thus federalism has come, in modern parlance, to mean the division or dispersal of
central power. Those who opposed a Bill of Rights at the Constitutional Convention –
including, at first, Madison himself, who drafted and steered through the final bill – were
assuming that the individual was already protected by the states’ bills; that the central
government could not reach the individual except through the states, which had put
impenetrable barriers around individual rights/31.

Thus our forefathers clarified the “federalism” confusion by establishing two federalisms that
would exist side by side. One would be the private federalism that had come in with the
international trade under admiralty-maritime laws based on Roman civil law. The other
would be the public federalism of the new “commercial law in the American states.” This
federalism would be based on the general common law and its sovereignty of the individual
citizen being maintained by public laws for the private use of the individual to conduct his
business by. [See Table 1. Dual Federalisms Compared]

a. “A case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution or Laws of the United
States.” American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828).

b. Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363; 63 S. Ct. 573.

c. This includes the State of the District of Columbia; D.C. is considered a state in
international law. See Geoffrey v. U.S., 133 U.S. 258; 105 S. Ct. 295.

The uniqueness of our Constitution allows this dual federalism. It allows the individual the
liberty to function within the public laws and the separation of powers or it allows for the
individual to bind himself or herself by unilateral trust contract arrangements.

Thus the word “federal” in the American states refers to the dual federalism as distinguished
in, Swift v. Tyson/32 or Erie Railroad v. Thompkins/33. We must remember the state courts
handled federal questions in the beginning of the nation. As commerce between the states
grew, Swift v. Tyson was designed to protect the people of the several states from the
Roman civil law that was operating under admiralty jurisdiction outside the Constitution
where the tide of admiralty-maritime law ebbed and flowed with international trade. The
dual federalism was termed by our founders as the “New Order for The Ages.” Today we
hear our leaders using the term: “New World Order,” however, it is being used to create the
old world order and its inquisitions under Roman civil law [based on the IRS 1040 form
properly known under the government title of “Recapture Property” (Postliminy = latin
for “bring home the property”]

Remember, there are two kinds of taxes, direct and indirect. Direct taxes are used to
produce revenue for a constitutional government – public federalism. Indirect taxes are
used for controlling human behavior and wealth and is paid to the Crown.

It is wonderful how preposterously the affairs of the world are managed. We assemble
parliaments and councils to have the benefit of collected wisdom, but we necessarily have,
at the same time, the convenience of their collected passions, prejudices and private
interests: For regulating commerce, an assembly of great men is the greatest tool on earth.
– Ole’ Ben Franklin strikes again.

The 14th Amendment

We have reached the point where we must bring in the whys and wherefores of the 14th
Amendment for it is the key that has unlocked the destruction of the American economy and
your individual liberty. Even so, our government is still bent on exporting its principles to
the world as the “New World Order.” In reality, the supposed “New World Order” is not new.
It is nothing more than old world order of Roman civil law in a new disguise continually
making and adjusting its process under public alleged policy . . . not established law

The 14th Amendment [purportedly] became law – private Roman civil law that is – in 1868,
but the stage was set years and in some ways decades before. Of the various factors in the
history of the U.S. that built the momentum to bring in the 14th Amendment, probably one
of the first was that the Constitution made it plain that every citizen had the right to
contract away his personal and absolute rights. That is, anyone could literally bind
themselves away from their absolute natural rights under the “Bill of Rights” any time they
wanted to by private contract. They could operate outside the Constitution by contract if
they desired, because the law was theirs. However, in the opposite vein, they could walk
right back into their constitutional government anytime. This was called the right of
expatriation (more on this a little later).

Another factor contributing to the bringing in of the 14th Amendment had to do with both
slavery and the corporations before and during the Civil War. In fact, the Civil War figures
very prominently in the 14th Amendment because it was used as a cover for control
maneuvers going on in the corporate back rooms of our nation – especially in the north. On
the other hand, the slave issue was used as a con (false flag) before, during, and after the
war.

