Restoring America

Restoring America
From a Corporate Democracy back to the Constitutional Republic
Reinstating the Law of the Land

Through the Jural Society
A Handbook on Jural Societies and the Common Law

Based Upon Lectures by the American Jural Society
Offered by Sons of Liberty of Southern Idaho and Northern Utah
Compiled, Written and Edited in 1997, by

Patric Alan of the Family of Powell
Updated in 2006
___________________________________________________________________________________
Restoring America—Jural Society Handbook -1-
Important Note
All Readers be Aware:
This version of the book was updated on 3 February 2007. It is a draft. It is not a publication copy.
It contains the material of chapters 1 and 2.
All material from chapters 3 through 12 are still being edited and are not available.
We realize there are lots of typos in this draft. Please only point out glaring errors as we have not done
a full house edit, yet we will.
To be immediately informed when new material is added to the book, or to participate in further editing
and revision, visit the GuerrillaVille group and sign up for membership at:
http://groups.google.com/group/GuerrillaVille
This book is available at http://www.brainwashington.info
The text of the book begins on the next page. May you be edified.
___________________________________________________________________________________
America is a Christian Nation
According to the United States Supreme Court

“Our law and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and
embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that
it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization
and our institutions are emphatically Christian. ....this is a religious
people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to
the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation .... we
find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth.... this is a Christian
nation.” [Justice David J. Brewer U. S. Supreme Court - Holy Trinity
Church vs US (1892)]
(Historical note: With this decision the court cited 87 legal precedents
showing the Christian faith was at the heart of the United States, and the
country did not and could not exist independently of it.)
___________________________________________________________________________________
America Based on the Ten Commandments
“We have staked the future of government not upon the power of
government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political
institutions on the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves
according to the ten commandments of God.” [James Madison]
Notice to the Reader: This work focuses on the ancient religious origins of the laws and government of
America. As such, the author has occasionally chosen to quote a few of the verses from the writings
from the early American prophet, Joseph Smith, because of the unique and timeless character of their
warnings and admonitions. This by no means suggests any endorsement of the LDS Church or its
current posture of support or neutrality towards the de facto government and its activities.
Thoughts on keeping the Commandments

Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me,
the same is my church. Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same
is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church. [Doctrine
and Covenants 10:67-68]
Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in
befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as
pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of
evil. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently,
and good and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever
is less than these cometh of evil...And I give unto you a commandment,
that ye shall forsake all evil...[Doctrine and Covenants, 98:6-7, 10, 11]
Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end
thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue,
uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of
God. But we cannot keep all the commandments without first knowing
them, and we cannot expect to know all, or more than we now know unless
we comply with or keep those we have already received. [Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, Section Five, 1842-43, p. 255]
If you do not live up to every covenant you have made in the House of the
Lord you will be in Satan's power.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Preface
The basic character of man has been divided between his natural
tendencies and his spiritual attributes, the one consisting of the needs and
desires of the flesh, and the other comprising an aspiration for something
which goes far beyond the demands of satisfying the carnal appetite. The
scriptures often illustrate many of the differences that exist between the
natural man and the spiritual man. Although he may deny it, the natural
man does not have the capacity to recognize, appreciate or understand
that which is spiritual in nature. This knowledge is lost from him
gradually, through a process which is described as "hardening of the
heart". However the spiritual man can fully recognize, understand and
appreciate that which is natural. In fact, his capacity to do so continually
increases until his understanding extends to all things.
The scriptures also mention that, although many men might be

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

recognized in law since ancient times, being referred to therein as the
natural person as distinguished from the moral man. The natural person is
declared to be the subject of all statutory law, and the degree of statutory
control is determined by the degree of actions of the natural persons in a
given society. The Founding Fathers repeated on various occasions that
the standard of freedom from the controls by man’s law that is promoted
by the Constitution could only work with people of high moral standards,
and that the people would only be able to have the blessings of a
Constitutional Republic, "...if you can keep it." [Benjamin Franklin]
The types of societies which are created by these two classes of beings
are also characterized in scripture. Those absorbed in the acquisition and
enjoyment of material possessions are often identified as the people of
‘Babylon’, the sons and daughters of men, and those who focus on living
the principles of righteousness and spirituality are referred to as the
people of Zion, the sons and daughters of God. The people of Babylon, in
their pursuit of power and material wealth, are often portrayed as
seducers and deceivers of the righteous, and when they cannot persuade
them, they tend to ridicule and mock them. The people of Zion seek to
___________________________________________________________________________________
convert the Babylonians also, but they are warned never to participate in
their way of life. However, the man who dedicates himself to the
development and promotion of spiritual values is promised that he will be
greatly rewarded with treasures in heaven as well as the things of the
earth.
It is because the people and activities of Babylon, by nature are without

restraint, that they must be controlled with vast statutory regulation,
while the people of Zion are self-governing, agents unto themselves.
However it is the observable objective of those who seek to dominate and
govern mankind to seduce as many as possible into compromising the
standards of Zion and to participate in the enticements of Babylon, so
that they may fall under their statutory control. Those who fall into the
trap are the victims of their own ignorance and appetites, failing to
understand the greater prosperity which is promised to those who reject
Babylon, those who have instead dedicated themselves to the principles
of righteousness.
While the Founding Fathers recognized that the proper function and
purpose of government is to limit itself to the protection of the life,
liberty and property of man, in their wisdom they were also well aware of
and acquainted with the natural tendency of those in governing positions,
to seek increasing control over the life, liberty and property of those they
govern, until they have created tyranny. As the Saviour has said, “We
have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of
almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they
will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion.” [D&C
121:39]. With that weakness in mind, the Founders expressed in the
Declaration of Independence that, "-whenever any Form of Government
becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or
abolish it, and to institute new Government..."
This right of the organized body of People to alter or abolish

government at any time it becomes necessary, and institute a new one,
known as the ‘doctrine of necessity’, was so well recognized and
demanded, that as each colony in its turn debated the ratification of the
Constitution, they made declarations to that effect in their ratifying
conventions. For example, the Virginia convention said, "We the
delegates ... do declare every power granted to that Constitution being
derived from the people of the United States, be resumed by them
whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and
that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will.
As each new State wrote its own constitution, prior to joining the
Union of states, it also included words to that effect. These are some of
the provisions for the people's right to change government, as declared in
___________________________________________________________________________________
various state constitutions:
1. Constitution of California, Article I, Sec. 26. [Purpose of

Government.]
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for
their protection, security, and benefit, and they have the right to alter or
reform it when the public good may require.
2. Constitution of Idaho, Article I, Section 2. [Political power inherent in
the people.]
All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for
their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform
or abolish the same whenever they may deem it necessary;
3. Constitution of Utah, Article I, Sec. 2. [All political power inherent in
the people.] All political power is inherent in the people; and all free
governments are founded on their authority for their equal protection and
benefit, and they have the right to alter or reform their government as the
public welfare may require.
From the above, one can see that it is obviously a well established and
recognized fact in this nation that the people have the right to change
their government whenever they believe it is necessary for the public
good.1 It is not stated that those in government office must change their
own agenda of control, as people seem to expect, but which will never
happen, it is stated that it is the right and the responsibility of the people
themselves, in a lawfully organized body, to make the necessary changes,
as demonstrated with the Declaration of Independence.
It has also become widely recognized that the government in this

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

to all those people who cannot and will not accept or be seduced by the
1“...all men have a natural inherent right to emigrate from one state to another that will receive them, or
to form a new state in vacant countries, or in such countries as they can purchase, whenever they think
that thereby they may promote their own happiness.” [Constitution of Pennsylvania, by William Penn,
Pennsylvania Founder]
___________________________________________________________________________________
standards and practices of Babylon [the Corporate Democracy] and its
government, to show them that there is and always has been a plan
provided, and a system given whereby the man who seeks to live
according to the principles of freedom, as a Son of God, may take steps,
and prepare himself to participate in a Zion government and society, and
be able to stand valiant in the defense of his God-given agency. These are
the principles upon which this nation was founded, and there are
numerous groups around this land who are reestablishing and practicing
these principles and beginning to enjoy the fruits thereof.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Forward
What is the law of the land? Most people seem to believe that while it
might be founded in the Constitution, it mainly consists of the codes and
statutes written by Congress and the legislatures of the several states, and
in the decisions of the courts. But in fact, as the early Americans knew,
the Law of the Land existed long before the Constitution was written or
the state or the national governments were organized. It was known as
the Common Law, and every society has established its own laws, based
upon the traditions and customs of its people. They were not founded
upon any government decree. Members of the society would learn these
unwritten rules as they grew up and became educated by their parents and
teachers.
America was founded by Christians seeking the religious freedoms

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

that "all Men ....are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
—That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men
..." We can see from these words that they already had their traditions
and customs of law, and that government was instituted to protect these
commonly recognized laws, not to create new ones. The right to practice
these traditions is called the traditionally vested rights of custom and
usage. In the formal study of law they are technically referred to as the
lex non scripta, the unwritten law, that which has become known as the
Common Law.
An examination of the Constitution reveals that the rules and

regulations written therein apply to the control of the government
representatives and agents. There are no rules or laws given therein for
the regulation of the common man. That is because he already knew and
practiced his customs and traditions, which were the unwritten law. It
was the government' s job to preserve and protect those rights and laws
in accordance with constitutional principles. But the Founders were very
___________________________________________________________________________________
fearful of the uncontrollable power of government. Thus, the states would
not accept the Constitution until they were protected by a Bill of Rights,
added to declare some of the most basic and important of those
traditionally vested rights which already existed, and which they wanted
to insure that the government could never deny to the people.
Further, to be sure that the government would not limit the rights of the
people to those specifically listed in the Bill of Rights, they included
Amendment Nine, which decreed that, "The enumeration in the
Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage
others retained by the people." This again gave recognition to the prior
existence of the traditional and customary rights of the people in the Law
of the Land.
In an early decision the Supreme Court made it very clear what should
be the relationship between the government and the Constitution, saying:
“An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution is not law. When the
Constitution and an act of Congress are in conflict, the Constitution must
govern the case to which both apply. Congress cannot confer on this
court any original jurisdiction. The powers of the legislature are defined
and limited, and those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten is the
reason the Constitution was written. -- Marbury vs. Madison
The following pages have been written to demonstrate and to document

the fact that Congress and government leaders have always recognized
that the Word of God is the foundation of this nation and of the Law of
the Land. They will also show how a deliberate effort has been
accomplished to ‘dumb down’ and to reeducate the American people, so
that they no longer understand their relationship to God and the
government, or the origin of their rights, so that they may be ignorant of
what actually is the real Law of the Land, and what are their true powers,
rights and privileges, their “traditionally vested rights of custom and
usage”.
These pages will also show how a parallel government has been
organized to gradually take the place of the one ordained in the
Constitution. It mimics constitutional structure, but is based upon the
commercial code of the law merchant, and is designed to bring everyone
under the corporate control of the ‘merchants of the earth’ about whom
we have been warned in scripture (Revelation 18), who traffic in the souls
of men through disguised ‘adhesion’ contracts, so that their constitutional
protection may be repudiated.
Finally these pages offer a solution for all those who wish to preserve
the rights which God has intended for His children to enjoy, and the
Constitution which He has inspired for their protection. They explain the
___________________________________________________________________________________
details and the step-by-step procedure of how to avoid government
control and entrapment, and how to restore a local constitutional
government, which is that right of the people, described in the
Declaration of Independence, when it says, "... whenever any Form of
Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the
People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government ..." As
previously demonstrated, this right of the people to "alter, reform, or
abolish" the government "whenever they may deem it necessary", is well
established in the Declaration of Rights of every state constitution.
It is my hope and my sincere prayer that this booklet may offer a

solution for all righteous men, to restore the 1oss of the American dream
of freedom, truth, morality and a nation founded on the Love for God and
for our fel1ow man and on the Faith in Jesus Christ which are the only
steps that can guide a society to the path that can make men free.
This book is prepared and distributed without any intention to make

any monetary gain. To profit economically from God's work, of
educating our fellow man in the eternal truths that can make them free, is
to us a form of priestcraft.2 If we are instead motivated by a desire to
serve our fellow beings in this effort we are sure to bring the blessings
from heaven down upon our souls. Do not be afraid to serve your fellow
man without charge. God's blessings are far more worthwhile and
profitable than the favors of mammon and of Babylon.
2 II Nephi 26:29-30
___________________________________________________________________________________
Caveat
“And whatsoever nation shall uphold such secret combinations, to get
power and gain, until they shall spread over the nation, behold, they shall
be destroyed; for the Lord will not suffer that the blood of his saints,
which shall be shed by them, shall always cry unto him from the ground
for vengeance upon them and yet he avenge them not.”
“Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should

be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer
not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are
built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of
destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the
Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye
shall suffer these things to be.”
“Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things
come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation,
because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be
unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry
from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up.”
“For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow

the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass
the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the
father of all lies; even that same liar who beguiled our first parents, yea,
even that same liar who hath caused man to commit murder from the
beginning; who hath hardened the hearts of men that they have murdered
the prophets, and stoned them, and cast them out from the beginning.”
“Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil

may be done away, and that the time may come that Satan may have no
power upon the hearts of the children of men, but that they may be
persuaded to do good continually, that they may come unto the fountain
of all righteousness and be saved.”
Ether 8:22-26
___________________________________________________________________________________
Contents
Chapter One Remedies Against a Beast xx

Table of References xx
Chapter Two The Plot to Enslave America's Free Society xx
Chapter Three Avoiding Entrance Into the Federal Venue xx
Chapter Four Establishing a Jural Society xx
Chapter Five The Jural Society Officers xx
Chapter Six Concepts Regarding the Status of Jural Society Members xx
Chapter SevenRestoring Lawful, Constitutional Monetary Exchange xx
Chapter Eight Lawful Elections and Electors xx
Chapter Nine The Non-statutory Abatement - Part One xx
Chapter Ten The Non-statutory Abatement - Part Two xx
Chapter Eleven Organizing a Court at Common Law xx
Chapter Twelve Forming The Pro Tem Jural Society xx
___________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter One
Remedies Against a Beast
Which is Daily Devouring our Lives, Liberties, and Property
(The Defacto Government)
The Condition of Law in America today, 1997
Christianity and the Common Law. contained in our Declaration of Independence

