Prelude
I must start out with this prelude
after writing the article below on sovereignty loss. I realized that people have
not understanding of sovereignty and others that still control this land and
people. This is similar to the Wizard of Oz after the curtain was lifted to just
who the Wizard was. The curtain has not been lifted enought for the people of
America to see.
To be absolutely correct on
sovereignty, the people of 1776 to the present, have never been sovereign,
period. Because the United States is a controlled corporation of the Crown, the
people could never have been sovereign. All the people did, after the so-called
revolutionary war, was trade the Corporation of England to be controlled by the
Corporation of the States. These were plantation colonies of the Crown in
corporate structure before the planned war. Those agents of the Crown, the
founding father lawyers, controlled by the middle and inner temples of the
Crown, took control of the states (colonies) in the 1787
contract/covenant/constitution. So technically and legally, and even lawfully,
the common people like yu and I have never been sovereign.
Think about it and reflect on what I
say. When Governor Caswell of north carolina immediately eliminated the quitrent
tax of the Crown and laid a property tax on the people and land, after becoming
the first Governor, how on earth were the people sovereign? If they were
sovereign there would be no way to lay a property tax and take that property if
the people did not pay this tax. This happened in every state at that time,
proving people were still controlled and were not sovereign. The article below
was written with the mindset that all people have an understanding that the myth
of sovereignty existed in this country for the common people.
When was State Sovereignty Lost?
The real beginnings of the demise of State
sovereignty was 1787 with the erection of the US Constitution. The 1791 debacle
of Washington was the second attack and the third started in earnest circa 1819
with the Bank case of McCulloch v Maryland. You have to know that Justice
Marshall was a major stock holder in that bank with 7700 shares and was declared
a Aforeign stockholder." Yes, he was a Federal US judge and "citizen" of the
U.S., but the bank was the foreign controlled Exchequer of England. That's why
he was deemed a Aforeign stockholder." To rule contrary to his decision would
have put his stock in peril. Money rules, correct? It does today and it did
then.
Eastern and Northern States almost unanimously praised the decision of
McCulloch. On the other hand, the papers of
the States upholding the theories of Jefferson and the strict States' Rights
doctrines bitterly assailed it. Niles' Register of March 13 said:
"A deadly blow has been struck at the
Sovereignty of the States, and from a quarter so far removed from the people as
to be hardly accessible to public opinion ....We are awfully impressed with a
conviction that the welfare of the Union has received a more dangerous wound
than fifty Hartford Conventions, hateful as that assemblage was, could inflict .
. . and which may be wielded to destroy the whole revenues and so do away with
the Sovereignties of the States."
The Richmond Enquirer said: "If such a spirit
as breathes on this opinion is forever to preside over the judiciary, then
indeed it is high time for the State to tremble; that all their great rights may
be swept away one by one, that those sovereign States may dwindle into paltry
and contemptible corporations." Chief
Justice Marshall wrote to Judge Story, May 27,
1819 "This opinion in the Bank case continues
to be denounced by the democracy in Virginia. An effort is certainly making to
induce the Legislature which will meet in December, to take up the subject and
to pass resolutions very like those which were called forth by the alien and
sedition laws in I799 ....If the principles which have been advanced on this
occasion were to prevail, the constitution would be converted into the old
Confederation."
Please note above that the states were
corporations, not that they were going to be. They were corporations of the
Crown in the newly formed King's government named the States and United States.
They were absorbed under the U.S. Constitution and became members of the
Motherland corporation. This goes with exactly what was stated in James
Montgomery's works on the Crown controlling. Wizard, if you so wish to see after
the curtain raising.
In 1821, the great question of State
Sovereignty was again the important subject before the Court; and on March 3-5
Marshall rendered his opinion in Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton, 264),
reaffirming the supreme power of the Court to review decisions of the State
courts in criminal as well as civil proceedings. Philip P. Barbour I and
Alexander Smythe appeared for the State of Virginia, and William Pinkney and
David B. Ogden for the plaintiff. The decision
caused much excitement in the newspapers of the country, and was bitterly
attacked by the upholders of States' Rights in letters and speeches.
Niles' Register said, March 17, 1821: "The
decision was exactly such as expected for we presumed that that high tribunal
would act consistently and on the termination of the case about the bank of the
United States, McCulloch v. Maryland, we had no manner of doubt as to the result
. . . and that the State Sovereignty would be taught to bow to the
judiciary-of the United States. So we go. It seems as if almost everything
that occurs had for its tendency that which every reflecting man
deprecates."
On July 7, 1821, Niles' Register said: "The
decision . . . still claims the attention Of some of our ablest writers, and the
correctness of it is contested with a fine display of talents and profound
reasoning by `Algeron Sidney' in the 'Richmond Enquirer and Hampden' in the
Washington City Gazette - - to which we refer those who are not already
satisfied on the subject. For ourselves, though not exactly prepared to submit,
it seems as if it were required that all who do not subscribe to their belief in
the infallibility of that court are in danger of political excommunication."