In 1851, an Act was passed called the “Limited Liability Act.” This Act provided protection
for owners of ships whose cargo and/or ship was lost at sea. The ship owner and investors
were required to purchase maritime insurance, so if a loss was encountered, it would be
easier to deal with if the loss was spread around. From this, the inland corporations saw an
opportunity to advance if, some way, they too could have the benefits of maritime limited
liability operating in their behalf. They saw limited liability as a way to take more risk to
advance their profits making the corporation King. Keep in mind during that time of our
nation’s history, the north had become the industrial center while the south had remained
the agricultural center dependent on slaves as the basis of labor. Because the social issues
of slavery had been making more noise, what better time to turn the problem of physical
slavery into a tolerated economic slavery by bringing in the law of the sea over the land.
And if a war results from the slave issue, what better way to help strengthen industry in the
north than to use the stimulus of war.

By pushing the problem of slavery, the real issue of economic control by private corporate
structure could be advanced unnoticed – the first phase of a “bait and switch” tactic. So
with the culmination of the Civil War and the northern industrial base primed, the slaves
were now free of being chattel property. At this point, corporate big brother made a
calculated move. Since the freed slaves, as well as the rest of the citizenry, were ignorant of
how their freedoms were maintained, it was a perfect time to activate the second part of the
bait and switch maneuver. That was to set a law into motion with a lot of Congressional
fanfare that appeared to assure the freed slaves that they had all the civil rights of everyone
else. Thus came about the “Civil Rights Act” of 1866, which was private or non-positive law.
The basic problem with the Act was that it had no jurisdiction over the slave at all, but the
lawmakers sure made it look that way. You see, it was private law that only affected those
who were in contractual relations with the private corporate structure of the United States
government. None of the freed slaves had any type of license with the United States
government so it did nothing other than play on their ignorance and made them think that it
did something. It also affected few of the rest of the population for the same reason. All it
ended up to be was a law that had few citizens in its jurisdiction. However, the Act had
more indirect affect on the future freedoms of everyone as we look back. For those it did
affect – those holding licenses or under contract (including federal employees) with the
United States government – it did two primary things. First, it took away absolute property
rights (in personam)/34. Second, it replaced them with personal property rights (in
rem)/35 regardless of race. That is, the “Civil Rights Act” of 1866 moved anyone in its
jurisdiction away from real property law and established them in personal property law
outside the protection of the general common law and the Constitution with its separation of
powers.

The only problem with the “Civil Rights Act” of 1866 was that it did not have enough
jurisdiction over the majority of the population. Therefore Congress began another
maneuver under the influence of private corporate special interest. It began to make the
Pubic think the Act was not permanent enough, that there was the potential that another
Congress could be impressed to remove the civil rights. Therefore, the only way to assure
permanent civil rights was to make an Amendment to the Constitution.

The same Congress, shortly afterwards, evidently thinking it unwise [and perhaps unsafe]
to leave so important a Declaration of Rights to depend upon an ordinary Act of legislation,
which might be repealed by any subsequent congress, framed the 14th Amendment/36…

What an assumed noble reason. Assure civil rights by adding an Amendment to the
Constitution. Who would be against civil rights? After all, isn’t that what this country was all
about? So we now have the 14th Amendment. It is extremely unfortunate that as we look
back at the racial cover that was used to get the Amendment into law, we continue to see,
even today, the same use of racial issues to cover an undercurrent of corporate private law
being used in the public sector for exploiting the population.

It [the 14th Amendment] is a set-back to proper government. This operation of the 14th
Amendment runs counter to the ideals expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution itself.
It does anything but promote domestic tranquility. They [the Republican Party] knew what
they intended by the vague terms of section one of the Amendment. They knew that it
could be interpreted so as to extend far beyond the negro race question. They desired to
nationalize all civil rights; to make the Federal power supreme; and to bring the private life
of every citizen directly under the eye of Congress…. This result was to be obtained by
disenfranchising the whites and enfranchising the blacks…. It meant the death knell of the
doctrine of State’s rights – the ultimate nationalization of all civil rights and the consequent
abolition of State control over the private rights and duties of the individual. It meant the
passing over of the police power of the State, into the police power of the national
government, thereby giving Congress undefined and unlimited powers whereby it would be
enabled to enter fields of legislation from which hitherto it had been barred (remember, the
federal government never had any police powers provided under the organic constitution). .
. The States of this Union were never sovereign. Neither is the Federal Government
sovereign. Sovereignty is now and has always been inherent in the American people…. This
would be a different matter if the Fourteenth Amendment presented to the courts only
questions of law, but this is not the case. As a rule, when the Supreme Court declares a
State law unconstitutional under the Amendment, what it really does is not to decide a
question of law, but a question of governmental policy.… The primary purpose of the
adoption of the 14th Amendment was to elevate the negro to a plane of equality with the
white people and to protect him in his newly given rights. In its attempt to carry out this
ideal, Congress was effectually restrained by the Supreme Court. Consequently, as related
to the negro race, the Amendment is negative and non-automatic. It has failed of its
purpose because there is no Federal power to enforce the 14 th Amendment, and because the
negroes have not been qualified to gain for themselves the ideals which it seeks to enforce. When they do