and the Constitution", that our great national
Learning to be a truly self-governing man leaders of the past recognized the Bible as "the
is the only solution, if we want to regain control rock on which our Republic rests", that we need
of our personal freedom in the presence of a to "apply the teachings of the Scriptures in the
tyrannical government. The first responsibility of lives of individuals, families, and societies", that
a free man is to follow the Lord, Jesus Christ and we "now face great challenges that will test this
the word of God; to seek to live and promote nation as it has never been tested before", and
God's truth, as it alone can make us free [John that "renewing our knowledge of and faith in
8:31-32]. This includes practicing the golden rule God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as
in our dealings with our fellow man. Those a nation and a people", and that we have a
principles are the fundamentals of the Common "national need to study and apply the teachings
Law, the ‘traditionally vested rights of custom of the Holy Scriptures." Again in December of
and usage’ upon which America was founded, 1989 Congresss ratified another law promoting
and the only system of law that holds man's the Scriptures (Public Law 101-209)2, in which
freedom as its primary objective. In the divinely they again declared that those same principles
inspired republic in which we hope to live, the and applied them to societies around the world,
rights of state citizenship alone are not sufficient that internationally, all mankind has been blessed
to protect man's freedom. He must live so as to by the God of the Bible, and has the
qualify to be a Christian citizen [Ephesians 2:19] responsibility to live by God's word as set forth
Christianity and the Common Law are in the Scriptures!
inseparably bound together. The modern-day
legislators in Congress have recognized and have The Common Law and Roman Civil Law.
expressed in law, that America’s system of
government is founded upon the laws of God. All law is based upon some moral
objective and a related 'religious' principle from
United States Law Recognizes Bible. which it proceeds. A change in law implies a
change in the religious principle. All thought can
As recently as October, 1982, the also be connected to the expression of some
Senators and the House of Representatives, in religious standard. The only real difference
Congress assembled, ratified a law (Public Law between societies of men is in how they define
97-280)1 in which they declared that the Bible is the 'god' they worship, be it Christ or mammon
"the Word of God", that it made our country a (money). Anyone not living in harmony with
"distinctive and blessed nation and people", that Christian principles cannot effectively apply the
it "inspired concepts of civil government that are protections, nor utilize the procedures of the
___________________________________________________________________________________
Common Law in the currently existing de-facto their blood in its support and defense, that they
(operating in fact) system of government, which might maintain for their posterity the gift of its
is based on Roman Civil Law. That system Christian heritage of freedom, The patriarch of
promotes the religion of humanism, and is the Common Law in the modem era was an
militantly pursuing the separation of Christian Englishman known as Henry of Bracton3 (1203-
principles from the laws of man. But the 1268), an archbishop and a judge in the king's
Common Law is the link which binds those two central court. He wrote De Legibus (Treatise on
together. Surprisingly, when a man's behavior the Laws of England), which was the most
varies from that prescribed by Christ, the civil authoritative and influential reference work on
law seizes his rights and binds him to its own the Common Law during the 450 year period
code. A well-respected lawyer and statesman, J. preceding Blackstone's publishing his
Ruben Clark, who was a former Under Secretary Commentaries on the Laws of England. Every
of State and Ambassador to Mexico, made a major figure that has had a guiding hand in the
significant comparison of these two systems of development of Common Law was a member of
law. He was a General Authority in the LDS the Christian clergy. (Martin of Pattishall,
Church, the BYU School of Law being named William of Raleigh, etc.)4
after him. He said, "During the centuries, these
two systems have had an almost deadly rivalry
for the control of society, the civil law and its The Church and the State.
fundamental concepts being the instrument
through which ambitious men of genius and The first provision of the Magna Carta 5,
selfishness have set up and maintained was to have a free church that was separate from
despotisms; the Common Law, with its basic state control. The scripture, "Render unto Caesar
principles, being the installment through which the things that are Caesar's and unto God the
men of equal genius, but with love of mankind things that are Gods." (Mark 12:17) was to have
burning in their souls, have established and a revolutionary impact on the development of
preserved liberty and free institutions. The
Constitution of the United States embodies the law. Frederick William Maitland6, author of The
loftiest models yet framed of this concept." But, History of English Common Law, was in accord
as John Adams and others of the Founding with other Christian founders when he
Fathers have said, "Our Constitution was made emphasized the significance of that verse. It
only for a moral and religious people. It is clearly established that certain matters belonged
wholly inadequate to the government of any under the sovereign control of the civil power,
other." That should tell us how we have lost the and others belonged under the sovereignty of
protection provided through constitutional divine power. However neither has sovereignty
principles. within the other. Each must conduct its own
court and cannot decide matters pertaining to the
Common Law’s Christian Fathers. other's venue. Though both systems might apply
the same fundamental law, one has the power of
The dejure (organized in law) the sword, the other the power of
government is the lawful, constitutional excommunication. The civil power, operating
government, founded on the Common Law, under the Common Law, might seek the opinion
which comes from Christian Biblical law. In the of the church on matters of doctrine, scripture,
defense of the traditions and principles of and the cannon law. While Moses was the civil
Common Law, many dedicated men have authority in deciding offenses of the Mosaic
labored and battled long and hard, often shedding Law, and Aaron the ecclesiastical authority in
___________________________________________________________________________________
dealing with the same, both stood equal before The Logic of the Common Law.
God, although each had a separate function in
administering the law of Moses. Though the founders and administrators
of the Common Law during its first 400 years
The Supremacy of God's Law. were ordinary Christian clergy, as Maitland
studied their writings, he recognized in reading
When analyzing the Law of the Land, the works on the Common Law, such as St.
discerning Christian will refer to scripture. He Germain's Doctor and Student, Glanvill’s
recognizes Christ as his King, and that Christ has Treatise7, Brachton’s De Legibus, and
chosen him to be His disciple, and he does not Disconcordiatum, that he was not just reading
disobey the King's law. It is an established fact, a the works of ecclesiastics, but was discovering
recognized maxim of law that whenever man's the ideas of men with keen legal minds. An
law dares to be at variance with God's law, the analysis of the Common Law reveals a
latter is to be obeyed in derogation of the former cumulative history of traditions based upon
(Summa ratio est quae pro religione fact). That hundreds of laws set forth in scripture, and being
principle was clearly demonstrated in the Book applied to all aspects of life, economics, politics,
of Daniel, on several occasions when he and his etc. All of those laws can be logically derived
comrades were forced to defy the law of King from one or more of the precepts upon which the
Nebuchadnezzar in order to obey God's law, and Ten Commandments are based. Once a man has
God protected them from the punishment of the trained himself to analyze the full meanings of
civil powers, both in the fiery furnace and in the the scriptures, he recognizes that all the
lion's den. principles of law that might be necessary for the
However, in today's court, divine law can only be management of the activities of man have
taken into account when a man has become already been provided for.
adequately prepared to perceive a violation of
God's word, licitly object to it, and is willing to God's Law Allows Maximum Freedom.
defend his God-given rights in a timely manner.
Otherwise, the system presumes that he has The Commandments were expressly
chosen to forfeit such rights. If we are not stated in the negative form (thou shalt not),
actively obeying and defending God's law, we which was a necessity of construction in
are Christians in name only, honoring Him with language and in history, to provide for maximum
our lips, but having no substance in reality to freedom in all things not prohibited in God's law.
what we say or profess or in living the laws of If they had been stated in terms of what "thou
God. That is what we must be about, first and shalt" do, everything not expressly stated would
foremost, above everything else. Thus we show be forbidden, which would substantially limit our
that we truly believe that God's law is binding freedoms. In contrast, man's law attempts to
upon all men who have received it. But men codify everything that people can and can't do
must become condemned by the law, except their (you must get a license, a permit, be inspected),
conduct qualifies them to be cleansed by the supposedly for our best interest, thereby creating
blood of Christ, as taught in scripture. If one's a system of specific performance. Thus we are
life does not reflect the principles of Christianity, burdened each year by thousands of pages of
it will be difficult for him to invoke the new laws controlling our lives. (I'm from the
immunities of the Common Law. government, I'm here to help you). People are so
willing, in their ignorance, to do whatever the
legislatures impose through their statutes, that the
___________________________________________________________________________________
Supreme Court has pointed out that, "Because of apply them in the administration of law to
what appears to be a lawful command on the implement God's will and show His mercy on the
surface, many citizens, because of their respect acts of men. Outside of the Common Law, God's
for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly mercy cannot be provided for in the rule by
coerced into waiving their rights, due to government. If we remove the application of
ignorance." (U.S. v. Minker 350 U.S. 179, 187.) scriptural interpretation from the law, we end up
with the statutory control as found in the harsh
But God's purpose has always been to
subjugation of Roman Civil law, the "municipal
give man a guide by which he might preserve the
heaven" in which we are now living, as a result
maximum liberty possible, that we might learn to
of our own disregard of God's word.
be agents unto ourselves, making our own
choices (All things lawful I can do in Christ
Promoting a New Religion of Humanism.
(1Cor. 6:12, 10:13). While Paul teaches in
Romans 13 that Christians are subject to the
One of the modem movements to separate
authority of the rulers, a careful analysis of the
man's rights from their divine origins, has been
context shows that the authority spoken of is
the promotion of the theory of evolution in all
only that rule which is ordained and acceptable
institutions of public education, while making it
to God. In fact Paul specifically explains to
illegal to teach any of the religious principles
Timothy that the laws of men only apply to those
found in God's scriptures. If everyone is educated
that refuse to conduct their lives in harmony with
to believe that men evolved from the ape, rather
the laws of God (the Common Law) (1Tim. 1:8-
than their being children of God, then they must
11)
also believe that their rights came from
government, rather than from God, and that they
Christianity in the united States.
can thus be taken away by the governing
authority. While current law prohibits the
As Berman describes in books on Law
teaching of the word of God in all public schools,
and Revolution8. certain men have consistently the teaching of evolution, which is very much a
attempted to disconnected American law from its part of the religion of humanism or secularism, is
scriptural heritage, to obfuscate the fact of the promoted. That is why some leaders (Dr. A.A.
historical impact of Christianity on the Hodge of Princeton Seminary, E.T. Benson, LDS
development of the united States of America. If President) have pointed out that our public
the Common Law can be stripped of its Christian education system has become "the most efficient
character, it can become a more compliant tool of and widespread instrument for the propagation of
the state. The Common Law was assigned as a atheism which the world has ever seen."
guide [through the Constitution] to control the
state and protect the rights and freedoms of the Corruption of Common Law Principles.
Christian Sovereigns from tyrannical restraint
and abuse of government. It was not meant to The Common Law is the only system of
give license for governmental control over a law available to man which gives first
Sovereign Christian citizenry. consideration to his agency and liberty. Those
However, as the Founders often repeated, who have wanted to gain control over the wealth
the Constitution could only work in a society and productive capacity of the American people
with high moral standards. Every area and major needed to find a way to regulate and compromise
topic of consideration in Common Law derives such liberty. The current system, which subjects
its original force, effect, and authority from the man to the state, was first given occasion during
scriptures, and the efforts of Christian men to the presidency of Abraham Lincoln. Agent
___________________________________________________________________________________
provocateurs had been sent to America by conquest of the leftist anti-constitutionists. His
conspiring European bankers, such as financier emergency actions advanced the ambitions of
August Belmont9 to the north, and lawyer Judah men of devious, deceitful, and anti-Christian
P. Benjamin to the South. They were planted to strategy. He must have known exactly what he
maneuver America into a civil war, and thus to was doing when, by his acts he set-aside the
"divide and conquer" the nation, thereby to Constitution. Why did he do it? We must take
ultimately destroy the economic freedom and into consideration his statement, made on
undermine the Constitution. They recognized February 12, 1865, "The people are the rightful
that this was necessary because the Constitution masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to
protected the traditionally vested rights of overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the
customs and usage that the Christian society had men who pervert the Constitution." If he was
developed long before the Declaration of sincere, as his words seem to indicate he was,
Independence had ever been proclaimed. For then we can only conclude that he was an
them, such a system of law which the instrument in the hands of divine providence to
Constitution promoted and protected, gave too bring to an end the great heritage of freedom and
much support to man's Christian character, his to chastise a disobedient society that had been so
freedom and self determination, advocated in the blessed.
Common Law.
The Wicked Are Punished by the Wicked.
Abraham Lincoln's Deception.
It is a matter of scriptural history, that
The opportunity for Roman Civil Law to when God's people became wicked, He allowed
be covertly imported into this country was them to be taken captive and destroyed by their
provided when seven Southern states walked out enemies, that they might be humbled unto
of Congress on March 27, 1861, and the quorum repentance. It is not difficult to uncover the ripe
to conduct business under the Constitution was condition of ungodliness that existed among the
lost. At the time that Lincoln issued the people of the American nation at Lincoln’s time
in history. Not only did they refuse to relinquish
Emancipation Proclamation10, on September 22, the institution of slavery, but for sake of material
1862, he also set aside the Constitution and then gain they constantly broke their treaties with the
implemented the provisions of martial law. He Native Americans, and persecuted them and
had previously hired a law professor, named other minorities, such as the Mormons,
Francis Lieber. of Columbia University, to Mexicans, Chinese, etc. And many a person
prepare a set of instructions to guide the conduct professing to be a Christian, was often living
of the President during such conditions of martial according to the traditions of the heathen. We
law. They were based upon the international laws can only assume that the Lord had expected the
of war and they became known as the Lieber American people to learn to appreciate the great
Code. Article 1, section 111 of this code says that heritage of freedom with which He had blessed
martial law is imposed by the mere presence of them. If they would not, then they must perhaps
an occupying army in a foreign state, regardless experience their own kind of "Babylonian
of whether any public proclamation has been captivity", as had ancient Israel.
made to that effect.
Though Lincoln is extolled in history for his Congress Comes to an End.
accomplishments as a great liberator, his actions
actually made great strides toward the agenda of When the delegates of the seven southern
___________________________________________________________________________________
states walked out of Congress, leaving Report 93-54914 (1973) discusses the fact that
insufficient bodies to have a lawful quorum to this act enforced suspension of constitutional
conduct business, the only lawful course of protection and the expansion of the martial law
action left was limited to either restoring the control which has predominated in the nation
participation to sufficient number in attendance since that time, though most people are still not
to have a lawful quorum, or to setting a new time even aware that it has happened.
for meeting, and then adjourning. No other
business could be lawfully conducted. They did The Establishment of Martial Law.
none of the above, but merely left the premises,
thereby causing Congress to become "sine dai". Washington D.C. has actually been
According to constitutional parliamentary rule, steadily extending martial law since September
adjourning without setting a new date and time to 22, 1862, the date of the issuance of the
reconvene, caused them to cease to exist as a Emancipation Proclamation. That document,
lawful body. though extolled as having freed the black man
from the tyranny of the southern slave masters,
The Beginning of Executive Orders. actually transferred him to the jurisdiction of the
federal government, and generated for the first
Though Lincoln was the instrument by time a body of federal “14th Amendment
which the conquest was launched, it was surely citizens”, people which could be used as a
the federal tax base, directly taxable from
greed and malice which dominated the hearts of Washington D.C. Lincoln was empowered to
the people in both the north and the south, which deliberately and unconstitutionally invade the
was the true cause of the blood-shed and loss of state's jurisdiction, seize control of all non-
liberty that followed. On April 21, 1861, Lincoln whites, and transfer them to the jurisdiction of
issued the first executive order in American the federal government (see Slaughterhouse
history. (Executive Order # 1)12, calling up Cases)15. Because the Federal government is
75,000 militia, mainly to protect Washington actually a foreign jurisdiction to that of the State
D.C., but also to attempt to bring the rest of government, it formerly had no jurisdiction over
Congress back at bayonet point. Upon anyone outside of the federal district
reconvening, now as a tool of the conquest, (Washington D.C.), or the United States
Congress began rubber-stamping the President's territories (See Article I, Section 8, Clause 17,
orders without necessarily even reading them, U.S. Constitution).
because under martial law the commander-in-
chief is the final authority. From that time Within a few years after that, under the
forward, Congress has probably passed very little
legislation of any kind without first receiving a Government Incorporation Act of 186816, a
preceding executive order to give the act force federal corporation, called The United States
and effect. One of the most notorious examples Government, was created, adopting the names
of this was in 1933, when F.D. Roosevelt wrote "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", and "America"
executive orders to modify the Trading with the as its trademarks. The act was at first rejected by
the people, but by 1878 it had become firmly
Enemy Act"13 of October 6, 1917. This was entrenched. Since that time, anyone claiming to
done while Congress was not even in session, be a United States citizen is actually volunteering
and its purpose was to redefine Americans to be to accept the jurisdiction of that foreign Federal
the enemies of the de facto government. Senate corporation, forfeiting their State citizenship, and
___________________________________________________________________________________
entering into a ‘tacit agreement’ contract with the With the Act of 1864 the emergency powers act
Feds. This subjects him to its rules and had allegedly been set aside, but the ordering
regulations, called the United States Code, and clause at the end reversed its intent by saying,
adds his name to the federal tax base. While this "unless the President deems otherwise." As proof
corporation operates outside of the authority of of this fact, although it is denied, from 1933 on,
constitutional limitations, it mimics many of its the President has re-implemented the national
provisions to keep the people unaware of the fact emergency status every year.
of its operation as a parallel, outlaw government. Also in 1933, in conjunction with F. D.
A careful Study of Public Law 94-58317, the Roosevelt's actions, an unlawful Congress, in
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, shows violation of the Common Law, gave the Supreme
actions of Congress to provide protection to Court power, for the first time in history, to
Sovereign American Citizens from control of establish and enforce its own rules of procedure,
that federal corporation. This act amends certain violating the separation of powers doctrine, and
provisions of Title 28, United States Code, which giving it a means that it could nullify any
is the IRS Code. To be able to appreciate its provisions of the Common Law, and could
significance, one must understand the unique prevent the citizenry from impeding the
meanings of the deceptive terms that are used in enactment of executive orders. Although
the Acts of the Executive, Legislative and executive orders are in violation of the Common
Judicial departments of the Federal Corporation. Law, they are at least published in the Federal
For example, ‘United States’ refers specifically Register to create the illusion of preserving a
to the District of Columbia, and its ‘States’ refers venue for public objection. The abatement
to its territories, such as Puerto Rico, Guam, nullification process (chapter nine) is an
Virgin Islands and American Samoa. But added important and effective tool of the Common
to them are the State corporations and the Law, for the demonstration of such objection,
‘statutory citizens’ of those corporations. Every and to impose limitations on the power of
State of the Continental United States is a executive orders, as well as on any unlawful
‘foreign state’ with reference to the United States legislation.
(corporation). Every State Citizen that is careful
to retain his status of an ‘American National’ is a The Liberal Campaign.
foreign sovereign with reference to the United
States. Those who claim to be able to understand
the Constitution, but do not apply the scriptural
Emergence of the Internal Revenue Service. foundation to its interpretation, effectively blind
themselves to its fullest meaning. While it is
Not coincidentally, during that time of often disputed that the Common Law is the
"emancipation" of the black man (1863) the IRS connecting link of understanding between the
came into existence. The Emancipation scriptures and the Constitution, there is bountiful
Proclamation not only symbolized a declaration source material and documentation to defeat all
of war against States sovereign rights, but also opinions to the contrary. Those who fear to come
against any private Christian who should face-to-face with the word of the eternal God,
contradict the executive orders of the President. have tried to avoid dealing with the origins of the
He was now the acting autocrat in martial law, as Common Law, saying they are "shrouded in the
well as the commander-in-chie1f of the armed mists of time". In fact, the popular definition of
forces, and thus, under martial law, he now had the Common Law today, is that it, "consists of
taken command over private individuals, as well. the rules of law announced in court decisions,
including court interpretations of statutes,
___________________________________________________________________________________
regulations, and provisions in constitutions" compelled to enter into such a court, our function
(West's Legal Environment of Business, Cross & should be to bring the grace of God, and His
Miller, 1991, p. 9). But, in reality, the Common presence in the law, to that place, that His glory
Law origins antedate all such courts, rules, might shine through us. Then they will recognize
statutes and constitutions. Those men who have who we are, and "how these Christians honor
knowingly, willingly, and deliberately ignored their covenants, for they keep the law of God."
the hundreds of volumes of law history which
contradict their favorite secular theories, are Common Law in the Courts.
acting under deliberate inconsistencies. It is the
practice of those of such a liberal mentality to The true constitutional Federal and State
avoid being intellectually honest. The alternative governments are not common-law powers of
‘law’ they have chosen is the repressive rules of themselves, but are bound by the Constitution to
the Roman Civil code, which has been organized obey the Common Law (see for example Utah
into many volumes, such as the Justinian Code, Title 68-3-1)21. Therefore such a thing as
Codification18, etc., and have been adopted into a "Common-Law court" is not abstracted from
the statutory rules used by the modem State the civil power of a republican form of
legislatures. But these can never be lawfully government, but from the provisions established
identified with the Law of the Land while they in its constitution by We The People (see Article
contradict the Common Law of the Constitution. VII, Bill of Rights).. The existing courts which
have been created by legislative acts, can sit "at
Institution of a Courts Martial. Common Law", as well as at equity, or at
admiralty, etc., depending upon who is
A further evidence of the martial law controlling the action being pursued. A Common
status which prevails across the united States, is Law court could also exist in a venue of its own,
the flag with the 2 1/2" gold fringe, which is to promote justice, if there is a lawfully
displayed in every courtroom in the land. By law, established republican body of men to support it
that particular style of flag can only be flown as (a Jural Society), but it cannot be established "out
determined by executive order of the of necessity", without such an organization to
Commander-in Chief, and only by the United support it, as some have attempted to do. Such a
States Army and Military organizational method implies an arbitrary and capricious act,
divisions. According to Army Regulation 840- which is no law at all. Such a court has no law
10,2-3, b. and c.19, when flown indoors, such a and cannot claim to issue any decision in law. It
flag is to be flown in military installations and in is such a declared "doctrine of necessity" that is
military courtrooms (Courts Martial, the court of used by the head of a nation, which he alleges to
Mars, the god of war). A military court can only give him power to declare martial law, but the
try those subject to military law, such as military will of the commander in chief is not law. While
prisoners of war. {Manual for Courts Martial it was the doctrine of necessity by which the
Declaration of Independence was imposed, it was
1984-85)20, thus identifying the type of court prepared by a body of men chosen by the people
that now assumes jurisdiction over the people of to act on their behalf. The courts will only be
this American Society, and the fact that it has required to sit at Common Law again when a
determined that the people are its enemy and its dejure government is reestablished outside of the
prisoners. provisions of martial law, and the military flag is
removed. "A court is a mere agency of the
If we, being Christians, find ourselves people, established by them in their sovereign
___________________________________________________________________________________
capacity for service of litigants". [Phelps Dodge only so long as we live by the laws of God.
Corp. v, United Elec., Radio and Mach Workers When we act outside of God's law we have no
of America, 46 A.2d 453, 138 NJ.Eq. 3] divine protection and no authority.
The Christian Form of Defense. Common Law for All Nations.
No true Christian can engage in Christ commissioned His followers to go

aggressive warfare, but can only act in defense of unto all the world and preach the gospel to every
a just cause. Not until his blood has been shed nation, making disciples of all nations. That
can he return fire or engage the enemy with commission is meaningless if we step outside His
force. That was the foundation of American law. We must pray for all those who are engaged
foreign policy until the 1920's, and is based upon in the work of restoring God's law, the Common
John Knox's The Theology of Resistance22. But Law. This movement has always been
each time we have the courage to turn the other international. All the nations of the world have
cheek, we will be more blessed yet. God gave us been blessed with the blood of Israel, and they
his law so that we would not have to stumble in have had the influence of these principles and
the dark. As an act of grace, He instituted in our standards that find their common basis in the
understanding the meaning of sin through the precepts of the Bible. They have had them in
light of Christ which is in us. Outside of those possession since the foundation of the Christian
restrictions, all else is permissible to us. era. (Public Law 101-209)2 Today jural societies
The Common Law recognizes and are even being organized in Canada, where there
embodies all the liberty found in God's law, are still courts which sit at Common Law.
which is a part of the Covenant God made with
Abraham. Christ fulfilled that covenant on the The Jural Society Movement.
cross, suffering to pay for all our sins, and
allowing us to avoid condemnation by our living The term "jural" means "relating to rights
His law in keeping with our part of the covenant. and the law". A jural society is defined in Black's
His promise of the gift of liberty to us is worth Law Dictionary as an organized political
sacrificing our time, our substance and even our community. Those Common Law precepts
blood to follow Him. originally brought here from Europe may be
deemed as being "the foundation of American
Our Christian Responsibility. society, having been adopted so far as to form
our own system of law." [The Guardians of the
It falls upon our generation to clean up Poor v. Greene Binney 553,558 (Pa. 1813)]
the mess left by our unrighteous predecessors, People in Spain have also heard of the jural
"...thou shalt be called The repairers of the society movement here, and have asked that we
breach, The restorers of the paths to dwell in." help them. When John Quaid, Spokesman for the
(Isaiah 58:12). Our responsibility is to bring American Jural Society, appeared on the Tom
liberty, peace and justice to the people, that He Valentine Show, to discuss the Common Law,
may someday say to us, "Well done, thou good the response to purchase that tape was the largest
and faithful servant". God is the only true in the history of that show. People everywhere
Sovereign, and His cloak of sovereignty rests are hungry to know how to regain their lost
upon us as a people, not as individuals, except freedoms. Our mission is to know the law of God
within the confines of our own homes and and to live it, to be real sons and daughters of
stewardships. We are cloaked with sovereignty God, people of law and substance, not fictitious
___________________________________________________________________________________
entities (persons), created out of Roman Civil souls of men, we must be of one mind and heart
law, which rules over the natural man. in seeking to live in the liberty with which Christ
has made us free. We can only do that if we
Man is Turned into Commerce. approach this battle armed with the sword of
truth, the word of God, with the faith and
The law of novation23, which is based on knowledge that God will grant wisdom to all
the presumption that people are "the natural who seek it, that we may do battle armed with
man", turns babies into commerce at birth. truth, not fiction, to know what and who we are,
Physicians are paid four thousand dollars for and what our purpose is here, to deal with the
each live birth recorded, by taking the baby into causes of law and liberty, the questions of all
temporary custody long enough to put his foot time and the incentives of all Christian men.
print onto a Department of Commerce certificate
before it ever touches land, thereby pledging and What can a Christian do?
hypothecating his future assets and productive
ability to the state. People thus have become In this cause no one that has the desire to
identified as ‘human resources’ of the State. uphold God’s law is insignificant. Even as Moses
This law of novation came into being after the once asked Jehovah why He had chosen him to
war between the states as part of the effort to represent Him, so lacking eloquence and being
establish a Federal citizen tax base. Each birth slow of speech, all of us who have heard the
certificate is recorded in the Department of Word, are called to the work of spreading truth
Commerce, the state capital, and freedom. If we allow ourselves to become
the county recorder, the Census bureau, and distracted by the things of this world or the
eventually becomes a security traded in the honors of men. we'll fail in our calling, and lose
international money markets by such business the chance to become chosen. "Study to shew
24. thyself approved unto God, a workman that
organizations as the China Trading Company needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the
(See United States Code, Title 15) To free word of truth. (2 Timothy 2:15) Then the day
ourselves and our posterity from the captivity of will come when we will feel confident, and be
this system (Babylon) of the trafficking of the glad to see our Redeemer face to face.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Table of References
Reference 1 PUBLIC LAW 97-280 - OCT. 4, 1982