Of the criticism on the case, Marshall wrote to Story, June 15,
1821: "The opinion of the Supreme Court in the
lottery case has been assailed with a degree of virulence transcending what has
appeared on former occasions . . . I think for coarseness and malignity of
invention Algernon Sidney [Spencer Roane, Judge of the Virginia Court of Errors
and Appeals] surpasses all party writers who have ever made pretensions to any
decency of character."
Corruption of the courts ran rampant then as
it does now, only not quite as bad as now; see the next
case. You can also see that Washington was a corporation then, as it
always has been via the Crown's control. This just bears out what James
has and I have, on the corporate structure, via our researched
documents.
Jefferson's views of the opinion were vigorously expressed by him two years
later in a letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12,
1823: "On the decision of Cohens v. State of
Virginia in the Supreme Court of the United States in March, 1821, Judge Roane
(presiding judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia) under the signature of
Algernon Sidney wrote for the Enquirer a series of papers on the law of that
case. I considered these papers maturely as they came out, and confess that they
appeared to me to pulverize every word that had been delivered by Judge Marshall
of the extra-judicial part of his opinion, and all was extra-judicial, except
the decision that the act of Congress had not purported to give to the
corporation of Washington the authority claimed by their lottery of
controlling the laws of the States within the States
themselves. "The practice of Judge Marshall of
travelling out of his case to prescribe what the law would be in a moot case not
before the court is very irregular and very censurable."
The most alarming effect of the opposition to
the strong centralizing tendency of the Supreme Court opinions was the steady
increase of propositions to limit the powers of that Court by legislation or
constitutional amendment. Those who favored such measures pointed to the fact
that between 1809 and 1822 the Court had exercised its power to declare
unconstitutional, in whole or in part, nine statutes in eight States (Georgia,
New Jersey, Virginia, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Louisiana and
Pennsylvania).
Jefferson wrote, January 19, 1821: "I am sensible of the inroads daily
making by the Federal into the jurisdiction of its co-ordinate associates, the
State governments. Its legislative and executive branches may sometimes err, but
elections and dependence will bring them to rights. The judiciary branch is
the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us
at last into one consolidated mass."
On September 2, 1821, he wrote:
"To consider the judges as the ultimate
arbiters of all constitutional questions, is very dangerous doctrine indeed and
one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as
honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions
for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is 'boni
judices est amplifcare jurisdictionem,' and their power the more dangerous,
as they are in office for life and not responsible as the other functionaries
are to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single
tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of
time and party, its members would become despots."
Well, this is a revelation for those of you
that just love the Supreme Court in all it's corruption. We researchers have
known this for a long time and they have become despots as have all other
bar member judges.
On December 25, 1820, Jefferson had written to Thomas
Ritchie: "The judiciary of the United States is
the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to
undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing
our Constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a
general and supreme one alone .... Having found from experience that impeachment
is an impracticable thing, a mere scare-crow, they consider themselves secure
for life; they skulk from responsibility to public opinion, the only remaining
hold on them, under a practice first introduced into England by Lord Mansfield.
An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as
if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a
crafty chief judge who sophisticates the law to his mind by the turn of his own
reasoning. A judiciary independent of a king or
executive alone is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a
solecism, at least in a republican government." See Writings of Thomas
Jefferson, Vol X, pp. 169, 184, 197, 246.
And again, on March 4, 1823, he wrote:
"There is no danger I apprehend so much as
the consolidation of our government, by the noiseless and therefore
unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court."
Already in 1807-1809, soon after the Burr
trial, attempts had been made in each branch of Congress to amend the
Constitution so that all judges should hold office for a term of years and be
removable by the President on address by two-thirds of both Houses. This
proposition was supported by resolves of the Legislatures of Pennsylvania and
Vermont, as well as by the actions of the House of Delegates in Virginia and one
branch of the legislature of Tennessee..
Well there you have it, the board of directors of
the corporations of Washington and States are just doing what corporate officers
want. Now comes the proof as to why you all are part of these
corporations that James and I have stated over and over - - that citizenship is
the bane of man, whether state or United States. Go ahead and vote . But,
as Lysander Spooner said, it is a vote thrown to the winds and also snares you
into their corporation as you vote for the CEO of that corporation as a
"stockholder." If you don't believe me read on and you make the decision
because corporate citizenship did not start with the 14th amendment,
much to your surprise.
One other decision of the United States Supreme
Court during this period had immense effect on the growth of modern corporate
commerce. From 1809 to 1844, it had been held
by that Court, ever since the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in Bank of the
United States v. Deveaux (5 Cranch, 61), that the Federal Courts had no
jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship, in a case where a corporation
was a party, unless all the individual stockholders of the corporation were
citizens of a State other than that of the other party to the suit. Such a
doctrine of course greatly restricted the rights of a corporation to sue in a
Federal Court, and made such suit almost
impossible. In 1844, however, in Louisville R.