become so qualified, they will have no need of the 14th Amendment. One of the immediate purposes of the

adoption of the 14th Amendment was to assist in destroying the power of the Democratic Party in the South

and in its place to build up Republicans. This result was to be obtained by disenfranchising the whites and

enfranchising the blacks…. It was a nationalization of all civil rights/37.

So, in 1868 Congress passed the 14th Amendment which accomplished primarily two
things:

First, it made each individual primarily a federal citizen of the municipal corporation of the
District of Columbia.

Second, it combined the Senate and the House in their function so they are now operating
for the benefit of private commercial law. Until the 14th Amendment, the House functioned
for private commercial benefit and the Senate functioned for non-commercial public
municipal law benefit – the benefit of the individual under republican law.

Third, it made each person responsible for the public debt by making them beneficiaries of
the “public trust” the 14th Amendment established.

The 14th Amendment was also private non-positive law (local law) because it was enacted
to set up a voluntary trust relationship that any citizen of the states could participate in if
desired. Thus, the Amendment was instrumental in shifting citizenship of each American
from being primarily a state citizen to being a citizen of the private corporation of
government. However, this Amendment was a sleeper, so to speak. That is, it could still
only exercise jurisdiction of those who chose voluntarily to participate.

Interestingly, Congress knew that it was making an Amendment that was based on private
non-positive law and was therefore conditional. That is, the people had to have a choice
whether they wanted to participate or not in what the 14th Amendment was offering,
otherwise it would have been totally and completely unconstitutional. Therefore, one day
before the 14th Amendment was passed, Congress passed 15 Stat. 249-250. This Statute
provided for a person to remove him or herself from the jurisdiction of the 14th Amendment
public trust if they so desired. (The Expatriation Act)

The 14th Amendment set in motion a process of taking private corporate law of a few,
namely big business, and moving it into the public sector to control the masses for their
assumed benefit. The actual benefit was for the corporations. The assumed benefit lay with
being a member of the public trust and, therefore being able to receive benefits from the
trust, benefits in the form of whatever care the national government would come up with to
provide for you from cradle to grave. Those benefits have come at a severe price since
1868. That price is the loss of our absolute liberty under the Constitution and the general
common law. In exchange, we have only received back relative rights with assumed
economic benefits. In reality, the benefits have been curses!

When our founding fathers wrote the Constitution, it was far simpler to enumerate the few
powers that were to be given to the national government than to try and list all the powers
the individual citizen would keep. So it was that when the Bill of Rights (the first ten
Amendments) was completed, Amendments nine and ten distinctly stated what powers “one
people” would reserve.

Amendment IX – “The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be

construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.”

Amendment X – “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

So, it was that among all the powers “retained by the people,” one of the most important
was the power to contract for services or trades with another person or persons without
interference from anyone – in or out of the government (see Article I, Section 10) and not
have the government interfere in any way. As discussed previously, contracts are also
referred to as “private law.” This right to contract (use private law) meant that two people
could come to a meeting of their minds and agree between themselves for virtually anything
they would both settle on and the government could not interfere. For example, let’s
suppose that person “A” has developed a skill through special professional education or on-
the-job training. As a non-14th Amendment citizen, he or she has the liberty to offer their
services for sale without the interference of civil licensing authority. In other words, the
licensing authority and their policing powers have no jurisdiction over a person who is not a
citizen of the 14th Amendment public municipal trust. Here is the secret of the true liberty
of choice – as in medicine for example. With this true liberty of the laws of the Republic,
therapies that are only available outside the United States could be an option in each state.
Remember, you are dealing with a political choice. Making your choice to function in the law
of the Republic means the government cannot compel you to be regulated by private law of
the democracy.