Reference 2 PUBLIC LAW 101-209 - DEC. 7, 1989
Reference 3 Henry of Bracton
Reference 4 Chief Justice of the Common Pleas
Reference 5 Magna Carta – [Excerpts]
Reference 6 Maitland, Frederic William
Reference 7 Ranulf de Glanvill
Reference 8 Harold J. Berman - Law and Revolution
Reference 9 Judah P. Benjamin, and August Belmont
Reference 10 The Emancipation Proclamation
Reference 11 The Lieber Code of 1863 – [Excerpts]
Reference 12 - Executive Order – [Number One]
Reference 13 TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT
Reference 14 Senate Report 93-549 [On War & Emergency Powers]
Reference 15 SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES (83 U.S. 36) - [Excerpts]
Reference 16 Government Incorporation Act of 1868
Reference 17 Pyublic Law 94-583 [FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT]
Reference 18 Justinian Codification
Reference 19 Army Regulation 840-10 [Gold Fringed Flag]
Reference 20 Manual for Courts Martial 1984-85
Reference 21 Utah Code, Title 68-3-1 [Common Law in the Courts]
Reference 22 Theology of Resistance
Reference 23 Law of Novation
Reference 24 China Trading Company
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 1
PUBLIC LAW 97-280 - OCT. 4, 1982

Public Law 97-280 96 STAT. 1211 (97th Congress)
Joint Resolution
Authorizing and requesting the President
to proclaim 1983 as the "Year of the Bible".
Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a
distinctive and blessed nation and people;
Whereas deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy Scriptures led to the early
settlement of our Nation;
Whereas Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution of the United States;
Whereas many of our great national leaders --among them Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln
and Wilson --paid tribute to the surpassing influence of the Bible in our country’s development, as in
the words of President Jackson that the Bible is "the rock on which our Republic rests";
Whereas the history of our Nation clearly illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of
the Scriptures in the lives of individuals, families and societies;
Whereas this Nation now faces great challenges that will test this Nation as it has never been tested
before; and
Whereas that renewing our knowledge of and faith in God through Holy Scripture can strengthen us as
a nation and a people: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the President is authorized and requested to
designate 1983 as a national "Year of the Bible" in recognition of both the formative influence the
Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy
Scriptures.
Approved October 4, 1982
________________________________
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY-S.J.Res.165:
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 128 (1982):
Mar. 31, considered and passed Senate.
Sept. 21, considered and passed House.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 2
PUBLIC LAW 101-209 - DEC. 7, 1989
Joint Resolution
Public Law 101-209
Designating 1990 as the Ìnternational Year of Bible Reading'.
(Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
--S.J.Res.164--
One Hundred First Congress of the United States of America
AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday, the third day of January,
one thousand nine hundred and eighty-nine
Joint Resolution Designating 1990 as the Ìnternational Year of Bible Reading'.
Whereas the Bible has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and
blessed Nation and people;
Whereas deeply held values springing from the Bible led to the early settlement of our Nation;
Whereas many of our great national leaders, such as Presidents Washington, Jackson, Lincoln, and
Wilson, paid tribute to the important influence the Bible has had in the development of our Nation;
Whereas President Jackson called the Bible `the rock on which our Republic rests';
Whereas the history of our Nation illustrates the value of voluntarily applying the teachings of the
Bible in the lives of individuals and of families; and
Whereas numerous individuals and organizations around the world are joining hands to encourage
international Bible reading in 1990: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That 1990 is designated as the Ìnternational Year of Bible Reading'. The President is
authorized and requested to issue a proclamation recognizing both the formative influence the Bible has
had on many societies of the world and the value of the study of the Bible.
Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Vice President of the United States and
President of the Senate.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 3
About Henry of Bracton
Henry of Bracton, (Henricus de Brattona or Bractona) also Henry de Bracton, (d. 1268), an English jurist
noted for his writings on law, particularly De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (On the Laws and Customs of
England). He was a judge of the court known as coram rege (later King's Bench) from 1247-50 and from 1253-
57, retiring in 1257, but continuing to serve on judicial commissions. Brachton’s chief claim to fame is his work
with the above long treatise, ‘De Legibus’, commonly known as ‘Bracton’, which the noted legal historian F.W.
Maitland described as "the crown and flower of English jurisprudence." It attempts to explain rationally the
whole of English law, a task not again undertaken until Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in
the eighteenth century. The work is remarkable both for its wealth of detail and its efforts to make sense out of
English law in terms of its associates, the combination of Roman and canon law taught in the universities in
Bracton's time.
While attribution of the work to Bracton is of ample antiquity, some believe the bulk of it was written in the
1220's and 1230's by persons other than Bracton. That it was edited and partially updated in the late 1230's, with
additions being made to it between that time and the 1250's, the last owner of the original manuscript and the
author of the later additions being Bracton. Others think the main part was compiled by Brachton himself,
between 1250 and 1256; but apparently as an unfinished work, perhaps due to the fact that when he ceased to be
a member of the king's central court Bracton had to surrender judicial records he had been using as raw material.
Though unfinished it is the best work produced by any English lawyer in the middle ages. Published in 1569 by
Richard Tottel, and reprinted in 1640, an edition (1878-83) with English translation was included in the Rolls
Series. Another edition was published by the Selden Society, London (1968-77). Manuscript copies are
numerous.
Bracton is called the Blackstone of the thirteenth century, b. probably in King John's reign and died about four
years before the close of that of Henry III. Thus his lifetime almost coincided with the eventful period between
the grant of Magna Charta and the defeat and death of Simon of Montfort, Earl of Leicester, at the battle of
Evesham. By birth, property, and ecclesiastical advance he appears to have been a man of Devon, in which shire
there are two parishes of the name of Bratton, viz., Bratton-Clovelly and Bratton-Fleming, one of them being
likely his birthplace. Thus the correct form of his name is probably Bratton [variant – Bretton], by which he was
doubtless known in his own day. In point of etymology, "Bradtone" (broad town) seems likely to have been the
earlier form of the name.
It is said that Bratton prepared for his distinguished career in his youth at the University of Oxford, where he
had taken the degree of doctor of civil and canon law. While possible, this is lacking of proof. He was taken into
the service of King Henry III, where the kings curia had grown distinct from King's Council and a body of
professional judges had come into existence. Henry Bratton became one of these skilled judges. In 1245 we first
find him acting in a judicial capacity, and from then on he is either found as a justice in Eyre (in his native
Devon and nearby southwestern counties, especially Somerset, Devon and Cornwall) or as holding pleas before
the king himself, until the end of 1267. Thus he was surely a regular permanent judge, but never appears as
holding placito de banco, sitting on the Bench at Westminster. While many special marks of royal favor are on
his record, he was neither side's partisan in the civil broils of his time, and was respected and trusted by king and
barons alike.
It appears Bratton entered the king's service as a clerk under the patronage of William Raleigh, who after long
service as a royal justice died bishop of Winchester in 1250. Sitting as a judge in the king's central court, he
heard those pleas which "followed the king"; in other words, he was a member of that part of the tribunal which
___________________________________________________________________________________
became distinguished as the king's bench. From there he retired or was dismissed in or about the year 1257,
shortly before the meeting of the Mad Parliament at Oxford in 1258. Whether his departure was connected with
the political events of the uneasy time is not certain. He continued as tribunal in the southwest, and in 1267 was
a member of a board of prelates, barons and judges appointed to hear the complaints of the disinherited partisans
of Simon de Montfort.
Like professional judges of his time, Bracton was an ecclesiastic. His known church preferments are
Barnstaple archdeaconry, conferred upon him in 1264, but which he quitted that year for the chancellorship of
Exeter cathedral, retaining this dignity until his death in 1268, where he enjoyed a cononry, and prebend as well,
in Exeter cathedral church, as in the collegiate church of Bosham. All these benefices were of the Bishop of
Exeter's gift, though as the king's clerk engaged in the kings business, Bracton could seldom or never have kept
residence. His body was buried in Exeter cathedral, before an altar at which he had founded a perpetual chantry
for his soul.
Of "De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliæ", Professor Paul Vinogradoff (the Athenæum, 19 July, 1884)
writes that it "testifies to the influence of Roman jurisprudence and of its medieval exponents, but at the same
time remains a statement of genuine English law, a statement so detailed and accurate that there is nothing to
match it in the whole legal literature of the Middle Ages." The number of decided cases therein referred to
(Bratton's law is naturally case-law) amounts to four hundred and fifty. The first printed edition was published
in 1569 in folio, and reprinted in quarto in 1640. A recession and translation of the whole work in six volumes,
by Sir Travers Twiss, was issued in London (Rolls publications) from 1878 to 1883.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 4
Prior to 1880, the Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas was one of the highest judicial officials in England, behind only the Lord High Chancellor and the
Lord Chief Justice of the King's (or Queen's) Bench. In 1880, the office was combined with the Lord Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench and the Lord Chief
Baron of the Exchequer to create the new office of Lord Chief Justice of England.
Chief Justices of the Common Pleas, 1217-1880

Martin of Pattishall 1217-1229 William Thirning 1396-1413 Sir John Vaughan 1668-1674
Sir Thomas of Moulton 1229-1233 Richard Norton 1413-1420 Sir Francis North 1675-1682
William of Raleigh 1233-1234 Sir William Babington 1423-1436 Sir Francis Pemberton 1683
Sir Thomas of Moulton 1234-1236 Sir John Juyn 1436-1439 Sir Thomas Jones 1683-1686
Robert of Lexinton 1236-1244 John Cottesmore 1439 Sir Henry Bedingfield 1686-1687
Henry of Bath 1245-1249 Sir Richard Newton 1439-1448 Sir Edward Herbert 1687-1689
Roger of Thirkleby 1249-1256 Sir John Prysot 1449-1461 Sir Henry Pollexfen 1689-1691
Henry of Bath 1256-1258 Sir Robert Danby 1461-1471 Sir George Treby 1692-1700
Roger of Thirkleby 1258-1260 Sir Thomas Bryan 1471-1500 Thomas Trevor, 1st Baron Trevor 1701-1714
Sir Gilbert of Preston 1260-1267 Sir Thomas Wode 1500-1502 Peter King, 1st Baron King 1714-1725
Martin of Littlebury 1267-1272 Sir Thomas Frowyk 1502-1506 Sir Robert Eyre 1725-1735
Sir Gilbert of Preston 1272-1274 Sir Robert Rede 1506-1519 Sir Thomas Reeve 1735-1737
Roger of Seaton 1274-1278 Sir John Ernley 1519-1520 Sir John Willes 1737-1761
Sir Thomas Weyland 1278-1289 Sir Robert Brudenell 1520-1530 Charles Pratt, 1st Baron Camden 1762-1766
Sir Ralph Sandwich 1289-1290 Sir Robert Norwich 1530-1535 Sir John Eardley Wilmot 1766-1771
John of Mettingham 1290-1301 Sir John Baldwin 1535-1545 Sir William de Grey 1771-1780
Ralph Hengham 1301-1309 Sir Edward Montagu 1545-1553 Alexander Wedderburn, 1st Baron Loughborough 1780-1793
Sir William Bereford 1309-1326 Sir Richard Morgan 1553-1554 Sir James Eyre 1793-1799
Hervey Stanton 1326 Sir Robert Broke 1554-1558 John Scott, 1st Baron Eldon 1799-1801
Sir William Herle 1327-1329 Anthony Browne 1558-1559 Richard Pepper Arden, 1st Baron Alvanley 1801-1804
Sir John Stonor 1329-1331 Sir James Dyer 1559-1582 Sir James Mansfield 1804-1814
Sir William Herle 1331-1333 Sir Edmund Anderson 1582-1605 Sir Vicary Gibbs 1814-1818
Sir Henry Scrope 1333 Sir Francis Gawdy 1605 Sir Robert Dallas 1818-1824
Sir William Herle 1333-1335 Sir Edward Coke 1606-1613 Robert Gifford, 1st Baron Gifford 1824
Sir John Stonor 1335-1341 Sir Henry Hobart 1613-1625 Sir William Best 1824-1829
Sir Roger Hillary 1341-1342 Sir Thomas Richardson 1626-1631 Sir Nicholas Conyngham Tindal 1829-1846
Sir John Stonor 1342-1354 Sir Robert Heath 1631-1634 Sir Thomas Wilde 1846-1850
Sir Roger Hillary 1354-1356 Sir John Finch 1634-1640 Sir John Jervis 1850-1856
Sir Robert Thorpe 1356-1371 Sir Edward Littleton 1640-1641 Sir Alexander Cockburn, 12th Baronet 1856-1859
Sir William Fyncheden 1371-1374 Sir John Bankes 1641-1644 Sir William Erle 1859-1866
Sir Robert Bealknap 1374-1388 Oliver St John 1648-1660 Sir William Bovill 1866-1873
Sir Robert Charleton 1388-1395 Sir Orlando Bridgeman 1660-1667 John Duke Coleridge, 1st Baron Coleridge 1873-1880
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 5
Magna Carta – [Excerpts]
JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of

Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops,
abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to
all his officials and loyal subjects, Greeting.
KNOW THAT BEFORE GOD, for the health of our soul and those of our
ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church,
and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend
fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and
cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William
bishop of London, etc. (about 25 other church dignitaries and royal subjects
are listed here)
[Approximately two-thirds of the clauses of Magna Carta of 1215 are concerned

with matters such as land ownership, military service, titles, inheritances, and
with the misuse of their powers by royal officials. As regards other topics, the
first and the last clauses, conceding the freedom of the Church, and in particular
confirming its right to elect its own dignitaries without royal interference,
reflects John's dispute with the Pope over Stephen Langton's election as
archbishop of Canterbury]:
(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present

charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English
Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties
unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that
of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us
and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the
Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and
importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This
freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith
by our heirs in perpetuity.
- - -(Body of Text) - - -
(63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English

Church shall be free, and that men in our kingdom shall have and keep all
these liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably in their fulness
and entirety for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all things and all
places for ever.
Both we and the barons have sworn that all this shall be observed in
good faith and without deceit. Witness the abovementioned people and
many others.
Given by our hand in the meadow that is called Runnymede, between
Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June in the seventeenth year of
our reign (i.e. 1215: the new regnal year began on 28 May).
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 6
Maitland, Frederic William (May 28, 1850 - December 19, 1906)—English jurist and historian,
son of John Gorham Maitland, he was educated at Eton and Trinity, Cambridge, was bracketed at the head of the
moral sciences tripos of 1872, and won a Whewell scholarship for international law. Maitland's poems were
reprinted by Sibbald in his Chronicle of Scottish Poetry (1902), and in 1930 by the Maitland.Club, named after
him, and founded for the purpose of continuing his efforts to preserve the remains of early Scots literature.
Called to the bar (Lincoln's Inn) in 1876, he became a competent equity lawyer and conveyancer, but finally
devoted himself to comparative jurisprudence and especially the history of English law.
Maitland did not claim to be a paleographer; but he taught himself by teaching others, and became
esteemed an expert on MSS. Much controversy followed, and Maitland briefly reverted to the subject in the
course of a very judicious contribution to The Cambridge Modern History 34 entitled “The Anglican Settlement
and the Scottish Reformation.” His Rede lecture (1901) entitled English Law and the Renaissance, with its
humorous half-outlook on the future, will not easily be forgotten.
During part of his life as librarian at Lambeth, in an early work on the Albigenses and Waldenses
(1832), Maitland treated the pretensions of Joseph Milner’s Church History with contempt, and in later articles,
attacked both him and Foxe, the author of The Book of Martyrs. Maitland’s success is all the more notable in
that he took no interest in philology for its own sake and that his work on the Year Books was done in the
closing years of his life, under the handicap of illness and enforced absences from England.
His clear and steady perception of a need in historiography and his fidelity to the liberating and
therapeutic principle of historical-mindedness were, it seems, the most distinctive factors in Maitland’s greatness
as a historian. He did not employ the vocabulary of present-day semantics, which is not strange since the term
itself was only beginning to come into English usage as the name of a theory, or science, of meaning toward the
close of his life. He was the first major English historian to break with the classic Whiggish interpretation of
English legal and constitutional history. His originality of outlook and his ability to comprehend the essential
nature of a scholarly problem enabled him to break through the deeply rooted assumptions of English
historiography, so widely accepted by 19th-century historical scholarship.
Maitland was born in London to a professional family; his father was a fellow of Trinity College,
Cambridge and secretary to the Civil Service Commission, his grandfather a noted historian, lawyer and
clergyman. Maitland himself started in law, but turned to reading history. Although legal history has moved
on since Maitland worked, specialists in the field still hold him in high regard for placing their subject on a
sound footing. A thorough scholar, he founded the Selden Society which made historical legal records available
in print. The Society was founded in 1887 by Maitland, with the support of the judges, the Inns of Court, the
universities and the legal profession, in England, the United States and other countries, for the publication of
early English documents and he edited many texts himself, such as Henry de Bracton's notebook and the Year
Books of Edward II, Maitland's late, great essays on the historical origins of the state.
He edited numerous other volumes for the Selden Society, including Select Pleas for the Crown, 1200-
1225, Select Pleas in Manorial Courts and The Court Baron; and among his principal works were Gloucester
Pleas (1884), Justice and Police (1885), Bractons NoteBook (1887), History of English Law (with Sir F. Pollock,
1895; new ed.). Maitland begins The Constitutional History of England at the time of the death of Edward I and
completes his review with the early twentieth century. Although he sees England as sovereign, he discusses the
impact Rome, Ireland, and Scotland have had on the British constitution. And because for most of the nation's
history, the only continuous records have been legalv records, there is in them a wealth of incidental information
on every aspect of contemporary life and conditions to be found in no other source. His death at Gran Canaria
deprived English law and letters of an outstanding representative.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 7
Ranulf de Glanvill, (ra'n?lf glan'vil) , d. 1190, English jurist. He served Henry II in many offices, closing
finally after 1180, as chief justice. He commissioned the production of one of the great works of English law, the
Tractatus de legibus et consuetudinibus regni Angliae [treatise on the laws and customs of the realm of
England], a compilation that bears his name, known as ‘Glanvill’. It is based on the common law that was then
evolving in the royal courts.
Glanvill's work, produced as a legal treatise was probably written prior to 1188 and is organized around
the writs and details of procedure of the time, though at intervals he seems to abandon the writs and begins to
write in terms of substantive law, detailing the common custom. While there had been other books on English
law written before his treatise, mainly The Laws of Henry I, they were not well organized works, nor did they
reflect anything more than diversity of law. Glanvill is carefully arranged and reflects a growing centralized
court. Moreover, if examined in excruciating detail, it shows the law in transition from the discretionary justice
before 1176 to greater adherence to rules of law, including the change from tenures as contractual arrangements
to tenures as property.
Glanvill is, in the final analysis, our best look at early law. We have written records (plea rolls) from the
king's court from 1194 that have been presered. Although a bit sparse at the beginning, by 1200 the records have
survived almost intact down to the twentieth century, constituting the longest run of European secular court
records. Glanvill however, is an overview of the law that was written at least six years before the plea rolls
begin. The information from the early plea rolls is difficult to glean, but the author of Glanvill was both literate
and knowledgeable about the law. Thus the work is of immense help in gaining insight into what was happening
at the beginnings of English common law. The information, as always, is not without ambiguity.
There is currently much debate about the interpretation of much of Glanvill. (If interested in seeing the
difference between schools of thought about the origins of the law, see Palmer, "The Feudal Framework of
English Law," 79 Michigan Law Review 1130-1140 (1981).)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 8
Harold J. Berman, a Robert W. Woodruff Professor of Law; James Barr Ames Professor of Law, Emeritus;
Harvard Law School; B.A., Dartmouth College, 1938; M.A., 1942, LL.B., 1947, Yale University; LL.D. (hon.)
Catholic University of America, 1991; D.H.L., Virginia Theological Seminary, 1995; D.H.C., University of
Ghent, 1997; D.H.C., Russian Academy of Sciences Institute of State and Law, 2000, awarded to Emory in 1985
from Harvard University, where he taught for thirty-seven years. A leading authority on comparative legal
history, jurisprudence, Russian law, and international trade law, has lectured widely in the United States and in
Europe and Asia. He taught courses in American law at Moscow University in 1962 and 1982 and has traveled
often to Russia with both trade missions and research and teaching programs.
Berman is a fellow of the Carter Center of Emory University and the author of more than 300 learned
articles and twenty-four books, including Justice in the USSR: An Interpretation of Soviet Law (revised edition,
1963), Law and Revolution: The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition (1983), Faith and Order: The
Reconciliation of Law and Religion (1993), and Law and Revolution, II: The Impact of the Protestant
Reformations on the Western Legal Tradition (2003). He is the Director of the World Law Institute of Emory
Law School and principal founder of the American Law Center in Moscow, a joint venture of the Emory
University School of Law and the Law Academy of the Russian Ministry of Justice, which from 1991 to 1997
conducted three two-year programs of instruction in American law.
Review- Law and Revolution : The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition
Berman illustrates the revolutionary character of the papal reformation and overturns ideas commonly
upheld by Church historians, positivists, Marxist historians, and analysts of the law. Law and Revolution, an
incisive book, obliges the scholars of many university disciplines to readjust their focus and to see in law a
radical cultural force. The roots of modern Western legal institutions and concepts go back nine centuries to the
Papal Revolution, when the Western church established its political and legal unity and its autonomy from
emperors, kings, and feudal lords. Out of this upheaval came the Western idea of integrated legal systems
consciously developed over generations and centuries.
Berman describes the main features of these systems of law, including the canon law of the church, the
royal law of the major kingdoms, the urban law of the emerging cities, feudal law, manorial law, and mercantile
law. Their coexistence and rivalry is a crucial source of the Western belief in the rule of law. Written simply yet
bracingly, with much detail for the scholar, and an alluring story for the layman, the book deals with vast
questions of our heritage and future. A main theme is the interplay between periodic outbreak of ominous
revolutionary upheavals and the Western belief in legal progress. He disputes accepted nationalist theories of
legal history, which have ignored common roots in Western legal systems, and questions traditional social
theory, which has paid deficient attention to the origin of modem Western legal systems and has misjudged the
nature of the crisis of legal tradition in the twentieth century.
This view of the interaction between law and religion in seventeenth-century England is a historical
account of what Berman calls the Western legal tradition, shaped by a dominant thesis about the relationship
between law and revolution, and augmented by a secondary thesis of the role of religion in the development of
Western law. Berman's account of the English revolution does not define or identify the great variety of
Protestant religious teachings of the day, so the potential impact of these beliefs on the law of England is not
greatly explored. While this limits the ability to determine to what extent religious beliefs of specific Protestant
parties shaped the progress of the Western legal tradition, Berman provides a brilliant and provocative, if
attenuated, account of law and religion in seventeenth-century England.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Review - Law and Revolution, II : The Impact of the Protestant Reformations on
the Western Legal Tradition
A moving work highlighting important aspects of the evolution of European law largely neglected, it
maintains a balance between the general and the specific based on original research of sources that are neither
easily accessible nor easy to interpret. It relates the interaction of evolution and revolution in the development of
Western law, exploring two successive revisions of the Western legal tradition under the impact of the sixteenth-
century German Reformation and the seventeenth-century English Revolution, with emphasis on Lutheran and
Calvinist influences. Berman examines the consequences of these looming political and social upheavals on the
systems of legal philosophy, legal science, criminal law, civil and economic law, and social law in Germany and
England and throughout Europe as a whole.
A significant work, advancing knowledge of the social outcome of the Protestant Reformation for
ensuing Western history. Here Berman sustains his stirring analysis of theological and ecclesiastical roots of the
legal tradition as developed in the West for nearly a millennium. This second book of Law and Revolution is a
merger of legal and theological scholarship, as well as the integration of the intellectual, ecclesiastical, and
political outgrowth crucial to the claims of this book. The author excels when illustrating the effect that a
judicious study of law has on our grasp of Western history. His careful and spirited analysis of the theological
and philosophical roots of the German legal academy and the English adversarial system is instructive to a
degree surpassed only by his previous work in Law and Revolution. His intuitive call to unify jurisprudence
needs to be heeded, and is arguably becoming the norm in legal practice, though perhaps not in legal theory.
This work is of real value to the general reader seriously concerned about the moral direction of our
troubled time. He will find much to learn and ponder in this compendious book, as Berman gives close attention
to the efforts of Lutheran theologians, jurists, and politicians to reconcile divine law and natural law, the former
revealed in Scripture, the latter accessed by reason. Berman steadily depicts the connection between history,
religion, and law in this unique contribution to the history of the Western legal tradition. A master at merging
elements with larger themes, he presents details in a way that the point is never lost. Much material will be
almost entirely new to English-speaking readers.
Professor Berman’s handling of the outgrowth of jurisprudence within Protestant Germany is notably
astute, the shaping yet preserving the essence of the Western legal tradition under the influence of revolution is a
substantial accomplishment. An intensely stimulating work stressing important aspects of the development of
European law that have been largely neglected, but here well written and lucidly presented, with good balance
between the general and the specific, and based throughout on original research of little-known sources.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 9
Judah P. Benjamin, and August Belmont: were allegedly leading B'nai B'rith—
Rothschild allied figures who would serve as exemplars of the strategy for permanently
dividing the Union.
B'nai Brith, an organization extending back more than 160 years, describes itself
as "the independent voice of the Jewish community", representing its interests
nationwide to government and the wider public, claiming to be respected for its efforts
on matters relating to antisemitism, racism and human rights, its strong advocacy on the
pressing issues of the day, and important social services it provides. However many
believe the B'nai B'rith has always been an abject tool of British intelligence, run and
directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, not the interests of Jews, nor
even of B'nai B'rith members, that it is in fact a Masonic Order that represents British
Freemasonry, blaming Jews for its Luciferian "world government" agenda. Thus it
pretends to fight anti-Semitism, but in reality uses Jews in the advancement of its
globalist agenda, ensuring that they are blamed for the emerging New World Order.
Judah P. Benjamin [1811 to 1884], was born in the British West Indies to
Sephardic Jewish parents who moved to Charleston, South Carolina in 1827, and was
inducted into the Charleston Hebrew Orphan Aid Society, a precursor of the B'nai B'rith.
Attending Yale College in New Haven, Connecticut, Benjamun was forced to drop out
under a cloud of scandal, surfacing in New Orleans to win the patronage of John Slidell,
a United States Senator who was to play a pivotal role in the Confederacy and sponsor
the career of August Belmont who married Slidell's daughter. With Slidell's help,
Benjamin became a prominent attorney, even serving for a period of time as United
States Attorney for New Orleans, gaining notoriety for covering up the growing terrorist
activities of the Scottish-Rite-sponsored Knights of the Golden Circle while serving as
the local federal prosecutor.
In 1852, Benjamin was elected United States Senator, a post he retained until the
outbreak of the Civil War in 1861 when he resigned to serve the Confederacy. The first
Confederate Attorney General, he later served as Secretary of War and Secretary of
State, at last running the Confederate Secret Service on behalf of Confederate President
Jefferson Davis. As the Mossad does today, Judah Benjamin used Jews in the North,
though opposed to the dissolution of the Union, to furnish information to the intelligence
arm of the Confederacy. But he escaped to England following the defeat of the
Confederate secessionist plot. It was Benjamin's Confederate Secret Service which
organized and supervised such figures in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln as John
Wilkes Booth and his accomplice John Serrat . He was charged with sedition for the
Lincoln assassination, although never brought to trial due to his protected status in
England.
With the help of Baron Pollock, a leading Rothschild political asset in England,
Benjamin continued his legal career in London, but never abandoned his commitment to
subvert and destroy the American republic. As a wealthy lawyer for the British merchant
___________________________________________________________________________________
oligarchs, he collaborated with other exiled Confederate and Masonic strategists in
England such as James D. Bullock and Robert Tombs .
August Belmont, was Judah Benjamin's Northern counterpart, and another