R v. Letson (2 Howard, 497) Chief Justice Taney delivered an opinion, taking the
broad ground that a corporation, although an artificial person,
was to be deemed an inhabitant of the State of its incorporation, and to
be treated as a citizen of that State for purposes of suit. Of this case,
Judge Story, wrote to Ex-Chancellor Kent, August 3I,
I844: "I equally rejoice, that the Supreme
Court has at last come to the conclusion, that a corporation is a citizen, an
artificial citizen, I agree, but still a citizen. It gets rid of a great anomaly
in our jurisprudence. This was always Judge Washington's opinion. I have held
the same opinion for very many years, and Mr. Chief Justice Marshall had, before
his death, arrived at the conclusion, that our early decisions were
wrong."
Now remember people, the states and United
States are corporations as stated above. An inhabitant is a resident -- is a
citizen of that corporation and deemed an artificial character. Just look at the
case of the United States v Penelope , Fed. Case 27 no. 16024 in
my book The New History of America, page 69. "Inhabitant"
and "resident" mean the same thing so said the court. Now you ask how did
I become an artificial? By joint venture. This is also found in my New
History at pages 10, 11, 21, 31,46, 47, 56, 69, 70, 75 and 90 because
it is the lynchpin to your problems. Pull the N.C. Supreme court case 207 N.C.
831; 178 S.E. 587. In here is the explanation as to why they can tax
you.
In 1853, in Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio R.
R. (16 Howard, 314) it was held that there was a conclusive presumption of law
that all the shareholders were citizens of the State of incorporation;
and this was further strengthened by a decision in 1857, in Covington Drawbridge
Co. v. Shepherd (20 Howard, 227) that parties were to be held estopped from
denying such citizenship.
Although talking about railroad the same principle applies to
states. As stated above, irrefutably, Washington is a corporation and has
citizens. States are corporations and have citizens. Are you a citizen of
either? Are you then in a "joint venture"? Do you claim to be a
"resident" or "inhabitant?" Are you then a "person" by association with
either corporation? Is this word in the definition of 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a)
(1)? Therefore, under this rinciple a "U.S. citizen" is a citizen
of the incorporating United States and that is why in 26 U.S.C 7701 (a) 39 it
states what it does. Are you starting to get the picture? Not quite? Well read
this as printed in my book.
Under "joint-venture" principle all people who
are "citizens of the State" are United States citizens, and are in contract with
the State in its corporate capacity. Therefore, if and when they buy property
privately from the United States it does revert back to the State. They are only
holding the property of the State in a fiduciary capacity paying rent in the
form of an ad valorem tax. This is where the government has conned us again. It
is a vicious cycle. Therefore, the U.S. can tax the fiduciary holding State
property because they are citizens, or joint-venturers, with the State in its
corporate capacity. This is because the states are nothing more than "Districts"
of the U.S. [as stated in my book when quoting the 1868 Inaugural address of
Governor Holden of north carolina at page 10] and due to the War Powers Act
they are also "agents of the federal government." This was discovered by Dr.
Eugene Schroder in the "Health and Human Service Acts" of the states. This
allows the U.S. to seek out and tax its subjects, people claiming "citizenship"
of the state, for they are also U.S. citizens by congress' definition of
"individual," See 5 USC 552a A 2.
Definition of Joint venture found in N.C. Supreme court case 207 N.C. 831;
178 S.E. 587
"In order to constitute a joint venture, a joint enterprise, or common
purpose there must be an agreement [your claim of citizenship and/or
registering to vote for the CEO] to enter into an undertaking in respect of
which the parties have a community of interest and a common purpose for its
performance. [don't all citizens have a common interest?] * * * There
is no legal distinction between the phrases `joint enterprise' and `prosecution
of a common purpose.' The effect of the formation of a joint enterprise is to
make all members responsible for the negligence of any member available who
injures a third person and to make the negligence of any member available as a
defense by a third person to a recovery by another member." [does this sound
like social security?]
End of quoting my book at page 10 and 11.
These decisions not only opened the door wide
to interstate commerce by corporations, but they were of vast importance in
breaking down the barriers sought to be erected by the political supporters of
the narrow States' Rights doctrines, and in increasing the strength of the
Federal power. In one direction, the great
growth of corporations made necessary the development of a branch of corporate
law to which little attention had hitherto been paid --- the limits of the scope
of corporate action and the doctrine of ultra vires. As stated in the preface to
the first book on this subject, Brice on Ultra Vires published in 1874,
it is said: "The doctrine of ultra virus is of
modern growth. Its appearance as a distinct fact and as a guiding and rather
misleading principle in the legal system of this country dates from about 1845,
being first prominently mentioned in the cases, in equity of Colman v. Eastern
Counties Ry. Co. (10 Beavan, 1) in 1846, and at law of East Anglian Ry. Co. v.
Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (11 C. B. 775) in
1851." In the United States Supreme Court,
however, in 1858, it was referred to as "not a new principle in the
jurisprudence of this Court."
For interesting articles on this subject see
A Legal Fiction with its Wings Clipped, by S. E. Baldwin, in Amer. Law
Review, Vol. XLI (1907). Abrogation of Federal Jurisdiction, by Alfred
Russell, Harv. Law Review, Vol. VII (1892). Corporate Citizenship a Legal
Fiction, by R. M. Benjamin, Albany Law Journal, Vol. LXIX (1907).
Well that's about enough for you to absorb
and please check this out as I am not perfect.
Sincerely, The Informer April 10, 2002
|