Yet, there is one very important facet of the power to contract or use private law under the
Constitution. That is, if contract/private laws come into dispute in the courts, the contract
will be ruled on outside the Constitution. You read correctly! Contracts, or private
agreements, will always overrule the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In other words,
specific private agreements (called contracts) governing individual circumstances between
two or more persons will always overrule broad general clauses found in the Constitution.
This is because it is illogical to allow someone to take a clause out of the Constitution, that
was not a part of their original agreement, and use it to weasel, twist and squirm his way
out of the contractual provisions while retaining the financial gain the private contract may
have given him in the first place. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Felix
Frankfurter, “Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements.” What he means is
that when you go to court to dispute a contract or private law agreement that you had with
someone else, the courts are there to enforce the contracts, as brutal as that may be, apart
and separate from the Constitution.

With the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, the stage was set for private law to be
used outside the Constitution to financially enslave the masses and destroy the republican
union. The stage was also set to move Roman civil law into operation within the boundaries
of the [u]nited States of America contrary to what our founding fathers ever intended. Note
the words of concern in George Washington’s “Farewell Address” to the American People.

“The unity of government which constitutes you one people … is a main pillar in the edifice
of your real independence, the support of your tranquility at home, your peace abroad, of
your safety, of your prosperity, of that very liberty which you so highly prize … it is easy to
foresee that from different causes and from different quarters much pains will be taken,
many artifices employed, to weaken in your minds the conviction of this truth, as this is the
point in your political fortress against which the batteries of internal and external enemies
will be most constantly and actively (though often covertly and insidiously) directed, it is of
infinite moment that you should properly estimate the immense value of your national union
to your collective and individual happiness; that you should cherish a cordial, habitual, and
immovable attachment to it; accustoming yourselves to think and speak of it as of the
palladium of your political safety and prosperity, watching for its preservation with jealous
anxiety; discountenancing whatever may suggest even a suspicion that it can in any event
be abandoned; and indignantly frowning upon the first dawning of every attempt to alienate
any portion of our country from the rest, or to enfeeble the sacred ties which now like
together the various parts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the
Constitution alterations (14th Amendment) which will impair the energy of the system, and
thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown.” [Bracket information added]/38

So now we are seeing the results of “Constitution alterations” in 1868. Alterations that
have “covertly and insidiously” removed the “national union”, known as the U.S. of A. the
Republic, and substituted economic slavery of compelled performance.

Yet the beauty of our Republic and the constitutional government our forefathers set up can
be demonstrated from the way President James Madison responded to a bill that he vetoed
on February 21, 1811. It shows how forces of private religious conscience were always
trying to force their private law on the public.

“Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which Governments are limited, by the
essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates, in particular, the
article of the Constitution of the United States, which declares, that “Congress shall make
no law respecting a religious establishment.” The bill enacts into, and establishes by law,
sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and polity of the church
incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the
same; so that no change could be made therein by the particular society, or by the general
church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church,
therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law – a legal force and sanction
being given to certain articles in its Constitution and administration … as the injunctions and
prohibitions, contained in the Regulations, would be enforced by the penal consequences
applicable to a violation of them according to the local law. Because the bill vests in the said
incorporated church … would be a precedent for giving to religious societies, as such, a legal
agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty”/39.

So it was not until the [purported] passage of the 14th Amendment that the continual push
of private law into the public sector won out. At that point, private conscience law of the
Roman church became the national conscience by way of the 14th Amendment trust of the
District of Columbia. Now notice this: In Wheaton’s Elements of International Law, 6th
edition, page 304, the existing rule as to freedom of religious worship is thus laid down:

“A minister resident in a foreign country is entitled to the privilege of religious worship in his
own private chapel, according to the particular forms of his national faith, although it may
not be generally tolerated by the laws of the state where he resides.”

“The laws of Rome do not tolerate any other form of public religious worship than such as
conforms to the teachings of the Roman Catholic church; but the right of any foreign
minister at the papal court to hold religious services under his own roof, and in accordance
with the forms of his national or individual faith, has never been questioned or interfered
with. This the Russian, the Prussian, the American, and other representatives of foreign
powers in Rome, have always exercised [and still enjoy unmolested] the freedom of
religious worship in the several chapels connected with their respective legations. These
chapels, of course, are open to all compatriots of the different ministers desirous of joining
in their religious services”/40.