Rothschild and B'nai B'rith ally who enjoyed the political patronage of arch-Confederate
John Slidell. A private secretary to the British House of Rothschild who arrived in New
York City from London in 1837, Belmont rose to the Chairmanship of the Democratic
Party, a position he held for 20 years. Belmont was a leading advocate of free trade and
states' rights, both cornerstones of the British reconquest scheme.
Prior to his advent as a leading figure in the National Democratic Party, Belmont
worked closely with the Charleston, South Carolina B'nai B'rith in fomenting radicalism
among America's youth. The effort was, in this case, run directly by the Mother Lodge
of the Scottish Rite in England, then under the command of Britain's Prime Minister,
Lord Palmerston. At Belmont's behest, Charleston's B'nai B'rith leader, Edwin Deleon ,
wrote a pamphlet in the early 1850s entitled, "The Position and Duties of Young
Americans". Deleon, whose family were slave traders, B'nai B'rith founders, and later
leading Confederates, peddled free trade and openly advocated a strong Anglo-
American alliance. While by today's standards the appeal for a strong Anglo-American
alliance may seem palatable to some, back in the middle of the nineteenth century, this
was borderline treason.
Belmont's ‘Young Americans’ were among the draft rioters and radical
abolitionists who disrupted Lincoln's Union war mobilization to the benefit of the
Confederacy and England. During the early phase of the Civil War, England tried
repeatedly to intervene into the conflict with cease-fire plans that would have insured
the permanent dissolution of the Union. Many of the 'establishment' families, like the
Lehmans and Rothsteins were post-Civil War transplanted Confederates, who
capitalized on the power of the British Rothschild family's Wall Street representative,
August Belmont, to quickly establish themselves among the city's leading bankers and
stock brokers. They had participated in the unsuccessful Confederate secessionist plot
against the Union. Now, they would take a leading role in the British effort to direct a
new opium war against the American people
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 10
The Emancipation Proclamation

January 1, 1863 [A Transcription]
By the President of the United States of America:
A Proclamation.
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States,
containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand
eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or
designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against
the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the
Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval
authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and
will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they
may make for their actual freedom.
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by
proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people
thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the
fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith,
represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at
elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have
participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed
conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in
rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by
virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy
of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and
government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for
suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our
Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my
purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days,
from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts
of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against
the United States, the following, to wit: Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the
Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James
Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and
Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida,
Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight
counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley,
___________________________________________________________________________________
Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk,
including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are
for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and
declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of
States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of
the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will
recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain
from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them
that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable
condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison
forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said
service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by
the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of
mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of
the United States of America the eighty-seventh.
By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 11
The Lieber Code of 1863 [Excerpts]

CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, REPORTS, AND RETURNS OF THE UNION AUTHORITIES
FROM JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1863.--#7
O.R.--SERIES III--VOLUME III [S# 124]
GENERAL ORDERS No. 100.
WAR DEPT., ADJT. GENERAL'S OFFICE,

Washington, April 24, 1863.
The following "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," prepared by
Francis Lieber, LL.D., and revised by a board of officers, of which Maj. Gen. E. A. Hitchcock is president,
having been approved by the President of the United States, he commands that they be published for the
information of all concerned.
By order of the Secretary of War:

E. D. TOWNSEND,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES

OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD.
SECTION I.--Martial law--Military jurisdiction--Military necessity--Retaliation.

1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation,
under the martial law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring martial
law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial law is the immediate and
direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.
The presence of a hostile army proclaims its martial law.
2. Martial law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation,
ordered by the commander-in-chief, or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war,
when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the
conditions of the same.
3. Martial law in a hostile country consists in the suspension by the occupying military authority
of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place
or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of
general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.
The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall
continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military
authority.
4. Martial law is simply military authority exercised in accordance with the laws and usages of
war. Military oppression is not martial law; it is the abuse of the power which that law confers. As
martial law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it to be strictly
guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity--virtues adorning a soldier even more than
___________________________________________________________________________________
other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms against the unarmed.
5. Martial law should be less stringent in places and countries fully occupied and fairly conquered.
Much greater severity may be exercised in places or regions where actual hostilities exist or are
expected and must be prepared for. Its most complete sway is allowed--even in the commander's own
country--when face to face with the enemy, because of the absolute necessities of the case, and of the
paramount duty to defend the country against invasion.
To save the country is paramount to all other considerations.
6. All civil and penal law shall continue to take its usual course in the enemy's places and
territories under martial law, unless interrupted or stopped by order of the occupying military power;
but all the functions of the hostile government--legislative, executive, or administrative--whether of a
general, provincial, or local character, cease under martial law, or continue only with the sanction, or, if
deemed necessary, the participation of the occupier or invader.
7. Martial law extends to property, and to persons, whether they are subjects of the enemy or
aliens to that government.
8. Consuls, among American and European nations, are not diplomatic agents. Nevertheless, their
offices and persons will be subjected to martial law in cases of urgent necessity only; their property and
business are not exempted. Any delinquency they commit against the established military rule may be
punished as in the case of any other inhabitant, and such punishment furnishes no reasonable ground
for international complaint.
9. The functions of ambassadors, ministers, or other diplomatic agents, accredited by neutral
powers to the hostile government, cease, so far as regards the displaced government; but the
conquering or occupying power usually recognizes them as temporarily accredited to itself.
10. Martial law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether
imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency
of the Army, its safety, and the safety of its operations.
- [The Lieber Code consists of ten sections containing 157 instructions] -
157. Armed or unarmed resistance by citizens of the United States against the lawful movements of
their troops is levying war against the United States, and is therefore treason.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 12
- Executive Order -
Proclamation Calling Militia and Convening Congress
April 15, 1861
BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

A PROCLAMATION.
Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past, and now are opposed, and the execution
thereof obstructed, in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana and Texas,
by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers
vested in the Marshals by law,
Now therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in virtue of the power in me vested by the
Constitution, and the laws, have thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the several States
of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to
cause the laws to be duly executed. The details, for this object, will be immediately communicated to the State
authorities through the War Department.
I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate and aid this effort to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the
existence of our National Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs already long
enough endured.
I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces hereby called forth will probably be to re-
possess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event, the utmost
care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or
interference with, property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.
And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to disperse, and retire peaceably to
their respective abodes within twenty days from this date.
Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of
the power in me vested by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and Representatives are
therefore summoned to assemble at their respective chambers, at 12 o'clock, noon, on Thursday, the fourth day
of July, next, then and there to consider and determine, such measures, as, in their wisdom, the public safety, and
interest may seem to demand.
In Witness Whereof I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of April in the year of our Lord One thousand, Eight hundred
and Sixtyone, and of the Independence the United States the Eightyfifth.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 13
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (“TWEA”) [Excerpts]
UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 50.
WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

TITLE 50 APPENDIX -- WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE
TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT OF 1917
ACT OCT. 6, 1917, CH 106, 40 STAT. 411
Sec. 5. Suspension of provisions relating to ally of enemy; regulation of transactions in foreign exchange of gold
or silver, property transfers, vested interests, enforcement and penalties
(b) (1) During the time of war, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, and under such
rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of instructions, licenses, or otherwise—
(A) investigate, regulate, or prohibit, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of creditor payments
between, by, through, or to any banking institution, and the importing, exporting, hoarding, melting, or
earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion, currency or securities, and
(B) investigate, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding,
withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or
exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which
any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest, by any person, or with respect to any property,
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; and any property or interest of any foreign country or
national thereof shall vest, when, as, and upon the terms, directed by the President, in such agency or
person as may be designated from time to time by the President, and upon such terms and conditions as
the President may prescribe such interest or property shall be held, used, administered, liquidated, sold,
or otherwise dealt with in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States, and such designated
agency or person may perform any and all acts incident to the accomplishment or furtherance of these
purposes; and the President shall, in the manner hereinabove provided, require any person to keep a full
record of, and to furnish under oath, in the form of reports or otherwise, complete information relative to
any act or transaction referred to in this subdivision either before, during, or after the completion
thereof, or relative to any interest in foreign property, or relative to any property in which any foreign
country or any national thereof has or has had any interest, or as may be otherwise necessary to enforce
the provisions of this subdivision, and in any case in which a report could be required, the President
may, in the manner hereinabove provided, require the production, or if necessary to the national security
or defense, the seizure, of any books of account, records, contracts, letters, memoranda, or other papers,
in the custody or control of such person.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 14
Senate Report 93-549 [Excerpts]

War and Emergency Powers Acts
93d Congress
1st Session } Senate { Report
No. 93-549
EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES:
PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW NOW IN EFFECT

DELEGATING TO THE EXECUTIVE EXTRAORDINARY AUTHORITY
IN TIME OF NATIONAL EMERGENCY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE
TERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NOVEMBER 19, 1973

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 1973
n24-509 O
I
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE TERMINATION OF THE NATIONAL EMERGENCY
FRANK CHURCH, Idaho Co-Chairman

PHILIP A. HART, Michigan
CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island
ADLAI E. STEVENSON III, Illinois
WILLIAM G. MILLER, Staff Director
CHARLES McC MATHIAS, Jr., Maryland

CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey
JAMES B. PEARSON, Kansas
CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming
THOMAS A. DINE, Professional Staff

II
FOREWORD:
Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency. In fact, there
are now in effect four presidentially-proclaimed states of national emergency: In addition to the national
___________________________________________________________________________________
emergency declared by President Roosevelt in 1933, there are also the national emergency proclaimed by
President Truman on December 16, 1950, during the Korean conflict, and the states of national emergency
declared by President Nixon on March 23, 1970, and August 15, 1971.
These proclamations give force to 470 provisions of Federal law. These hundreds of statutes delegate to
the President extraordinary powers, ordinarily exercised by the Congress, which affect the lives of American
citizens in a host of all-encompassing manners. This vast range of powers, taken together, confer enough
authority to rule the country without reference to normal Constitutional processes.
Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and
control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial
law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private
enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American
citizens.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 15
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES (83 U.S. 36) - [Excerpts]

Opinion of the Court
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WAITE
We have in our political system a government of the United States and a government of each of
the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of
its own who owe it allegiance, and whose rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect. The same
person may be at the same time a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a State, but his rights of
citizenship under one of these governments will be different from those he has under the other.
Slaughter- House Cases, 16 Wall. 74.
Citizens are the members of the political community to which they belong. They are the people
who compose the community, and who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted
themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the
protection of their individual as well as their collective rights. In the formation of a government, the
people may confer upon it such powers as they choose. The government, when so formed, may, and
when called upon should, exercise all the powers it has for the protection of the rights of its citizens
and the people within its jurisdiction; but it can exercise no other. The duty of a government to afford
protection is limited always by the power it possesses for that purpose.
The people of the United States resident within any State are subject to two governments: one
State, and the other National; but there need be no conflict between the two. The powers which one
possesses, the other does not. They are established for different purposes, and have separate
jurisdictions. Together they make one whole, and furnish the people of the United States with a
complete government, ample for the protection of all their rights at home and abroad. True, it may
sometimes happen that a person is amenable to both jurisdictions for one and the same act. Thus, if a
marshal of the United States is unlawfully resisted while executing the process of the courts within a
State, and the resistance is accompanied by an assault on the officer, the sovereignty of the United
States is violated by the resistance, and that of the State by the breach of peace, in the assault. So, too,
if one passes counterfeited coin of the United States within a State, it may be an offence against the
United States and the State: the United States, because it discredits the coin; and the State, because of
the fraud upon him to whom it is passed. This does not, however, necessarily imply that the two
governments possess powers in common, or bring them into conflict with each other. It is the natural
consequence of a citizenship which owes allegiance to two sovereignties, and claims protection from
both. The citizen cannot complain, because he has voluntarily submitted himself to such a form of
government. He owes allegiance to the two departments, so to speak, and within their respective
spheres must pay the penalties which each exacts for disobedience to its laws. In return, he can
demand protection from each within its own jurisdiction.
In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 178, we decided that the Constitution of the United States has not
___________________________________________________________________________________
conferred the right of suffrage upon any one, and that the United States have no voters of their own creation in
the States. In United States v. Reese et al., supra, p. 214, we hold that the fifteenth amendment has invested the
citizens of the United States with a new constitutional right, which is, exemption from discrimination in the
exercise of the elective franchise on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. From this it
appears that the right of suffrage is not a necessary attribute of national citizenship; but that exemption from
discrimination in the exercise of that right on account of race, &c., is. The right to vote in the States comes from
the States; but the right of exemption from the prohibited discrimination comes from the United States. The first
has not been granted or secured by the Constitution of the United States; but the last has been.
Mr. Justice MILLER, now, April 14th, 1873, delivered the opinion of the court.
The first section of the fourteenth article to which our attention is more specially invited opens
with a definition of citizenship -- not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States.
No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it
by act of Congress. It had been the occasion of much discussion in the courts, by the executive
departments, and in the public journals. It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen
of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Those,
therefore, who had been born and resided always in the District of Columbia or in the Territories,
though within the United States, were not citizens. Whether [p73] this proposition was sound or not
had never been judicially decided. But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case,
only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or
not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the
condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never
been overruled, and if was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then
all the negro race who had recently been made freemen were still not only not citizens, but were
incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.
To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish clear and comprehensive definition of
citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States and also
citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens
of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
The first observation we have to make on this clause is that it puts at rest both the questions which we
stated to have been the subject of differences of opinion. It declares that persons may be citizens of the United
States without regard to their citizenship of a particular State, and it overturns the Dred Scott decision by
making all persons born within the United States and subject to its jurisdiction citizens of the United States. That
its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of the negro can admit of no doubt. The phrase, "subject to its
jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects
of foreign States born within the United States.
The next observation is more important in view of the arguments of counsel in the present case. It is that
the distinction between citizenship of the United States and citizenship of a State is clearly recognized and
established. [p74] Not only may a man be a citizen of the United States without being a citizen of a State, but an
important element is necessary to convert the former into the latter. He must reside within the State to make him
___________________________________________________________________________________
a citizen of it, but it is only necessary that he should be born or naturalized in the United States to be a citizen of
the Union.
It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which
are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument,
because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the plaintiffs in error,
speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens
of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the
citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.
The language is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States." It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection
to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be
left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States in the very
sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted
understandingly and, with a purpose.
Of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the United States, and of the privileges and immunities
of the citizen of the State, and what they respectively are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here
that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and
that the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the
amendment. [p75]
If, then, there is a difference between the privileges and immunities belonging to a citizen of the United
States as such and those belonging to the citizen of the State as such, the latter must rest for their security and
protection where they have heretofore rested, for they are not embraced by this paragraph of the amendment.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 16
Government Incorporation Act of 1868