The national faith, referred to, applies to the 14th Amendment citizenship. It is a citizenship
based on the unilateral charitable social security trust of conscience (religion) of the District
of Columbia. Because it is based on a unilateral charitable contract, it cannot be tolerated in
the laws of the state where one resides – meaning the laws of the Republic of the [u]nited
States of America. The Laws of the Republic and its separation of powers is not governed by
the law of conscience or religion. That is, the Constitution mandates that the Republic will
not recognize the establishment of a religion, the conscious beliefs of one or a thousand
individuals, as a basis for Public Law. Here is the prescribed separation of power. It is
governed by the public municipal law of the Constitution of the [u]nited States of America.
Religious beliefs are a private matter within each person and are not intended to be
enforced on anyone else in the Republic. This has been the very downfall of every
civilization. Somebody wants to enforce their conscience – religion – upon everyone else –
democracy: the exact cause of the American Revolution of 1776 and the mess of the nation
today.

The “Statute of Charitable Uses” (charitable trusts) was enforced in the 13 original colonies
by courts of the Star Chamber/41 enforcing “Writs of Assistance”/42 (such as demands of
the conscience of the IRS) and was the cause of the American Revolution. This is because
the Statute was based on the parliamentary democracy which received its law based on the
king’s conscience – divine right of kings. The “Statute of Charitable Uses” (trusts) never had
any force in the (u)nited States until the coming of the 14th Amendment to re-institute the
courts of the Star Chamber enforcing “Writs of Assistance.” For an example of the private
conscience law of the church being moved into public policy, look at this:

“The Cathedral Church of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, also known as the National Cathedral,
seeks to serve the entire nation as a house of prayer for all people. The concept of such a
cathedral dates back to 1791 when Pierre L.’ Enfant specified “a great church for national
purposes” in his plan for the city”/43.

So let’s take a look at the exact test of the 14th Amendment so we can see what is taking
place.

Amendment XIV (1868) Section 1. “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein
they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life,
liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the law.”

Section 2. “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to

their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding
Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for
President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the
Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is
denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and
citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or
other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the
number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one
years of age in such State.”

Section 3. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of

President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or
under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an
officer of the United States, or as member of any State Legislature, or an executive or
 judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have
engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote to two-thirds of each House, remove such
disability.”

Section 4. “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 rebellions 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.”

Section 5. “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the
provisions of this article.”

First, let’s notice the italicized part of Section 1.

Two important facts are derived from this part. One – this Amendment deals with trust law.
The phrase “and subject to”/44 is language that is used for trusts which are nothing more
than private contractual arrangements.

Two – Section 1 states that you are now to be firstly and primarily a citizen of the United
States and secondly a citizen of the State, while outside the 14th Amendment, and under
the full rights of the Constitution, it is just the opposite.

Next, notice the italicized part of Section 4. According to this, the “validity of the public
debt” and all its facets “shall not be questioned.” Whether Amendments to the Federal
Constitution have been properly ratified is (usually) a political question/45. A political
question means that it is voluntary. The court will never question your choice, but will
enforce that choice. This is why Section 4 of the 14th Amendment says “the public debt
shall not be questioned.” When one is a beneficiary of the public debt when you have
volunteered (politically) for it. It is like suing yourself, it is impossible. Another U.S.
Supreme Court decision also verifies that you can reject the benefits of a trust (the public
debt) if you realize you are not the beneficiary/46. In other words, is it your will to be a part
of the economic benefit of the legislature? If not, then what evidence do you have to show
that you have declined to be a beneficiary? This is where your “Declaration of
Independence” comes in.

The 14th Amendment is private unilateral contract law being used in the public sector to
dictate public policy. Everyone born since 1868 has, by accident of birth, become subject to
the 14th Amendment. “Subject to” is accomplished through the constructive trust created
under the Roman civil law offer and acceptance principles and all its ramifications, including
being citizens primarily of the United States government and not of the state in which you
live. Plus, you also have the additional benefit of being part of and responsible for the public
debt of the trust. The 14th Amendment does not say that all persons are subject to, it
says “and subject to” which is the first clue to revealing that each citizen does have a choice
as to whether or not they want to be “subject to.”

The 14th Amendment citizenship is one which a citizen keeps unless he voluntarily
relinquishes it and which, once acquired, cannot be shifted, canceled, or diluted at the will
of the Federal Government, the states, or any other governmental unit.

Allegiance in this country is not due to Congress, but to the people, with whom the
sovereign power is found …

“It was subsequently acknowledged by several members of this Court that a central purpose
of the Citizenship Clause was to create an independent basis of federal citizenship, and thus
to overturn the doctrine of primary state citizenship”/47.

Separation of Church and State

Within the 14th Amendment charitable trust, there is no separation of church and state.
Organized religion today is in bed with the government and they are “one flesh” with it. A
majority of the public interest of churches today centers on the social issues the
government is developing policy over, while the churches are oblivious to the fact that the
government is operating as a charitable church trust. That is, government is nothing more
than a political church trust for charitable purposes.

The reader must understand that what a man believes in his conscience is his religion. It
matters not whether he or she belongs to an organized denomination. It does not even
matter if they believe in one God, fifty Gods or no God, their personal belief is their
conscience and religion. The conscience or belief of a man is changeable. It is conditioned
according to where he or she was born, raised and educated. Conscience is being influenced
every day by what one encounters, therefore the conscience is not absolute but rather
abstract. What one man would decide regarding some incident or happening may not be the
same as what another would decide.

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution was for the purpose of preventing religion from
becoming government policy.

Amendment I. (1791) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances.”

However, this Amendment has been misunderstood according to the court cases that have
dealt with it. What the first Amendment is about (literally) is to prevent an individual’s
personal religious – conscience – from being legislated into law as public policy. The first
Amendment said the government was not to interfere with one’s right to express his
conscience by making any public policy based on it.

“… the term “religion” in this Amendment refers exclusively to a person’s views of his
relations to his Creator, though often confused with some particular form of worship, from
which it must be distinguished”/48…

“First Amendment gives freedom of mind same security as freedom of conscience”/49.

Because of its abstractedness and changeableness, religion has no place in the law. The Law
deals only with absolutes. Law is based on the unchangeable just as the laws of the
universe express themselves through unchangeable principles – movements of the earth
around the sun and seasons of year, etc. Law is man’s right to be free to follow the dictates
of his own conscience without harm or interference to himself or others. Roman civil law, as
discussed earlier, is the opposite, it dictates what the conscience of an individual should be
obligated to by way of the civil government’s Codes and laws.

Since the 14th Amendment, religious conscience has been allowed to become public policy.
That is, contrary to the first Amendment, a man or a few men’s religious ideas are now
constantly becoming or changing public policy because of the formation of the public
charitable (church) trust of the 14th Amendment operating outside the confines of the
Constitution. Any organization that is incorporated with a non-profit status will fall into the
category of a “church” and is involved in public policy of the 14th Amendment church. They
are benefiting as a beneficiary of the trust. This means that all income received comes from
the trust because of the privilege of existing in the abstract non-profit corporate status.
Parallel to this, all profit corporations are churches as well because of their relationship with
the 14th Amendment trust. Under the 14th Amendment, individual “persons” are put on the
same level as corporations – also called “persons.” The “state” becomes the conscience of
every member of its charitable trust and the conscience of the trust is the one who has the
greatest amount of influence or money – viz., special interest groups – to sway (viz., lobby)
the legislators. If you are involved in trying to influence and shape legislative law –
abortion, gun control, vitamin supplements, etc. – you are involved in special interests
attempting to dictate public policy by way of the private religious conscience church known
as the 14th Amendment charitable public trust of the United States – the federal
government.

Non-profit groups, small or large, are dead to the law of the Republic. In other words,
the “person” is considered an artificial creation of the state or a reincarnated group of
legally dead people acting as one corporate person. The jurisdiction in which
these “persons” exist is a religious jurisdiction. The only courts that “persons” of the 14th
Amendment have access to are legislative courts also called ecclesiastical courts, because
they operate in a papal fashion – dictating the conscience of the church (Pope – 14th
Amendment charitable trust) as law.

Take a look at the word diocese, decease and decado. The words demonstrate the
jurisdiction, the state of existence and the movement of the persons in the 14th
Amendment church trust.