With the intent of better handling the business interests and needs of government, Congress decided the
government must form a corporation. To prepare the way they passed the Government Incorporation Act of
1868. Then in 1871 the United States Congress formed a separate corporation named, "The District of
Columbia" (Corp. USA) by enacting The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871. Its function was to fulfil
the business needs of the government in the martial law aftermath of the Civil War. As part of its provisions it
trademarked the names: "United States Government", "United States", "U.S.", "U.S.A.", "USA", and "America".
This was done under the constitutional authority given to Congress to pass any law within the ten mile square of
Washington, District of Columbia. [Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17: The Congress shall have Power ...To
exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as
may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the
United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the
State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful
Buildings]
This corporation was not well received by the people, and by the end of 1873, it was nearly defunct. But
it was reinstituted in 1878 along with its trademarks. In said Act, Corp. U.S. adopted their own constitution
(United States Constitution), which was identical to the national Constitution (Constitution of the United Stateas
of America) except that it was missing the national constitution's 13th Amendment. A new 13th amendment was
written and the original 13th amendment of the national constitution, (an Amendment that targeted attorneys
who were members of the Bar association, to prevent them from holding any public office -- thereby preventing
them from passing legislation that might serve the greedy and nefarious interests of the crown) was replaced in
the corporate constitution.
BAR – British Accreditation Registry. This missing 13th Amendment suppressed and even stopped
the forming or continued existence of any Bar association for over four decades, from 1822 to 1867, and
evidence of the existence of this amendment has also been found in over 10 different states and territories
throughout the United States.
The corporation began to generate debts via bonds etc., which came due in 1912, but they could not pay them.
Seven very powerful families had been buying up the bonds and in 1912 they demanded their timely redemption.
When Corp. U.S. couldn't come up with the money due, its owner, the Treasury of the United States of America,
was obligated to pay. Since it did not have sufficient funds to cover the bonds either, to satisfy the obligations
the seven families seized the Treasury with all of its possessions. Said families settled the debt by accepting
payments of all of Corp. U.S.' assets and all of the assets of the Treasury of the United States of America.
By 1913 there was still no money to operate the government/corporation, and if Corp. U.S. didn't do
something the people would revolt against them, so they went to those seven very powerful families and asked if
they could borrow money from them. The families refused to make the loan (Corp. U.S. had already
demonstrated that they could not repay their debts). The families had foreseen this situation and had the year
before finalized the creation of a private corporation of the name "Federal Reserve Bank". Corp. U.S. formed a
relationship with the Federal Reserve Bank whereby they could transact their business via debt notes rather than
with money.
Notice that this relationship was between two corporations and did not involve the Constitutional
government. That is where most people error in understanding the Federal Reserve Bank system, which has no
government relation at all. The private contracts that set the whole system up even recognize that if anything
therein proposed is found illegal or impossible to perform it is excluded from the agreements but the remaining
elements remain in full force and effect.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 17
[Excerpts]UNITED STATES:
FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES ACT OF 1976
[October 21, 1976]
90 STAT. 2891
Public Law 94-583
94th Congress
An Act
To define the jurisdiction of United States courts in suits against foreign states, the circumstances in
which foreign states are immune from suit and in which execution may not be levied on their property,
and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That this Act may be cited as the "Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976".
Sec. 2. (a) That chapter 85 of title 28 United States Code, is amended by inserting immediately before
section 1331 the following new section:
"1330. Action against foreign states"
Sec. 3. That section 1332 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking subsections (a) (2) and
(3) and substituting in their place the following:
"(2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state
"(3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties-
and
"(4) a foreign state, defined in section 1603(a) of this title, as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of
different States
" Sec. 4. (a) That title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 95 the following
new chapter:
"Chapter 97. JURISDICTIONAL IMMUNITIES OF FOREIGN STATES
§ 1602. Findings and declaration of purpose
"The Congress finds that the determination by United States courts Of the claims of foreign states to
immunity from the Jurisdiction of such courts would serve the interests Of Justice and would protect
the rights Of both foreign states and litigants in United States courts. Under international law, states are
not immune from the Jurisdiction of foreign courts insofar as their commercial activities are concerned,
and their commercial property may be levied upon for the satisfaction Of Judgments rendered against
them in connection with their commercial activities. Claims Of foreign states to immunity should
henceforth be decided by courts Of the United States and of the States in conformity with the principles
___________________________________________________________________________________
set forth in this chapter.
§ 1603. Definitions
"For purposes of this chapter
"(a) A 'foreign state', except as used in section 1608 of this title, includes a political subdivision of a
foreign state or an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in subsection (b).
"(b) An 'agency or instrumentality of a foreign state' means any entity
"(1) which is a separate legal person, corporate or otherwise, and
"(2) which is an organ of a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, or a majority of whose shares
or other ownership interest is owned by a foreign state or political subdivision thereof, and
"(3) which is neither a citizen of a State Of the United States as defined in section 1332 (c) and (d) of
this title, nor created under the laws of any third country.
"(c) The 'United States' includes all territory and waters, continental or insular, subject to the
Jurisdiction of the United States.
"(d) A 'commercial activity' means either a regular course of commercial conduct or a particular
commercial transaction or act. The commercial character of an activity shall be determined by
reference to the nature of the course of conduct or particular transaction or act, rather than by reference
to its purpose.
"(e) A 'commercial activity carried on in the United States by a foreign state' means commercial
activity carried on by such state and having substantial contact with the United States.
§ 1604. Immunity of a foreign state from Jurisdiction
"Subject to existing international agreements to which the United States is a party at the time of
enactment of this Act a foreign state shall be immune from the Jurisdiction of the courts of the United
States and of the States except as provided in sections 1605 to 1607 of this chapter.
§ 1605. General exceptions to the jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state
"(a) A foreign state shall not be immune from the Jurisdiction of courts of the United States or of the
States in any case
"(1) in which the foreign state has waived its immunity either explicitly or by implication,
notwithstanding any withdrawal of the waiver which the foreign state may purport to effect except in
accordance with the terms of the waiver;
"(2) in which the action is based upon a commercial activity carried on in the United States by the
foreign state; or upon an act performed in the United States in connection with a commercial activity of
the foreign state elsewhere; or upon an act outside the territory of the United States in connection with
a commercial activity of the foreign state elsewhere and that act causes a direct effect in the United
States;
___________________________________________________________________________________
"(3) in which rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue and that property or
any property exchanged for such property is present in the United States in connection with a
commercial activity carried on in the United States by the foreign state- or that property or any property
exchanged for such property is owned or operated by an agency or instrumentality of the foreign state
and that agency or instrumentality is engaged in a commercial activity in the United States
"(4) in which rights in property in the United States acquired by succession or gift or rights in
immovable property situated in the United States are in issue or
"97. Jurisdictional Immunities of Foreign States".
SEC. 5. That section 1391 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new subsection:
"(f) A civil action against a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this title may be brought-
"(1) in any Judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated;
"(2) in any judicial district in which the vessel or cargo of a foreign state is situated, if the claim is
asserted under section 1605(b) of this titles
"(3) in any Judicial district in which the agency or instrumentality is licensed to do business or is doing
business, if the action is brought against an agency or instrumentality of a foreign state as defined in
section 1603(b) of this title, or
"(4) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia if the action is brought against a
foreign state or political subdivision thereof."
SEC.6. That section 1441 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new subsection:
"(d) Any civil action brought in a State court against a foreign state as defined in section 1603(a) of this
title may be removed by the foreign state to the district court of the United States for the district and
division embracing the place where such action is pending. Upon removal the action shall be tried by
the court without Jury. Where removal is based upon this subsection, the time limitations of section
1446(b) of this chapter may be enlarged at any time for cause shown.
"SEC.7. If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any foreign state is held invalid, the
invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without
the invalid provision or applicationc, and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable.
SEC.8. This Act shall take effect ninety days after the date of its enactment.
Approved October 21, 1976.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 18
Justinian Codification
The development of the legal system of Roman law continued for over a thousand years, from the law
of the twelve tables (from 449 BC) to the codification by Emperor Justinian I (about 530). The Roman
law retained in Justinian's codes became the foundation for legal practice in the Byzantine Empire and
eventually in continental Western Europe. It was not only the legal system of ancient Rome but was
the law throughout most of Europe until the end of the 18th century. In some countries like Germany
the practical application of Roman law lasted even longer. Thus many modern legal systems in Europe
and elsewhere are heavily influenced by Roman law, especially in the field of private law. Even the
English and North American Common aw was influenced by Roman law although its effect on the
English legal system than on the legal systems of the continent.
The Roman Republic saw the development of the first legal text which is known in some detail, in the
law of the twelve tables. Drafted by a committee of ten men (decemviri legibus scribundis) in the year
449 BC, fragments that have been preserved show that it was not a law code in the modern sense.
Though it did not aim to provide a complete and coherent system of rules or to give legal solutions for
all possible cases, it did contain a number of specific provisions designed to change the customary law
in existence at the time of the enactment. While they pertained to all areas of law, the largest part seem
to be dedicated to private law and civil procedure.
The lex Aquilia of 286 BC, regarded as the root of modern tort law, also came from the Republican era,
but Rome's most lasting contribution to European legal culture was the emergence of a class of
professional jurists and of a legal science, achieved in a gradual process of applying the scientific
methods of Greek philosophy to the subject of law which the Greeks themselves never treated as a
science.
Traditionally, about 300 BC Gnaeus Flavius is said to have published the formularies containing the
words which had to be spoke in court in order to begin a legal action. Prior to that time these
formularies are said to have been secret and known only to the priests. Once published, it became
possible for non-priests to explore the meaning of these legal texts, thus jurists became active and legal
treatises were written in larger numbers the 2nd century BC. During the republican period a jurist,
Quintus Mucius Scaevola wrote voluminous treatises on all aspects of the law, which was very
influential in later times. By the time the Roman republic was replaced by the monarchical system of
the principate in 27 BC a very sophisticated legal system and a refined legal culture had developed.
Classical Roman law evolved during the first 250 years AD, the period during which Roman law and
Roman legal science reached the highest degree of perfection. The literary and practical achievements
of the jurists of this period gave Roman law its unique shape. Their several functions were to give
legal opinions at the request of private parties, to advise the magistrates entrusted with the
administration of justice, most importantly the praetors, whom they helped to draft their edicts at the
beginning of their tenure. In these they publicly stated their method for handling their duties and the
formularies for conducting specific proceedings. The jurists also produced all kinds of legal
___________________________________________________________________________________
commentaries and treatises, and some held high judicial and administrative offices.
A standard form of the praetor's edict was drafted about 130AD by the jurist Salvius Iulianus, and used
by all praetors thereafter. It detailed descriptions of all cases in which the praetor would allow a legal
action and in which he would grant a defense, thus functioning as a comprehensive law code. Though it
lacked the force of law, it implied the requirements for a successful legal claim and became the basis
for extensive legal commentaries by later classical jurists like Iulius Paulus and Domitius Ulpianus .
Some notable new concepts and legal institutions developed by pre-classical and classical jurists are:
the legal right to use a thing (ownership) as distinguished from the factual ability to use and manipulate
the thing (possession).
the standard types of contract (sale, employment, services, etc.) regulated in most continental codes,
the features of each of these, and the distinction between contract and tort as sources of legal
obligations.
a system of private law dividing all matter into personae (persons), res (things) and actiones (legal
actions) invented by the jurist Gaius (around 160). In used for many centuries, it is recognized in legal
treatises like William Blackstone 's Commentaries on the Laws of England and the French Code civil.
Post-classical law saw a decline of the general political and economic situation by the middle of the
3rd century when the emperors took control of all aspects of political life, impeding the growth of a
refined legal culture. This political system retained some features of the republican constitution but it
was gradually transformed into the absolute monarchy of the dominate. The legal system of jurists who
saw law as a science, rather than a tool to achieve the political goals of the monarch, was not well
received into the new order, and their writings were edited to conform to the new situation. Scholarly
advance all but ended, though legal science and education did abide somewhat in the eastern empire.
But much of classical law came to be lost and forgotten in the west, and was replaced by so-called
vulgar law. The suppression of learning increased with the instituting of Roman Christianity as state
religion under emperor Theodosius II, which contributed to the deterioration of Roman legal culture.
Justinian's codification ensued in the early sixth century when Emperor Justinian I temporarily
regained control of larger parts of the empire previously lost to Germanic tribes. To restore Roman law
he commissioned the production of three great law codes, thus preserving most of our current
knowledge about it:
1. Codex Iustinianus (the Code), published in 529, reissued in 534, a collection of imperial laws from
the time of Hadrian (117—138) to Justinian himself.
2. Digesta (the Digest) or Pandectae, published in 533, was the more important work, a collection
from the writings of the classical jurists. Consisting of the legal opinions of the jurists, these excerpts
were given the force of law. The Digest is our most valuable source of knowledge on classical Roman
law, as just a few traces of the classical writings have survived outside this collection.
3. Institutiones (the Institututes), a textbook for beginners ordered by Justinian, using the textbook of
Gaius as a model, published in 533.
Though Justinian had planned to finish his codification with a series of new statues enacted after the
publication of the Codex, this plan was never realized, a private collections of later statutes (called
___________________________________________________________________________________
novellae—new laws) being all that have remained. In the middle ages these four works received the
collective name of Corpus Iuris Civilis (body of the civil law).
Roman law in the provinces as revived in Western Europe in the 11th century seems more rigid than
it was in practice on people's lives. As Rome expanded, she saw reason to deviate from Roman
practices granted in many treaties with individual conquered cities. These were publicly posted in print,
of which of which fragments remain. Often the new rulers were given wide latitude in the terms under
which they made rulings, subject to the imperium of Senate or Emperor. Roman private law
recognized an individual's right to be judged relative to his status and under the law of his origin.
Roman law in the eastern empire was retained with the Justinian codes as the basis of legal practice,
and the emperors Basileios I and Leon VI appointed the translation of the Code and the Digest into
Greek, which was known as the Basilika. As preserved in the Justinian codes and the Basilika, Roman
law continued to be the basis of legal practice in the courts of Greece and the orthodox church, even
after the Byzantine empire fell and the Turks conquered.
Roman law in the west was almost disregarded. Though the Code and the Institutes were known they
had little influence on legal practice of the early middle ages and the Digest was ignored until its
manuscript was rediscovered in Italyin about 1070. From that time, scholars began to study the ancient
Roman legal texts and to teach others what they learned from their studies. The center of these studies
was Bologna, where the law school gradually developed in one of Europe's early universities.
The students who learned Roman law in Bologna (and other places later) found that much of Roman
law was more suited to regulate complex economic transactions than the rules customarily applied in
Europe, so some provisions borrowed from it began to be re-introduced into legal practice, centuries
after the end of the Roman empire. Many kings and princes actively upheld this trend, employing
university-trained jurists as counselors and court officials seeking to benefit from rules like the famous
Princeps legibus solutus est (The sovereign is not bound by the laws). The salvaged Roman law
dominated legal practice in most European countries by the middle of the 16th century.
A new legal system emerged, mixing Roman law with elements of canon law and of Germanic custom,
especially feudal law. This legal system, known as Ius Commune was adopted by all of continental
Europe (and Scotland), and the legal systems based on it are usually referred to as civil law in English-
speaking countries. However England did not share in this induction of Roman law, as its own legal
system was already more developed than that of Europe and the benefits of Roman law were minimal
to English practitioners, though some concepts from Roman law made their way into the common law.
Because Roman law was allied with the Holy Roman Empire, the Roman Catholic Church and with
absolutism it was repugnant to the English, though early 19th century lawyers and judges began to
borrow rules and ideas from continental jurists and Roman law.
During the 19th century each nation began to draft its own code and the era of the European Ius
Commune came to an end, along with the practical application of Roman law. However in Germany
the creation of a national code of laws impossible, due to its political situation, and Roman law
continued to be applied until the German civil code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch) was adopted in 1900.
Roman law today is allegedly not applied in legal practice, yet some states like South Africa and San
___________________________________________________________________________________
Marino still base their legal systems on the old Ius Commune. Furthermore, the legal codes of most
states apply many rules derived from Roman law: No modern code has really dismissed its
fundamental objective of control over its presumed subjects. Rather, its provisions have been modified
to fit more coherently into the system it seeks to control and are phrased in the national language. Thus
a knowledge of Roman law is indispensable to understand modern legal systems, and generally a
required subject for law students in civil law jurisdictions. As steps are being taken towards unification
of the application of private law in the member states of the New World Order, the old Ius Commune,
which was the common basis of legal practice, allowing for many local variants, is seen by many as a
model.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 19
Army Regulation 840-10 [Gold Fringed Flag]