Diocese, n. [OF. diocise, fr. L., Gr. dioikesis housekeeping, province, diocese, deriv. of dia
through + oikein to manage a household, fr. oikos a house.]/50. Province is also the district
over which the jurisdiction of an archbishop extends. Hence Provincial Courts, the
ecclesiastical courts of the two archbishops.

A territorial division, or colony, of a country. Duty; power; responsibility; thus it is the

province of the court to judge the law, that of the jury to decide the facts/51.
Province, in ecclesiastical geography, usually denotes that union of several dioceses which
constitutes an archbishopric; it is often conterminous with several states with an entire
country, or with several countries/52.
Decease, n. [OF. deces, fr. de + cedere to withdraw]/53.

Decedo (decedent) I. To move down duly, withdraw, retire, `clear out’ (with idea of making
way for another), (a) to retire (in favor of another), to give up rights, possessions, etc. (b)
to give place, yield to. (c) Of living beings: to depart (from life), to dies. (d) Of things: to
abate, subside, cease. II. To go away; go wrong, depart, swerve. 2. Transf. Of duty, faith,
etc./54.
Because an individual is dead to and departed from the light and life of the law – given up
his or her own conscience for another’s, viz., the trust – they have descended down from
being an absolute sovereign into a lessor law of servitude to the conscience authority of a
territory, a territory over seen totally by policy dictated by the conscience of a few
controlling the masses for their assumed best good. The person is considered an
incompetent under the 14th Amendment. That is, you are incapable of managing your own
affairs and have agreed to all of this by your silence – a silence of ignorance. Silence on
your part is assumed as acceptance of the economic benefits you were offered at birth by
the operation of the 14th Amendment trust law.

Expatriation

On July 27, 1868, one day before the 14th Amendment took effect, an “Act” of Congress
was passed. This Act was 15 United States Statute at Large/55, known as the “Expatriation
Statute.” Though this Statute is no longer included in the United States Code, it has not
been repealed and is still in effect/56. This Statute is extremely important because it is the
public municipal law the individual can use for private purposes to remove him/herself from
the private trust law operating in the public sector. That is, a private individual, who has
found himself or herself bound by private law that is being used in the public sector to
promote public policy of compelled performance which he did not have a choice in, can
access the public positive statute law to move back under the liberty and protection of the
Republic and its separation of powers.

The preamble of 15 United States Statute at Large is unique in that Congress laid the legal
discussions to rest before the Statute took effect to assure it would not be tampered with
legally in any way. It stands as written and is there for the citizens to use as Public Law for
the private purpose of moving themselves from one political or territorial jurisdiction to
another. This means there is a way out at any time of any United States government policy
or law, including those of its political subdivisions, that is based on private law. Whenever
you find yourself bound by any compelled performance you had no choice in, you are
operating in the jurisdiction of the United States government and its political subdivisions
where there is no republican form of government and its separation of powers. By applying
Public Laws for your private benefit, you can break that dictatorial jurisdiction anytime you
choose.

The insidiousness of the 14th Amendment is that even though it is private contract law of a
trust, it is not a bilateral contract where both parties sign the document after a meeting of
the minds. The 14th Amendment is “quasi contractual.” That is, it is not a true contract as
recognized in the general common law, rather it is called
an “adhesion” or “unilateral” contract where only one party binds himself. In this case, a
person agrees to the private trust law merely by his silence. If a person does not speak up
to let his choice be known, the trust will assume he or she is a part of and beneficiary of it.
They will assume that you have gifted your life to the trust for the benefits they have to
offer.

Under the 14th Amendment, the citizen [who does not make his choice known for or against
the trust relationship], is assumed to be a beneficiary because he or she has not stated
otherwise. As a beneficiary, you are an outlaw as far as the Constitution is concerned. You
are operating outside of the Constitution. While operating outside the Constitution you only
have relative rights under the Bill of Rights and the Constitution because private contract
law takes priority over constitutional law.

Public Policy and the Democracy

As long as you are under private trust law operating as public policy, you are under the
conscience of the few who influence and make the public policy of the trust for the benefit of
its members. These groups are known as “special interest” or “political action” groups. This
is why the news reports almost daily that some poll has been done to see how the people
feel. Under the 14th Amendment public trust, majority rules. This is why you hear the word:
“democracy” all the time. It refers to the 14th Amendment public trust that everyone is a
part of because of their silence. It tells you that “mob rule” and “communalism” are the
order of the day; it tells you that if a special interest group can create enough waves of
influence, the trust will be compelled by popular demand to accept the new policy the
special interest group has been promoting. If you are a part of the democratic trust, you
have to go along if you do not know your options.