According to Army Regulations, (AR 840-10, Oct. 1, 1979.) "the Flag is trimmed on three sides with Fringe of Gold, 2
1/2 inches wide," and that, "such flags are flown indoors, ONLY in military courtrooms." And that the Gold Fringed Flag is
not to be carried by anyone except units of the United States Army, and the United States Army division associations."
Restrictions "The following limitations and prohibitions are applicable to flags guidons, streamers, and components."
Unauthorized use of official flags, guidons, and streamers. Display or use of flags, guidons, and streamers or replicas
thereof, including those presently or formerly carried by U.S. Army units, by other than the office, individual, or
organization for which authorized, is prohibited except as indicated in below.
The adornments (FINIAL) on the top of the flag pole are for military use only. The gold eagle is for the use of the
President of the United States only, and only in time of war. The gold spear ball is for military recruiting centers only. The
gold acorn is for military parades only. (Army Regulation 840-10, chapter 8).
President, Dwight D Eisenhower, by Executive Order No.10834, signed on August 21, 1959 and printed in the Federal
Register at 24 F.R. 6865, pursuant to law: "A military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States,
except that it has a Yellow Fringe border on three sides."
FLAG Martial Law; "Pursuant to 4 U.S.C. chapter 1, §§1, 2, & 3;Executive Order 10834, August 21, 1959; 24 F.R.6865; a
military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a YELLOW FRINGE border on
three sides. The president of the United States designates this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his
capacity as Commander-in-Chief.
FLAG Martial Law; The U.S. Attorney General has stated: “The Placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of
the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but are within the
discretion of the President as commander in Chief of the Army and Navy…ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on
regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags. . .the use of
such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulations, No. 260-10." The Adjutant General of the Army, March 28, 1924,
(1925); 34 Ops. Atty. Gen. 483, 485.
"The use of such a fringe is prescribed in current Army Regulation no. 260-10." 34 Ops. Atty.Gen. 483, 485.
By Army Regulation 260-10, the gold fringe may be used only on regimental "colors", the President's flag, for military
courts martial, and flags used at military recruiting centers. "A military flag emblem of a nation, usually made of cloth and
flown from a staff; FROM A MILITARY STANDPOINT flags are of two general classes...those flown from stationary
masts over army posts, and those carried by troops in formation. The former are referred to by the general name of flags.
The later are called colors when carried by dismounted troops. Colors and standards are more nearly square than flags and
are made of silk, with a knotted fringe of yellow on three sides.
USE OF A FLAG -- THE MOST GENERAL AND APPROPRIATE USE OF THE FLAG IS AS A NATIONAL
SYMBOL OF AUTHORITY AND POWER." (National Encyclopedia, Vol. 4)
Colors -- "A flag, ensign, or standard borne in an army or fleet." (Webster's 1971)
Color -- An appearance, semblance, or simulacrum, as distinguished from that which is real. A prima facie or apparent
RIGHT. Hence, a deceptive appearance; a plausible, assumed exterior, concealing a lack or reality; a disguise or pretext.
(Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.)
Color of law -- The appearance or semblance, without the substance, of legal RIGHT. Misuse of power, possessed by virtue
of state law and made possible only because wrongdoer is clothed with authority of state, is action taken under "color of
state law." (Atkins v. Lanning, 415 F. Supp. 186, 188)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 20
[Excerpts]
Executive Order 12473 -- Manual for Courts-Martial,
United States, April 13, 1984
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution of the United States and by Chapter 47 of
Title 10 of the United States Code (Uniform Code of Military Justice), I hereby prescribe the following Manual
for Courts-Martial to be designated as ``Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984.''
This Manual shall take effect on August 1, 1984, with respect to all court-martial processes taken on and after
that date: Provided, That nothing contained in this Manual shall be construed to invalidate any restraint,
investigation, referral of charges, designation or detail of a military judge or counsel, trial in which arraignment
had been had, or other action begun prior to that date, and any such restraint, investigation, trial, or other action
may be completed in accordance with applicable laws, Executive orders, and regulations in the same manner and
with the same effect as if this Manual had not been prescribed;
The Manual for Courts-Martial, 1969, United States (Revised edition), prescribed by Executive Order No.
11476, as amended by Executive Order Nos. 11835, 12018, 12198, 12233, 12306, 12340, 12383, and 12460 is
hereby rescinded, effective August 1, 1984.
The Secretary of Defense shall cause this Manual to be revised annually and shall recommend to the President
any appropriate amendments.
The Secretary of Defense, on behalf of the President, shall transmit a copy of this Order to the Congress of the
United States in accord with Section 836 of Title 10 of the United States Code.
Ronald Reagan
The White House,
April 13, 1984.
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 1:53 p.m., April 16, 1984]
Note: The Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1984, is printed in the Federal Register of April
23, 1984.
Like the civilian counterpart one of the basic requirements of military law is the concept of jurisdiction.
A military court-martial must have both personal jurisdiction over the accused, and subject matter
jurisdiction over the offense. Subject matter jurisdiction is easily shown by reference to Part IV of the
Manual, which contains the punitive articles of the UCMJ. The punitive articles consist of Articles 77 –
134 which are a comprehensive list of the prohibited crimes for military personnel. Personal jurisdiction
is established by reference to Article 2 of the UCMJ, (Section 802 of Title 10 United States Code). Article
2 lists twelve categories of individual that are subject to trial by court-martial. Court-martial jurisdiction
is most commonly exercised over active duty personnel, and personal jurisdiction begins with enlistment
or commissioning, and terminates with the delivery of a valid discharge certificate. The remaining
categories under Article 2 covers such individuals as, reserves, retired, cadets, prisoners, members of the
Public Health Service etc. Another unique aspect of military jurisdiction is that it necessarily has world
wide application. That is, the UCMJ applies wherever the military is deployed.
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 802
§ 802. Art. 2. Persons subject to this chapter
___________________________________________________________________________________
Release date: 2005-07-12
(a) The following persons are subject to this chapter: (1) Members of a regular component of the armed forces,
including those awaiting discharge after expiration of their terms of enlistment; volunteers from the time of their
muster or acceptance into the armed forces; inductees from the time of their actual induction into the armed
forces; and other persons lawfully called or ordered into, or to duty in or for training in, the armed forces, from
the dates when they are required by the terms of the call or order to obey it. (2) Cadets, aviation cadets, and
midshipmen. (3) Members of a reserve component while on inactive-duty training, but in the case of members
of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only when in
Federal service. (4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed forces who are entitled to pay. (5)
Retired members of a reserve component who are receiving hospitalization from an armed force. (6) Members
of the Fleet Reserve and Fleet Marine Corps Reserve. (7) Persons in custody of the armed forces serving a
sentence imposed by a court-martial. (8) Members of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Public Health Service, and other organizations, when assigned to and serving with the armed forces. (9)
Prisoners of war in custody of the armed forces. (10) In time of war, persons serving with or accompanying an
armed force in the field. (11) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party
or to any accepted rule of international law, persons serving with, employed by, or accompanying the armed
forces outside the United States and outside the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(12) Subject to any treaty or agreement to which the United States is or may be a party or to any accepted rule of
international law, persons within an area leased by or otherwise reserved or acquired for the use of the United
States which is under the control of the Secretary concerned and which is outside the United States and outside
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
(b) The voluntary enlistment of any person who has the capacity to understand the significance of enlisting in the
armed forces shall be valid for purposes of jurisdiction under subsection (a) and a change of status from civilian
to member of the armed forces shall be effective upon the taking of the oath of enlistment.
(c) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a person serving with an armed force who— (1) submitted
voluntarily to military authority; (2) met the mental competency and minimum age qualifications of sections
504 and 505 of this title at the time of voluntary submission to military authority; (3) received military pay or
allowances; and (4) performed military duties; is subject to this chapter until such person's active service has
been terminated in accordance with law or regulations promulgated by the Secretary concerned.
(d) (1) A member of a reserve component who is not on active duty and who is made the subject of proceedings
under section 815 (article 15) or section 830 (article 30) with respect to an offense against this chapter may be
ordered to active duty involuntarily for the purpose of— (A) investigation under section 832 of this title (article
32); (B) trial by court-martial; or (C) nonjudicial punishment under section 815 of this title (article 15). (2) A
member of a reserve component may not be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1) except with respect to an
offense committed while the member was— (A) on active duty; or (B) on inactive-duty training, but in the case
of members of the Army National Guard of the United States or the Air National Guard of the United States only
when in Federal service. (3) Authority to order a member to active duty under paragraph (1) shall be exercised
under regulations prescribed by the President. (4) A member may be ordered to active duty under paragraph (1)
only by a person empowered to convene general courts-martial in a regular component of the armed forces. (5)
A member ordered to active duty under paragraph (1), unless the order to active duty was approved by the
Secretary concerned, may not— (A) be sentenced to confinement; or (B) be required to serve a punishment
consisting of any restriction on liberty during a period other than a period of inactive-duty training or active duty
(other than active duty ordered under paragraph (1)).
(e) The provisions of this section are subject to section 876b (d)(2) of this title (article 76b(d)(2)).
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 21
Utah Code, Title 68-3-1 [Common Law in the Courts]
Utah Code -- Title 68 – Statutes
68-3-1. Common law adopted.

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

constitutional violations. Except for the Takings Clause, the Utah Constitution
does not expressly provide damage remedies for constitutional violations. Thus,
aside from the Takings Clause, there is no textual constitutional right to
damages for one who suffers a constitutional tort. Nor has the legislature
enacted any laws authorizing damage claims for constitutional violations in
general, or the violation of the Due Process Clause or the Open Education
Clause in particular. Thus, there is no express statutory right to damages for
one who suffers a constitutional tort. In the absence of applicable constitutional
or statutory authority, Utah courts employ the common law. See Utah Code
Ann. § 68-3-1 (1996). Under the common law, "individuals had access to
remedies of money damages for violations of their individual rights, and these
rights, enumerated in fundamental documents, were the forerunners of many of
the provisions adopted in federal and state bills of rights." Bott, 922 P.2d at 739
(citations omitted). Hence, a Utah court's ability to award damages for violation
of a self-executing constitutional provision rests on the common law. The
Restatement (Second) of Torts supports this view. Restatement section 874A
states that when no specific remedy is mentioned, a court may accord an
appropriate remedy to one injured from the violation of a constitutional
provision. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 874A & cmt. A (1979).
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 22
Theology of Resistance
John Knox a pioneer in the Protestant Reformation was one of the leaders in developing the theology of
resistance to tyranny, which promoted the concept that the common people had a right and duty to resist the civil
rulers when they governed contrary to the will of God, as was taught Bible. The prophet Daniel and his
companions were prominent examples of man’s obligation to obey God rather than corrupt rulers. To do
otherwise would be rebellion against God. Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson voiced this exact
sentiment. Jefferson stated that, "To resist tyranny is obedience to God", while Madison stated it this way, "To
resist tyranny is service to God".
Another leading reformer that played a prominent role in developing this Protestant political theory was
a Presbyterian name Samuel Rutherford (1600-1660). In 1644 he wrote his famous, "Lex Rex: or The Law and
the Prince". Lex Rex translated from Latin means ‘the law is king’. In this writing it was taught that the laws of
man must necessarily be founded on the Laws of God and that the king or government must rule in harmony to
the God’s will or they were to be disobeyed. The government, being ordained and instituted by God was to
administer justice according to the principles of God's Law.
In articulation of this Christian doctrine. the Apostle Paul taught Tyranny was defined as ruling without
the sanction of God. That is what the colonists meant when they accused the king of tyranny; that he was
committing acts contrary to the rule of God's Law. Though we must always be subject to the office of the
magistrate, we are not required to be subject to the man in that office who commands what is contrary to the
revealed will of God. A ruler need not be deposed for a single breach of the contract that he has with the people.
He is only to be relieved of his position when his continuing acts are knowingly destroying the fundamental
governing structure of society. Rutherford set forth 3 appropriate levels of resistance for the private Christian
person:
(1) Defend himself by protest (complaint), this in our society would be legal action, redress of grievances,
contacting our legislators, lobbying, etc.
(2) If the efforts of protest are ignored, then flee if possible (leave the unlawful system)
(3) Apply the use of force to defend oneself to increasing degrees, and only if flight is impossible.
These 3 premises were taken from the life of David as recorded in the Old Testament.
Another reformer that drew heavily from the Presbyterian tradition regarding the proper role of
government was John Locke. When he laid down his 4 basic points, he was advocating concepts that were well
understood by the Founding Fathers, and were used by them as fundamental guidelines:
(1) that all men have unalienable rights that come from God
(2) that government must be by consent of the governed
(3) that there must be a separation of the executive, legislative and judicial powers
(4) that the governed retain the right to resist immoral or unlawful authority.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 23
Law of Novation – Doctrine of Parens Patriae
Doctrine of Parens Patriae. Parens Patriae is Latin for "parent of the country", referring to the objective of
the State to act as Sovereign and guardian over the lives of anyone it can identify as being under “legal
disability”. Parens Patriae comes from the abuse of English common law where the King took royal prerogative
to act as guardian to persons incapable of defending their rights.
In 1921, the federal Sheppard-Towner Maternity Act [Public Law 97, 67th Congress, Session I, chapter 135]
was passed creating birth "registration", known as the "birth certificate." This provided the state (the
sovereign) legal title to its ‘human resources’ and gave it the responsibility to take care of its subjects. Under the
doctrine of Parens Patriae, the federal government, now had the mechanism to take over all the assets of the
American people and put them into debt into perpetuity. While the Federal Maternity Act was eventually
repealed as unconstitutional, appropriate parts of it have been perpetuated in legislative acts of the States, thus
continuing the parens patriae ownership of the ‘certificate of title’ to your child.
According to the Common Law each of us is born free as a "citizen of the soil," an American National. But
parents educated in government schools are ignorant of their fundamental rights (this is the ‘legal disability’ of
the children) and are led to apply for a "birth certificate," thereby making their child a citizen of the
government corporation known as the ‘United States’. The government recognizes its new citizen as a corporate
legal fiction, a ‘statutory person’ under the laws of the State. The State agents are paid tocollects the birth
information and turns it over to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
The national debt of the ‘United States’ transfers from the death of one corpus to the birth of another through the
process known as "Novation." Novation is defined as "the substitution of a new contract between same or
different parties; The substitution of a new debt or obligation for an existing one; The substitution of one debtor
for another or of one creditor for another, whereby the old debt is extinguished. According to this doctrine the
debt of an individual is extinguished at his death, and the same debt is then transferred to a new individual when
he/she is born through the registering of the birth, thereby creating a new corpus that will again reside in the
hands of the trust.
In United States v. Chamberlin, (2) the Supreme Court of the United States Decided: “It may be considered as
settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as belonged to the King in his capacity of Parens Patriae, or
universal trustee, enters as much into our political state as it does into the principles of the British Constitution."
United States v. Chamberlin 219 U.S. 250, 55 L. Ed. 204, 31 S. Ct. 155, January 3, 1911
Under Title 15, U.S.C. the Federal government has delegated federal Parens Patriae authority to the State
attorney generals. In derogation of your rights the State agents can now enforce all legislation involving your
personal life, the lives of your children, and your material assets - [see TITLE 15, United States Code, Sec. 15h.
Applicability of Parens Patriae actions: STATUTE- Sections 15c, 15d, 15e, 15f, and 15g of this title shall
apply in any State, unless such State provides by law for its non-applicability in such State.]
The subject of every birth certificate is the child, deemed a valuable asset, which if properly trained, can
perpetuate the economy and contribute wealth to its masters by its labor for many years. He/she is the asset of
the trust set up through the birth certificate, the "Title" to your child, who is now owned by the State
corporation. Agents of the State oversee the life of the ‘corpus’ of the trust and provide benefits to the
beneficiary -- the corpus and beneficiary being one and the same -- the citizen of the corporation, or the
‘statutory person’ -- first as child, then as adult.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Each ‘corporate citizen’ is considered an asset of the bankrupt United States, which acts as the ‘Debtor in
Possession.’ We are designated by this government as ‘HUMAN RESOURCES’, with new additions to such
resources being added (born) continually. The bankruptcy is a receivership, rather than a discharged bankruptcy,
thus its debts are merely serviced, but never paid or discharged. The Human Resources perpetually service the
debt, as it continues to grow with time.
The government, through the doctrine of Parens Patriae, has already instituted its control of our children through
the legislative process. Medical treatments are enforced through the court, which threatens you with the loss of
your child if the treatment is challenged. Vaccinations are now mandatory. Refusal may result in the loss of your
child under the guise of "child neglect" (failure to preserve the trust corpus). If you spank your child or cause
him/her any indignities or embarrassment, you are also at risk of having your child taken from you under the
guise of child abuse (damaging the trust corpus). Some states have legislation either pending or passed to give
social workers arrest authority.
School nurses may now report any suspected child abuse to the proper authorities. Warrantless searches of your
home are tolerated by the courts, all in the name of safety for the child. Limits on the ability of divorced parents
to relocate when minor children are involved have been clarified by the State Supreme Courts, though the
Common Law right of travel has traditionally been held as an element of personal liberty. Restraint upon this
right was a well-known feature of slavery abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment. A first requisite of the right
to appropriate the use of another man was to become the master of his natural power of motion. The control by
government courts (supra) of an individuals' freedom of locomotion is sign of ownership of the individual, or
slavery.
Parens Patriae legislation covers every area of your personal life. It has been reported that in California, early in
the year 1996, an assembly woman, in regard to education policy, made the statement "the children belong to
the STATE." We are told that “it takes a village” to raise our child. But the Founding Fathers knew that the
primary responsibility of a State is to protect it's citizens from the tyranny of the Federal government. A state
may sue the Federal government for protection for its citizens if federal legislation violates the Constitutions of
the several states and brings harm to its citizens.
The Federal Constitution claims a citizen can seek redress and protection under the 14th Amendment of its Code
against any State legislation that brings them an injury by depriving them of a civil right. But the 14th
Amendment did not authorize congress to create a code of municipal law for the regulation of private rights.
While positive rights and privileges are undoubtedly secured by the fourteenth amendment, they are only
secured by accepting Federal citizenship and prohibition against state laws and state proceedings affecting those
rights and privileges of their Federal citizens. To conserve the ultimate Federal control, the Supreme Court has
ruled that: “A State may not, as Parens Patriae, institute judicial proceedings to protect her citizens (who are no
less citizens of the United States), from the operation of a federal statute upon the ground that, as applied to
them, it is unconstitutional.” The Parens Patriae power has been recognized and exercised from time
immemorial as being under the rule of a tyrant.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 24
Marketing Birth Certificates

Americans now live under a system of government and religion that is ruled by the international banking
families, firmly established in England. The Federal Corporation instituted by them in America has replaced the
original Common Law system inherited from ancient Britain,, with maritime admiralty law. Technically we are
deemed to be born from the water of our mother's womb, which under maritime admiralty law makes us a
maritime "product." In reality we are ‘human resources’ of the United States, a foreign-owned corporation set
up in 1868. Our mothers signed our birth certificates, assigning ownership of our life to that corporation.
Our birth certificates state “Department of Commerce” and are traded on the stock exchange, where they serve
as collateral for the U.S. corporation's loans from the international bankers. Originally traded for $630,000, our
birth certificates are now valued at more than $1 million each. Your name as it appears on official documents, is
always in capital letters, like the letters on a tombstone, indicating that you are not considered a living ‘being’,
but a ‘corporate fiction’, a ‘statutory person’, that you belong to the State.
The mother completes the birth certificate, using her maiden name for I.D. purposes, thus changing, reducing or
removing the father's ancient legal status. When through the "legal" process of birth, the father is removed from
the long established system of law where family rights pass from the father to the children, then the child
"legally" has no father. Yet the courts assign legal responsibility of ‘maintenance’ to the biological creator of
the ‘statutory person’.
The modern legal sense of the word "family" is no longer one of relation to parents but of individuals living in a
household. This is how "legal system" views the "family". The definition you might have in mind when using
the word "father", "family" etc. may carry a very different meaning in the court's mind, but the court's
interpretation stands unless you have already established a mutual understanding of the what legal meaning the
words will carry. This is the rule of the Uniform Commercial Code that has been adopted by every corporate
State.
Blacks Law Dictionary 4th pg 727 + 728

FAMILY. The word is used to denote many relationships. In a broad or primary sense "family" means: a
collective body of any two persons living together in one house as their common home for the time
NOTE: Examine the "Certificate of Birth" application form in the Vital Statistics Department. The one for
BRITISH COLUMBIA is titled "APPLICATION FOR BIRTH". How can you apply for a baby to be born, or a
mother be denied the birth of her child unless she applies? This is obviously not an application that pertains to
the birth of the living being, but is used to create the legal fiction (artificial person), with an all capital name,
recognized thereafter by the legal system, but assigning the living being as the fiduciary.
A "Certificate of Birth" and a "Birth Certificate" are not the same thing. A private "automobile" changes legally
into a State owned "motor vehicle" when you register it with your government/state/insurance company. A
private property "gun" become a seizable "firearm" when you register it. When you register anything you
transfer the "title" to the entity (government or agency) with which you register it. That's when they gain legal
jurisdiction to come and take your "private property". When you registered your private property you assign the
title to another, just by "submitting an application".
Once the artificial person has been created and the ownership has been established, the Birth Certificates are
traded on international money markets. Each new birth creates a lifelong taxpayer with a lifetime value that can
value in the millions. Such are the types of assets suitable for the futures markets.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Chapter Two
The Plot to Enslave America's Free Society
Our Rights and Freedoms Come From God. influence and supposed authority over man. This
is true particularly in religious organizations, as
Our Founding Fathers recognized that it those are the places where people have learned to
is God's purpose that man should be a free agent. depend most to receive guidance from 'divine
They made this clear in the Declaration of providence', the creative powers of the universe.
Independence when they proclaimed, "that they Indeed the Scriptures testify to the availability of
are endowed by their Creator with certain such divine guidance. But they also warn us
unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, about the 'wolves' that would enter into the flock.
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness . . ."—in God himself alluded to the existence of such
other words, man should be able to choose for beings, when He said to Lucifer, "And I will
himself what he will become. With that put enmity between thee and the woman, and
understanding, they later set forth that great between thy seed and her seed." [Genesis 3:15]
document of freedom known as the Constitution God confirmed that there would be those among
of the united States, to protect man from men who would be of the "seed of Satan", and
government tyranny. Notice that, as in the enemies to the rest of mankind. They would
Declaration of Independence, we do not choose participate in the devil's plot to enslave the
to capitalize the word "united" here, because that children of God. Christ spoke to such men in
would now refer to the foreign Federal addressing the scribes and Pharisees, saying, "Ye
corporation, and we mean to indicate the union are of your father the Devil..." (John 8:44]. Paul
of States that were united under the Constitution referred to such a man as well, “And [Paul] said,
that was inspired by God. Be aware that God's O full of all subtilty and all mischief, [thou] child
word warns us, "For we wrestle not against flesh of the devil, [thou] enemy of all righteousness,
and blood, but against principalities, against wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of
powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this the Lord?” [Acts 13:10], as did John saying, “In
world, against spiritual wickedness in high this the children of God are manifest, and the
places." [Ephesians 6:12] children of the devil: whosoever doeth not
righteousness is not of God, neither he that
The Plot to Enslave Mankind. loveth not his brother.” [1John 3:10]. Such
persons hate and use their fellow man. It is only
There have always been those among the logical to expect that they would seek to gain
society of man who have sought to exercise power over them and to enslave them.
power and control over the souls of others. The
above-quoted scripture implies that such people Government Takes Control of Churches.
would be motivated by influences which are not
of flesh and blood, by those that have gained The religious organizations were
positions of power in the hidden places darkness instituted through divine influence for the
of this world, and which have achieved control in purpose of guiding God’s children and protecting
high places. They would naturally seek places of them from evil and deception, so how have they
dominion in government and in all other possible fallen under the control of the ‘seed of Satan’?
positions of leadership, from which to exert their Again, it has come about through man’s love of
___________________________________________________________________________________
the ‘riches of Babylon’. The leaders of the human beings, and natural men. But let us look at
churches all seem to have a plan wherein they the original meanings of some of these words, as
can collect tithes and offerings from their recognized by government:
devotees, which is be perfectly acceptable if said Mejancoffs Dictionary of American Legal
donations are strictly dedicated to the purposes Usage: Person - a human being; without regard to
for which God has intended them. But almost sex, legitimacy or competence, the central figure in
without exception those given responsibility for law as elsewhere characterized by personal
stewardship over such funds use a percentage of attributes of mind, intention, feelings, weaknesses,
them to invest in the commerce of Babylon. morality common to human beings, with rights and
duties under the law. This is the person sometimes
While tithes and offerings are tax exempt, the
called an individual (IRS Code) and often referred to
profits from commercial investments are not. So in the law as a natural person, as distinguished from
the churches end up owing the government a an artificial person. A person as used in the 14th
substantial amount of money. But the Amendment does not include the unborn. Person
government offers a plan wherein such churches includes natural person, individual Indian,
can become exempt under the provisions of the corporation, partnership, association, trust, estate, or
‘non-profit corporation’. The requirements for any other public or private entity, including state or
such a corporation are detailed in Title 26, local government or Indian tribe. “The court
United States Code, chapter 501(c)(3)1. They defines a natural person, for statutory purposes,
basically allow the church to keep its money as as a human being, and not an artificial or juristic
long as the Church leaders do not say or do person.” [Shamat Bank NA v, Valley Farms]
anything to interfere with the government
agenda. Natural Persons are Human Beings.
Through Deception Comes Slavery. Perhaps these definitions as to the