Private law is conscience, ecclesiastical and religious law. They are equal to each other.
Under the 14th Amendment trust, there is no true religious liberty because the individual is
part of the conscience of the trust and the few that make its rules called “Codes.” In fact,
there are no true freedoms at all as listed under the Bill of Rights. Try publicly saying much
against the IRS and their prima donna attitude and see how absolute your liberty of speech
is. As alluded to earlier, the free citizen of the soil of each “state in this union” is not
affected by the private law of another individual or group trust unless they choose to bind
themselves by silence. Silence is slavery under Roman civil law principles. Unless one
stands to claim his sovereign rights, he does not have any. Each person must exercise a
choice to be free or enslaved. The public municipal law will uphold your right of choice, but
you must make a choice the law can uphold.

Yes, if you are a beneficiary of the trust you are living under an administrative democracy
(parliamentary democracy) – a communal association – where there is no separation of
powers and your private rights are subject to the will of the majority. You have no absolute
rights, only relative rights. The Codes and revised Statutes are for the general good of the
association. Few citizens of the (u)nited States realize the “Republic for which it stands” is a
house with no one living in it.

With or without the check of a dictator, power has been passing from the legislature to the
civil service or bureaucracy, which alone feels competent to manage the complex and
technical business of the state/57. Anglo-Saxon countries are taking a place alongside of the
countries of continental Europe with a body of administrative law and its administrative
courts, at least in embryo. The popular conception of liberalism is undergoing a great
change. Liberty lingers on as a name, but a name used to designate almost the opposite of
nineteenth century liberalism; for the new liberty consists mainly in legislative restrictions
which keep one man from exploiting another while the state exploits both/58.

Now take a look at how your own federal government defines the difference between a
republic and democracy. The following was taken from U.S. Government Training Manual,
No. 2000-25 dated WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 30, 1928 and prepared
under direction of the Chief of Staff. Under which do you live?
DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any
other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is
communistic- negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority
shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and
impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license,
agitation, discontent, anarchy.

REPUBLIC: Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best
fitted to represent them. Attitude toward property is respect for laws and individual rights,
and a sensible economic procedure. Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in
accord with fixed principals and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy. Results in statesmanship,
liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress. Is the “standard form” of government
throughout the world; A republic is a form of government under a Constitution which
provides for the election of an executive, and a legislative body, who working together in a
representative capacity, have all the power of appointment, all power of legislation, all
power to raise revenue and appropriate expenditures, and are required to create a judiciary
to pass upon the justice and legality of their governmental Acts, and to recognize certain
inherent individual rights.

Take away any one or more of those four elements and you are drifting into autocracy. Add
one or more to those four elements and you are drifting into democracy. Superior to all
others. Autocracy declares the divine right of kings; its authority can not be questioned; its
powers are arbitrarily or unjustly administered. Democracy is the “direct” rule of the people
and has been repeatedly tried without success. Our constitutional fathers, familiar with the
strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in
mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They “made a very marked
distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that
they had founded a republic.”

A French diplomat, politician and statesman by the name of Alexis de Torqueville made the
following observation about the democracy of the United States when he visited here in the
early part of the eighteen hundreds:

“The tyranny of public opinion,”

de Torqueville argued, “could prove more burdensome than the tyranny of any monarch.
Democracy (communalism) does not guarantee efficient government; it does provide
freedom for the pursuit of one’s own interest, subject always to the tyranny that comes
from the majority insisting that its values (religious conscience) and ideas should be
safeguarded.”

Torqueville saw the new state power as rather like that of the parent, except that the parent
prepared the child for manhood; the democratic state was interested in perpetuating
childhood in man. It would provide for his necessities, facilitate his pleasures, and direct his
industry.

“What remains,”

Torqueville asked, “but to spare them all the care of thinking and all the trouble of
living”/59.

RELATED
Uniform Commercial Code (The Application of Commercial Law) part 1 In "7th
Amendment"
Affidavit and Assertion of a Foreign Neutral - part 2 In "Agriculture Adjustment Act"
Memorandum Asserting Rights In "Adickes v. Kress Co."