standing of a ‘person’ in the eyes of the
How then, have we been transformed government might not at first seem unreasonable,
from being free men under the Common Law, to but we must further examine what they are
becoming men in bondage under the Roman saying. They tell us that natural ‘persons’ and
Civil code? It has been a gradual process of the individuals are under their jurisdiction as human
reeducation or ‘dumbing down’ of our minds as beings, so let us refer to some of the original
to our understanding of concepts, words, and applications of the meanings associated with the
meanings. Even many of the ancient prophets term ‘human’ and how they specifically identify
referred to such a condition of ignorance among them as someone that rejects God, being natural,
the people in the last days. Isaiah said, rather than spiritual beings:
“Therefore my people are gone into captivity, Ballantine's Dictionary of Law [1948]:
because [they have] no knowledge: and their Human being - see monster
honourable men [are] famished, and their Monster - human being by birth, but in some
multitude dried up with thirst.”[Isa 5:13] and part resembling a lower animal. A monster
Hosea foretold, “My people are destroyed for has no inheritable blood and cannot be heir to
lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected any land.
knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt Human laws - man's laws, with man as the author,
be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the as distinguished from divine laws,
law of thy God, I will also forget thy with God the author.
children.”[Hosea 4:6]. For example, most of us Oxford Dictionary 1901:
have been taught to think of ourselves as persons, Human - belonging or relative to man as
___________________________________________________________________________________
distinguished from God or super human system and in the media it has become illegal and
beings, pertaining to the sphere or faculties of man politically incorrect to espouse the things of God.
with implication of limitation or inferiority; mundane Instead they emphasize the human ideals, human
and secular, often opposed to divine. rights, and the "triumph of the human spirit". By
Random House Dictionary: our daily life choices we determine whether or
Human - secular- of or pertaining to worldly things not the agents of the government will correctly
or to things not regarded as sacred: view us in this lower status.
temporal; not related to or concerned with religion:
opposed to sacred: concerned with non-religious
subjects; not belonging to a religious order; one of The Natural Person vs. the Moral Man.
the secular clergy, of or pertaining to this world.
Secular humanism - any set of beliefs which A good illustration of the way that the
promotes human values without specific law differentiates as to the types of persons or
allusion to religious doctrine, secular spirit or beings, (natural compared to moral) which it
tendency, especially a system of political or social makes its chosen subjects is found in a quote
from Lord Edward Coke2, a 16th century Chief
philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith or
religious worship; the view that public education and
other matters of civil policy should be conducted Justice in English law. He said, "As to the state
without the influence of religious beliefs. and the degree of the statute to be added, we
must observe a state is defined by the civilians,
What kind of Beings Are We? the capacity of moral persons, for as natural
persons have a certain space in which their
If we put all of this information together, natural existence is placed, and in which they
a natural person, which is the subject of the perform their natural actions ,so have persons in
statutory law, is a "human", a being of worldly a community a certain state or capacity in which
and inferior attributes and questionable morality, they are supposed to exist to perform their moral
detached from that which is sacred or divine, acts and exercise all civil relations." This might
opposed to and rejecting that which includes be summed up by saying that the degree to which
faith in any form of religious worship or spiritual the state must impose statutory control is based
beliefs. In other words, he is a godless being upon the actions of its civilians, and to the degree
without moral standards. This might be a very that the natural person needs to be controlled.
applicable description for those who live But it also recognizes separate capacity of a
according to the ethics which are typical of moral person, one we recognize to be a sovereign
‘Babylon’ [society], but the sons of God, who Christian that controls himself in accordance
conduct their lives in accordance with the with the divine precepts of God's word, as found
Christian ideals upon which this nation was in the Scriptures and the Common Law.
founded, are specifically excluded from such a
foreign jurisdiction. The Natural Man is an Enemy to God.
The natural person or ‘human’, as defined in law,
obviously needs to be controlled by such statutes People are generally referred to in law as
as those found in Roman Civil Law. Men will "natural persons", and the Random House
identify themselves into this category of being, Dictionary defines natural man as -
based upon the way they talk, and act, and how unenlightened or unregenerate; unrepentant,
they live. We have all been educated in the unconverted to a particular religion, sect or
government school system to think of ourselves movement; wicked; sinful; dissolute. Scripture
as humans, rather than the mortal children of says, "But the natural man receiveth not the
God, as taught in the scriptures. In the education things of the spirit of God, for they are
___________________________________________________________________________________
foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, merely say Christianity is the religion founded by
because they are spiritually discerned." Jesus Christ.
(2Corinthians 2:14) “For the natural man is an
enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Significance of Our Christian Name.
Adam, and will be for ever and ever, unless he
yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and One of the determinants as to the class of
putteth off the natural man…” (Mosiah 3:19) beings we are recognized to be in the law is in
These natural men are the ‘persons’ under the the way we permit our own names to be used by
jurisdiction of government rule, the Civil Code, government agents. They use our names in
rather than under God's law. But there is a certain inappropriate and fictitious ways to convert us
mind set that is found in agents of the into a ‘persona designata’ in order to separate us
government that wants to bring us all into this from our Christian character, and to put us under
category, and under their control. For this their jurisdiction. They make a rather subtle, but
purpose we have been deliberately ill-educated to significant change, by printing our names in all
misunderstand our own identity, so that our upper-case letters. Have you ever wondered why
erroneous concepts and our words might be used they do that? When we accept such a fictitious
against us. In addition, immorality is promoted designation we are voluntarily receiving the
everywhere, and all kinds of idolatry and status of the ‘statutory person’ over whom they
perversion and false traditions are encouraged in claim jurisdiction. However, take notice of a
the members of society, so that those who would ruling from Matthew Bacon's Abridgement of the
Law Vol. III (1846)3. that states, "If the
enslave us might justify their actions against our
rights. If we don't learn to understand true
Christian name be wholly mistaken, it is
principles of our freedom and rights, and the
regularly fatal to all legal instruments,
meanings of the terms being used against us in
declarations, pleadings, grants and obligations,
law, we can be controlled and ultimately
because it is repugnant to the rules of the
enslaved by those who use our ignorance against
Christian religion that a Christian be without a
us.
name of baptism or have two Christian names...
Therefore, if a person enters into a bond by a
The Re-education of America.
wrong Christian name he cannot be declared
against by the name in the obligation and his true
There are clear indicators of the efforts
name be brought in an alias, for that supposes the
made to keep men illiterate concerning their true
possibility of two Christian names, and you
identity and their rights, and of the original intent
cannot declare against a party by his right name
of the laws that are now being used against them.
and aver he made the deed by his wrong name,
They can be discerned by studying Black's Law
for that sets up an averment contrary to the deed,
Dictionary. It was once regarded as the most
and there is this sanction allowed every solemn
authoritative source of information concerning
contract, that it cannot be opposed by a thing of
the true meanings of words at law, but it has
equal validity, and if he be impleaded (accused)
gone through six editions over the last centuries,
by the name in the deed, he may plead that he is
and has been watered down significantly,
another person and that it is not his deed." This
eliminating many Common Law terms and much
ruling shows the importance of using the correct
important information valuable to our
Christian name, and some of the consequences of
understanding. For example, in the early editions,
changing it.
under the word ‘Christianity’ there were cited at
There is a good example available that
least 50 court cases showing that it is embodied
illustrates the fact that you are not considered to
in the Common Law, but the later editions
___________________________________________________________________________________
be the same person as the one that is indicated by can also be achieved by merely writing the name
printing your name in all CAPS. This can be in all uppercase letters. An alien is defined to be
discovered by closely examining the personal a person that owes allegiance to another state;
check forms provided by the banks for you to be one that is strange; inconsistent or opposed to
able to make drafts and withdrawals from the normal local customs. These definitions reveal
account that was created under that name. The the true nature of our oppressors, who thereby
name for the account is printed in all CAPS on reveal that they consider our own local customs
the upper left corner of the check form. This to be alien to their foreign state.
represents the statutory person, the legal fiction
created to designate you, but is controlled by the At War with a Defacto Government?
government corporation. If anyone else other
than that ‘person’ is to make drafts on this The martial-law status of our courts and
account, he must have been previously our country tells us they government has
authorized to sign on the account, and must declared war against us. Our own representatives
provide an authorized signature4 in the space in Congress also have said in their reports that
indicated. Since the legal fiction can never sign we are in a state of war. The law-enforcement
for himself, the check can only be signed by the officers of today are trained to function in the
authorized person, and he must have an typical military manner and are the equivalent of
authorized signature card on file. The signature armed troops in the streets. In the Senate Report
‘line’ is not really the line that it appears to be. If 93-459 referred to in chapter one, which was
you examine it closely with a good magnifying made in the year nineteen seventy-three, the
glass, you will see that it iss really made up of senators made attempts to put an end to the
the words ‘authorized signature’, printed in effects of the legislation known as the "War and
microscopic size over and over, to cleverly Emergency Powers Act6". This act was a
conceal the fact that you are not the ‘person’ modification of the war measure known as the
represented on the account, but you are the "Trading with the Enemy Act" of October 6,
fiduciary authorized to sign for him. 1917, but the restrictions and provisions which
had been originally applied strictly to doing
Wrong Name is Used Against Christians. business with enemies, have now become applied
against all Americans!
If the form of a name, or even one letter is Our own senators attempted to
altered, the identity or the character of the man is demonstrate in their report that the United States
thereby changed to someone else. In the Government Corporation has determined that We
government process, the names of people are The People are, and have been identified and
always and deliberately altered on their treated as its enemy, since the year nineteen
documents, thereby revealing that they are thirty-three. The introduction to this report makes
dealing with a fiction, a "persona designata" or a such statements as, "Since March the 9th, 1933,
‘statutory person’. Why do they do this? In the United States has been in a state of declared
international law (Wharton Commentaries on national emergency.", "A majority of people of
Law, 18845), during time of war, when one alien the United States have spent all their lives under
enemy maintains an action against another alien emergency rule.", and "For 40 years, freedoms
enemy he uses an alias known as a "nom de and governmental procedures guaranteed by the
guerre", meaning ‘war name’ or indicating a Constitution have, in varying degrees, been
‘slave name’ [such as the slaves chained to the abridged by laws brought into force by states of
rowing galley in ancient Roman warships]. This national emergency." That is the reason all
___________________________________________________________________________________
agents of this alien de facto government, which outside of the Common Law, they have no law.
has now taken control of all Federal, State, They are operating under the statutes of their
county, and local agencies of the system, use implied contract with you. Therefore, their action
upper-case letters to convert our "names" into the can be abated (nullified). According to the
fictitious, statutory ‘nom de guerre’ form. Common Law, whenever you are accused of a
crime, where there is no damaged party, or
Immediate Correction Must be Made. victim (corpus delicti), there is no crime. So they
must depend on your cooperation and
If we would free ourselves from their acquiescence in order for them to proceed against
jurisdiction, we must secure that our full, proper you and presume jurisdiction over you. Those in
Christian appellation (name) must include proper power have deliberately kept us in ignorance of
upper and lower case letters, and that no initials the law and our rights, so that we would more
or abbreviations are allowed. Any alterations readily cooperate with them. That is what the
create a misnomer, which means a wrong or Supreme Court meant when it pointed out that,
fictitious name is being used to identify us and "Because of what appears to be a lawful
bind us to the requirements of a legal document. command on the surface, many citizens, because
When the government uses, and gets you to use of their respect for what only appears to be a law,
or accept any alteration of the proper form of are cunningly coerced into waiving their rights,
your Christian appellation, it has caused you to due to ignorance." (U.S. v. Minker 350 U.S. 179,
step out of your Christian character, and 187.)
voluntarily become a natural ‘statutory’ person, That is how a nation or a people is legally
over whom they have jurisdiction. The Supreme raped. We have allowed it to happen, as a
Court says, "Where a party was sued by a wrong gradual process over a long period of time,
name and suffered judgment to go against him, because of our preoccupation with acquiring the
without attempting to rectify the mistake, he wealth of Babylon. From Matthew Bacon’s Of
could not afterwards, in an action against the Misnomer and Want of Addition we learn,
sheriff for false imprisonment, complain of an "Misnomer is a good plea in abatement, for since
execution issued against him by that name," [See names are the only mark or indicia which
GRANNIS v. ORDEAN, 234 U.S. 385 (1914)] humankind can understand each other by. if the
Whenever you receive any process from the name be omitted or mistaken, there is a
government, it is important that you answer complaint against nobody".[Bacon’s
immediately with an abatement (nullification) of Abridgement, page 7, 1832.]
their process (see chapter nine). If you otherwise
respond to the ‘nom de guerre’ fiction or Everything Must be Recorded in Writing.
misnomer, you thereby abandon your Christian
character, and it is automatically assumed that Whenever any government agent or
you are the statutory person over whom they employee approaches you; before you give them
have claimed jurisdiction. your name or any information or your ID, ask
them who they are and what they want. Their
Dealing With Misnomers Against Us. badge or other identification mean nothing to
you, because they do not give you enough
According to their law. "If a man seeing information to defend yourself, and prosecute
what he is served, willfully abstains from looking them, if necessary, so always have with you a
at it, that is virtually a personal service", so we "public servant questionnaire7" ready for them to
must appropriately deal with their action. Where fill out. It should request all needed information
the defacto government agency is operating
___________________________________________________________________________________
about them, including their name, address and as a ‘proper summons and a formal information’
official capacity, their surety bond number, Such procedure is required under their own law,
whether they have taken an oath of office, how known as the Right to Privacy Act (Public Law
the information which they request from you will 93-5798). You must be very firm and require that
be used, what law requires you to give up your they fill these things out, but don't be rude or
personal and fundamental right to privacy, under belligerent. When servants of God were
the Constitution, and requires you to give them approached by the agents of King
information, etc. Have them sign it. This is not Nebuchadnezzar, and accused of obeying the
unreasonable when you consider that if you give laws of God rather than the laws of the king, they
them any information, you can be sure that it will recognized the inherent problem of responding
be used against you. Hence, after they fill out under the conditions of confrontation in which
that questionnaire, if there are any questions they they found themselves, and replied, "we are not
might have, require that they submit them in careful to answer thee in this matter." (Daniel
writing, so that you can answer carefully, if you 3:16) As representatives of Jesus Christ, we must
determine that they can and should be answered be careful, and seek to handle these situations
at all. When this is pursued in court, it is known carefully and with prayer and study.
Table of References for Chapter Two
Reference 1. Religious Corporations [501(c)(3)]
Reference 2. Lord Edward Coke
Reference 3. Matthew Bacon - Misnomers
Reference 4. Authorized Signature
Reference 5. Wharton – Nom de Guerre
Reference 6. War and Emergency Powers Act
Reference 7. Public Servant Questionnaire
Reference 8. Right to Privacy Act (Public Law 93-579)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 1
The ‘Church’ that Becomes a ‘Non-Profit Corporation’

The true "corporate status" of the Church of Jesus Christ is well-established in Scripture:
“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being
many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether
we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bound or free; and have been all made to drink into one
Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.... Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in
particular” (1 Corinthians 12:12-14, 27).
“...Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.... For we are members of
his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” (Ephesians 5:23b, 30).
“[Christ is] the Head, from which all the body by joints and bands having nourishment
ministered, and knit together, increaseth with the increase of God” (Colossians 2:19).
The Christian Church should be the visible manifestation of Christ's Kingdom on earth, and as the Lord
Jesus Himself stated, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). His Church is ‘in’ this world,
but it is not ‘of’ the world.
When a church becomes a ‘non-profit corporation, according to the United States Supreme Court:
“A corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the
public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises and holds them subject to the laws of the
state and the limitation of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not
authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the
laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts and ascertain
if it has exceeded its powers.” [Hale v. Henkel (1906), 201 U.S. 43.]
In Black's Law Dictionary we find: “Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or
under the authority of the laws of a state. An association of persons created by statute as a legal
entity.... The corporation is distinct from the individuals who comprise it (shareholders).... Such an
entity subsists as a body politic under a special denomination, which is regarded in law as having a
personality and existence distinct from that of its several members. . . . .” [Black's Law Dictionary (St.
Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company, 1991; Sixth Edition), page 340. ]
An Early Court decision: “A corporation can have no legal existence outside of the boundaries of
sovereignty by which it is created. It exists only in contemplation of law... and where that law ceases to
operate... the corporation can have no existence.” [Phoenix Insurance Company v. Commonwealth (1868), 5
Bush 63, 96 Am.Dec. 331.]
As Taught in Law School: “A corporation derives its existence and all of its powers from the State
and, therefore, has only such powers as the State has conferred upon it. Power is used here to mean
the legal capacity to execute and fulfill the objects and purposes for which the corporation was
___________________________________________________________________________________
created, and the source of this power is the charter and the statute under which the corporation was
organized.... Corporate existence is a privilege granted by the sovereign upon compliance with
specified conditions.” [Len Young Smith and G. Gale Roberson, Smith and Roberson's Business
Law (Saint Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company, 1966), pages 796, 931.]
Title 26, United Statets Code, Chapter 501(c)(3) - Exemption Requirements:

To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an
organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in
IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private
shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of
its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates.
According to IRS Publication 1828 [p.8], "An organization will be regarded as 'attempting to influence
legislation' (commonly known as 'lobbying') if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members of a
legislative body for the purposes of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the
organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation." This prohibition extends, to the
endorsement of a political candidate, and any other attempts to ‘influence legislation’, including taking
a public stand against such politically-protected abominations as abortion or homosexuality.
When such an organization is judged for compliance, neither the Bible nor any historical
Christian creeds or standards, may be allowed in a trial if they are "not contained in the body of [the]
contract." Outside of its own walls, and sometimes even within, the incorporated church may not stand
on the ultimate authority of the Scriptures regarding any political or civil issue. It is contractually
bound by the governing law of the State. For a simple tax deduction, the church ceases to be the ‘salt’
and ‘light’ to society as commanded by Christ.
Whether a profit-making or a non-profit business, a business is still a business in the eyes of the
government. An incorporated church must accept the fact that it has requested permission of the State
to operate as a business. It has its charter and articles of incorporation on file with the Secretary of State
and is required to list a President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer. Christ did not ordain men
to control the business dealings of a worldly corporation, but to teach and administer the sacramental
duties of the Body of Christ.
Many churches list the minister and other ecclesiastical leaders as ‘employees’ for Social
Security purposes. A Form W-2 is issued to the minister enumerating his gross income, and the IRS
collects taxes on income that is internal to the Government. In the Internal Revenue Code, Section
3401(c), an ‘employee’ is defined as: “...[T]he term “employee” includes an officer, employee, or
elected official of the United States, a State, or any political subdivision thereof....” The term ‘gross
income’ in the Internal Revenue Code is that “which is effectively connected with the conduct of a
trade or business within the United States.” [Section 872(a)], and ‘trade or business’ is defined as
including “the performance of the functions of a public office.” [Section 7701(a)].
If you are an employee of a government created and controlled church corporation (see legal
descriptions above), then you are a government employee” who earns “gross income,” and one who
enjoys a special privilege or derives some benefit from the U.S. Government. The minister of an
incorporated church is often the one who accepts the title of “registered agent,” or “one who represents
and acts for another under the contract or relation of agency.” [Black's Law Dictionary, page 63]. He
represents the Government to the corporation. In addition, a registered agent is required “to act with
___________________________________________________________________________________
complete and utmost loyalty and fidelity regarding his responsibilities to the principal [the State]. The
law very strictly enforces this duty; it will not allow the agent to have any conflict of interest with the
principal.” [William T. Schantz, Commercial Law For Business and Accounting Students (Saint Paul,
Minnesota: West Publishing Company, 1980), page 757].
A minister’s duty is to be a representative of Christ to His flock, to teach the truth, and to warn
the people about violations of their God-given rights and freedoms, to “obey God rather than men”
(Acts 5:29). The Scriptures teach us not to obey the laws of man in violation of God’s laws, not to
uphold conspiracies (Ether 8:22-26), and warn against the acceptance of a gift from the ungodly (i.e.
Social Security benefits) for it “doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous”
(Exodus 23:8; Deuteronomy 16:19) and “destroyeth the heart” (Ecclesiastes 7:7).
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 2
Sir Edward Coke (pronounced "cook") (1552–1634), his writings on the English common law were the
definitive legal texts for some 300 years. As an early English colonial financier and jurist, it appears that in 1606
Coke helped write the charter of the Virginia Company, a private venture granted a royal charter to found
settlements in North America. He was director of the London Company, one of the two branches of the Virginia
Company. He became a Member of Parliament in 1589, Speaker of the House of Commons in 1592 and was
appointed England's Attorney General in 1593, a post for which he was in competition with his rival Sir Francis
Bacon, during which period, he was a zealous prosecutor of Sir Walter Raleigh and of the Gunpowder Plot
conspirators.
Lord Coke wrote the 4-volume "Institutes of the Laws of Englands", one of the great treatises on the English
common law. Though ‘Institutes’ was published in the 17th century, the U.S. Supreme Court still cites them.
E.g. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 1864 (2000). The Supreme Court
has explicitly endorsed the value of Coke’s treatise on a number of occasions. E.g., Brogan v. United States, 522
U.S. 398, 408 (1998) (referring to Coke’s Institutes as "his illustrious treatise"); Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386
U.S. 213, 225 (1967) ("Coke's Institutes were read in the American Colonies by virtually every student of the
law."); Payton, 445 U.S. at 596 n.36 ("Foremost among the titles to be found in private libraries of the time were
the works of Coke, the great expounder of Magna Carta").
Appointed Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas in 1606, Coke was elevated to Chief Justice of the King's
Bench in 1613, where he continued his defense of the English common law against intrusion by the
ecclesiastical hierarchy, local courts controlled by the aristocracy, and meddling by the King. Bacon encouraged
the King to remove Coke as Chief Justice in 1616, for refusing to hold a case in abeyance until the King could
give his own opinion in it. In 1620 Coke rejoined Parliament, and proved so troublesome to the crown that he
was imprisoned, with other Parliamentary leaders, for six months. Coke was one of the drafters of the Petition
of Right, and in 1628 under his leadership, the House of Commons forced Charles I of England to accept the
Petition by retaining revenues wanted by the king until he capitulated. The Petition of Right was the forerunner
of the English Bill of Rights and the U.S. Bill of Rights.
One of Coke's greatest contributions to the law was to interpret Magna Carta to apply not only to the protection
of nobles but to all subjects of the crown equally, which effectively established the law as a guarantor of rights
among all subjects, even against Parliament and the King. He famously asserted: "Magna Charta is such a
fellow, that he will have no sovereign." Coke's reinterpretation of Magna Carta provided an argument for
universal liberty in England and gave American colonists a basis for their condemnation of British colonial
policies. Copies of Coke's writings arrived in North America on the Mayflower in 1620, and every lawyer in the
English colonies and early United States was trained from Coke's books, particularly his Reports and Institutes,
the most famous of which was his property book, The First Institute of the Lawes of England, or a Commentary
on Littleton. Both John Adams and Patrick Henry argued from Coke treatises to support their revolutionary
positions against the Mother Country in the 1770s. It is said that Lord Coke's contribution to constitutionalism
was "a fundamental one" and that "[t]he influence of Coke may be seen at all of the key stages in the
development of the conflict between the Colonies and the mother country”.
In one of his most famous cases, much argued about by historians but which is seen by lawyers as the origin of
judicial review of legislation, Lord Coke said: “[I]n many cases the common law will controul acts of
Parliament and sometimes adjudge them to be utterly void: for when an Act of Parliament is against common
right or reason, or repugnant, or impossible to be performed, the common law will controul it and adjudge such
Act to be void.” [Dr. Bonham's Case, 8 Co. Rep. 107a, 118a, 77 Eng. Rep. 638, 652 (C.P. 1610)]. Then Coke's
___________________________________________________________________________________
opinion in Calvin's Case established that subjects of Scotland born after King James VI became James I of
England could hold land in England as well as in Scotland, because both Scots and Englishmen owed allegiance
to the same king. This became important in supporting the idea that English colonists in North America had the
rights of Englishmen.
In Semayne's Case, Coke gave us the origin of many of the rights to freedom from arbitrary searches; the Case of
the Monopolies, important in anti-trust; Sutton's Hospital, a seminal case in corporations law; and William
Aldred's Case, may be the birth of environmental law. Published after his death, the Prohibitions del Roi detail
his discussion with the King in which he (briefly) convinced a reluctant James that the law is based on "artificial
reason" and must be left to lawyers to decide, rather than to the monarch.
Lord Coke "was Speaker of the House of Commons and Attorney General under Queen Elizabeth, and James I
made Coke first his Chief Justice of Common Pleas and then his Chief Justice of King's Bench." Payton v. New
York, 445 U.S. 573, 596 n.36 (1980). One of the leading historians of English law writes that his statement
from Bonham's Case "has been the foundation of the practice of 'judicial review' of legislation in America." J.H.
Baker, An Introduction to English Legal History 182 (2d ed. 1979). The U.S. Supreme Court has also
recognized the influence of Lord Coke's opinion in Bonham's Case, stating that "although Coke's dictum [in
Bonham’s Case] was to have a somewhat greater influence in America, that influence took the form of providing
an early foundation for the idea that courts might invalidate legislation that they found inconsistent with a
written constitution." Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44, 162 (1996) (Souter, J., dissenting).
Lord Coke also published 13 volumes of reports of common law cases, with extensive commentary, called
Coke's Reports (or simply "The Reports"). Coke’s Reports were an influential predecessor of the modern case
law reporters. One commentator states that it was “the publication of Coke's Reports, more than any previous
collection of cases, that made the development of the modern English doctrine of precedent possible . . . .”
Harold J. Berman, "The Origins Of Historical Jurisprudence: Coke, Selden, Hale," 103 Yale L.J. 1651, 1733
(1994).
One law professor ranked Lord Coke 11th on a list of 100 individuals who have influenced the law most. Darien
McWhirter, The Legal 100: A Ranking of the Individuals Who Have Most Influenced the Law 70-73 (1998).
Calling him an "uncommon common lawyer," four journalists who ranked the 1,000 most important people of
the millennium ranked Lord Coke as number 282. See Agnes H. Gottlieb, Henry Gottlieb, Barbara Bowers &
Brent Bowers, 1,000 Years, 1,000 People: Ranking the Men and Women Who Shaped the Millennium 84
(1998).
Further, Lord Coke is also said to have originated or influenced: the idea that judges should decide
legal questions and juries decide fact questions, the maxim of cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipse lex
("the reason of the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases"), the principle that no person should be
allowed to judge his own case, and -- bane of first-year law students -- the Rule in Shelley's case.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 3
Matthew Bacon was an eighteenth century lawyer of the Middle Temple, Esq., and a commentator on
the laws of England. His major work, A New Abridgement of the Law, was a collection of court cases
that would be of interest to lawyers looking for precedents, described in abridged form. Bacon's
Abridgement became a standard law text that was referred to frequently. In fact, the principal textbooks
of the colonial lawyers were Sir Edward Coke’s Institutes on the Laws of England and Bacon’s A New
Abridgment of the Law
While Coke’s Institutes were considered a perfect Digest of the law as it stood in his day, new
laws were continually added by the legislature, and new developments of the old laws by the Judges,
until they had become so voluminous as to require a new Digest. It was recognized that this was ably
executed by Matthew Bacon, although unfortunately under an Alphabetical instead of Analytical
arrangement of matter.
Since Bacon died before completing the text; the titles commencing with Simony and ending
with Verdict, were added by Serjeant Sayer and the residue of the titles by Owen Ruffhead. This is
known from the preface to the 5th edition where we find written, "It is well known, that Mr. Bacon did
not live to carry the work any farther than to the title 'Sheriff', inclusive, and that the remainder was
added by Mr. Serjeant Sayer and Mr. Ruffhead"--
While Bacon's Abridgement was often used in teaching, it also became invaluable as well in
court, and the Jefferson Cyclopedia, A Comprehensive Collection of the Views of Thomas Jefferson
edited by John Foley in 1900, gives us this note about Bacon’s Abridgement under the heading
"Lawyers":
“This gives numerous applications of the old principles to new cases, and gives the general state
of the English law at that period. Here, too, the student should take up the Chancery branch of the law,
by reading the first and second abridgments of the cases in Equity. The second is by the same Matthew
Bacon, the first having been published some time before. The alphabetical order adopted by Bacon, is
certainly not as satisfactory as the systematic. But the arrangement is under very general and leading
heads, and these, indeed, with very little difficulty, might be systematically instead of alphabetically
arranged and read.”
The first American edition of Matthew Bacon’s New Abridgment of the Law, became a
common law staple, and was originally published from the 6th London edition of 1809, with Large
Additions and Corrections by Sir Henry Gwyllim and Charles Edward Dodd, Esq. This included Notes
and References made to the Edition and the addition of the later English and American decisions by
Bird Wilson, Esq. To these were also added NOTES AND REFERENCES TO AMERICAN AND
ENGLISH LAW AND DECISIONS, by John Bouvier, published in Philadelphia, by a Pennsylvania
state judge (Printed for Farrand and Nicholas [etc.], in 1811. The 7th edition, consisting of 8 volumes,
was published in London, in 1832.
One of the great early treatise-writers, John Jay quoted extensively from Matthew Bacon,
invoking his formulation of the prohibitions he had summarized, and then continuing with selections
from Bacon’s litany of particular situations that had created incompatibility. Citing an example
___________________________________________________________________________________
involving two incompatible judicial offices: ‘a Judge of the Common Pleas, made a Judge of the King’s
Bench’, Jay and his colleagues had the common law on their side, as the incompatibility doctrine
barred them from holding two judicial offices, one of which reviewed decisions of the other.
The implication of this argument was that their occupation of positions on the Supreme Court
automatically deprived the Justices of their authority to also sit on circuit. The well-settled remedy for
the holding of incompatible offices was the automatic forfeiture of the prior (and presumably inferior)
office: “if the offices are incompatible, acceptance of the second vacates the first.” But Congress and
the President refused to accept the Justices’ invocation of incompatibility, and thus they were stuck
with their circuit duties.
Bouvier's Edition of Bacon’s Abridgment was published in 1856 at Philadelphia,by T. & J. W.

Johnson & Co. again with Large Additions and Corrections, by Sir Henry Gweyllim; and Charles
Edward Dodd, Esq.; and with The Notes and References Made to the Edition Published in1809 by
Bird Wilson, Esq. to which are added Notes and References to American and English Law and
Decisions. Footnotes by Bacon were by paragraph and represented by (a), (b) etc. Comments by
English editors over several additions, last updates in 1831 are noted with ¶…¶ or [ ]. Comments and
notes by the American editor John Bouvier are noted by ß…£ and are current up to the date of 1843.
Page number to the publication are noted with *'s, for example [*431*.] Dates marked [*...] added for
the readers convenince.]
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 4
Authorized Signature
What is the meaning of 'Authorized Signature' and why is that term hidden microscopically within the
signature line of the checks that you sign?
Definition: An authorized signature is the signature of a person given authority to sign [for another] on
particular documents, such as credit card slips, bank deposits, etc.
Also Known As: Approved Signature
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE CARD INSTRUCTIONS - The Authorized Signature Card designates

individuals with direct authority and related responsibility to commit funds of the account and fund number
listed on the form. The Signature Card is valid through the end of each fiscal year. For sponsored projects, the
Signature Card is valid through the fund ending date. The representative of the organizational entity is
responsible for updating the Authorized Signature Card when approval changes occur.
Accounting Information - If the invoice indicates a unique invoice number, enter the number in the indicated
location. If an account custodian other than the individual signing the check request must sign for the
expenditure of funds, use the authorized signature line to do so.
You should ask yourself, “Who or what are you authorizing with your signature?” A languages expert might tell
you a name written in all upper-case, such as the one printed on your bank account indicates a 'nom de guerre',
which has two meanings. One is 'war name' and the other is 'slave name'. A bank manager might claim that the
concealed words on the check signature line are for security. But this does not really explain the reason for the
hidden authorization in ultra small printing.
The fact is that a person's name, when printed in all upper case, does not follow normal language usage,
and a financial wizard might employ a new term, using the phrase 'straw man'. It seems that we have all become
identified as two entities, one a natural man and the other an artificial 'person', a fiction, straw man or
corporation. Reason would lead to the conclusion that we are considered to be two beings in every financial or
legal situation.
Straw man - “A ‘front’; a third party who is put up in name only to take part in a transaction. Nominal party to a
transaction...” [Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]
“The term is also used in commercial and property contexts when a transfer is made to a party, the straw man,
simply for the purpose of retransferring to the transferor in order to accomplish some purpose not otherwise
permitted.” [Barron's, 3rd Edition]
So the straw man is an artificial person created by law shortly after you were born via the registration of the
application for your birth certificate, your name in all-capital letters, an artificial entity which exists only “by
force of or in contemplation of law.” The all-caps name is not your “true name” which consists of the given
(Christian) name plus the surname (family name), and appears with only initial letters capitalized. The all-caps
version of your name is a TRADE NAME, the name under which you “do business.” That is why you, the real
being, must have authorization to sign a check for the statutory or artificial person created by the agents of the
Corporate Democracy
The straw man, being artificial, lives in the artificial place called the public.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 5
Wharton – Nom de Guerre
Francis WHARTON, (1820-1889), was an American attorney, legal writer, ecclesiastic, and educator.
Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the 7th of March 1820, he graduated at Yale in 1839, was
admitted to the bar in 1843, became prominent in Pennsylvania politics as a Democrat, and in
Philadelphia edited the North American and United States Gazette. He was professor of English history
and literature at Kenyon College, Gambier, Ohio, in 1856-1863 and took orders in the Protestant
Episcopal church in 1862 and in 1863-1869 was rector of St Paul's Church, Brook-line, Massachusetts.
In 1871-1881 he taught ecclesiastical polity and canon law in the Protestant Episcopal Theological
School at Cambridge, Massachusetts, and at this time he lectured on the conflict of laws at Boston
University.
Wharton then traveled in Europe for two years, and after two more years in Philadelphia he went to
Washington, D. C., where he lectured on criminal law (1885-1886), then was professor of criminal law
(1886-1888) at Columbian (now George Washington) University. In 1885-1888 he was solicitor
(examiner of claims) of the Department of State, and from 1888 to his death in February 1889 was
employed on an edition (authorized by Congress) of the Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of
the United States (6 vols., 1889, ed. by J. B. Moore), which superseded Sparks's compilation. A broad
churchman Wharton was deeply interested in the hyninology of his church. He received the degree of
LL.D. from the university of Edinburgh in 1883, and was the foremost American authority on
international law.
Wharton published numerous informative treatises, “A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States" (1846; often reprinted); “State Trials of the United States during the Administrations of
Washington and Adams” (1849); “A Treatise on the Law of Homicide in the United States” (1855);
with Moreton Stille, “A Treatise on Medical Jurisprudence” (1855); “Modern Theism” (1859),
applying rules of legal evidence to modern sceptical theories; “A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws”
(1872; 3rd ed. 1905); “A Treatise on the Law of Negligence” (1874); “A Commentary on the Law of
Agency and Agents” (1876), “Commentary on the Law of Evidence in Civil Issues” (1877; 3rd ed.
1888); “Companion work on Criminal Evidence; “Commentary on the Law of Contracts” (1882);
“Commentaries on Law” (1884); and “Digest of the International Law of the United States” (3 vols.
1886).
As Wharton explained, under International Law, during a state of war, all adversary parties to a cause (legal
action) must appear by nom de guerre, because an "alien enemy cannot maintain an action during the war in his own
name". See Alien, Wharton's, Pennsylvania Digest, ¤ 20.94. The dictionary definition for nom de Guerre: (noun) a
fictitious name used when the person performs a particular social role; a pseudonym, an alias; literally a war name;
hence, a false name, or one assumed for a time. See the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd. ed., Clarendon Press (1989).
By international doctrine the use of a nom de guerre indicates a state of war. The government establishes
‘personas’ (Greek – masks) through the use of these fictitious names, with the enforcement of specific performance
(admiralty jurisdiction) by vi et armis (a kind of trespass accompanied by force and violence) to inform us that by way
of public law, their ‘public servants’ are waging war against the citizenry by using this name typed in all capital letters
on driver’s licenses, social security cards, court documents, process, and credit cards, This is done despite the
Common-Law contracts the Private Citizen has in regards to each and every Public Servant that are a matter of Public
record.
___________________________________________________________________________________
You are an Enemy of the State since the Amendatory Act on March 9, 1933 to the U.S. version of the Trading With
the Enemy Act October 6, 1917, the United States government corporation has formally been at war with the
sovereign men and women (private citizens) of America. Australia followed suit with its version of the Trading With
the Enemy Act September 9, 1939. Both versions use the legal-fiction artifice of the "right to presume" on your
behalf. Each new born baby is assigned the nom de guerre using the information obtained on the registration of birth.
This document is in-fact an admiralty/maritime commercial contract known as a bottomry bond that perpetuates the
fictitious all-capital letters Trade-Name depicted on your birth certificate.
A full description of this "economic war" against the sovereign men and women of the united States of America
(the lawful ‘dejure’ government), waged by the United States of America (corporate ‘defacto’ government) can be
found in the Digest of International Law, Volume 10, and pages 95-127. Here you will find that the Departments of
State, Justice, Commerce, and the Treasury - all in agreeance with the unlawful administrative orders of the President
- conduct an "Alien Enemy Program"; the sole purpose of which is to militarily seize all private properties of the
people with the aid of maritime hypothecations such as a bottomry bond, etceteras.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 6
War and Emergency Powers Act (Trading With the Enemy)
On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United
States. In his inaugural address, given during the Great Depression, he said:
"I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the
midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may
build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority, to bring to a
speedy adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in
the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not evade the clear course of duty that will
confront me. I shall ask the Congress for one remaining instrument to meet the crisis -- broad
Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to
me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."
President Roosevelt was going to ask Congress for the extraordinary authority available to him under
the War Powers Act. On March the 5th, in Proclamation 2038 he asked for a special session of
Congress to meet on March the 9th at noon. At that session he presented an Act to provide for relief in
the existing national emergency in banking and for other purposes.
The enabling portion of that Act stated: "Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Congress hereby
declares that a serious emergency exists and that it is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect
remedies of uniform national application."
The ‘doctrine of necessity’ is a rule of law which states that necessity knows no law. An example of the
application of this rule is the concept of self defense. While the fundamental law is, "Thou shalt not
kill", when your life is being threatened, necessity gives you an absolute right to self-defense, even if
you are required to kill to protect yourself. Thus the doctrine of necessity nullifies other laws, allowing
one to do that which would normally be unlawful. The wording in the enabling portion of the Act of
March 9, 1933 [War and Emergency powers Act] Implied that what followed might be something that
would be against the law, against the Constitution of the United States, or else the rule of necessity
would not have been invoked.
Title 1, Section 1 of the Act stated: "The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and
proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the
United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority
conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 [Trading With the Enemy
Act], as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."
.The Act of March 9, 1933 reaffirmed those powers and has never been canceled and the Rule of
Necessity is still in operation. So a declared state of national emergency has been in uninterrupted
existed, since 1933. The authority for this action had been conferred in Subsection (b) of Section 5 of
the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended. The top right-hand part of the page states:
"An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes."
Section 5 (b) of the Act states: "That the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such
___________________________________________________________________________________
rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in
foreign exchange, export, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit
in any form (other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United
States)".
The United States was involved in World War I and it recognized that there were enemies or allies of
enemies of the United States living within the continental limits of our nation. The Act identified the
transactions of those declared to be enemies of the United States, and gave the government authority to
do as it saw fit with those enemies. But in Section 2(c), and also at the bottom of the page was
specified, "other than citizens of the United States." This exclusion of American citizens from the war
powers over the enemy was specified because in 1917 it was assumed that the citizens of the United
States were certainly not its enemies.
Thus Citizens and their transactions made wholly within the United States, were strictly excluded from
the war powers of this Act. They were still protected by the Constitution because they were not the
enemies of the government, and it did not exercise authority over them, while over the enemies it was
empowered to do anything it deemed necessary. This contrast between the way enemies and citizens
of the United States were dealt with was about to change!
Section 2 of the Act says "Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 1, 1917, (40 Stat. L 411),
as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows;"
"During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the
President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise investigate, regulate, or
prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any
transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as
defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion
or currency, by persons within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
From now on, during any ‘emergency’, where commercial, monetary or business transactions were
concerned, the United States Citizens were regulated by the same controls originally directed solely at
the enemies of the country. The phrase from the Act of 1917, imposing restrain only over trade “other
than… transactions to be executed wholly within the United States” was replaced with "by any persons
within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof." All monetary transactions,
whether foreign or domestic, were placed within the regulatory control of the President of the United
States through the amendments provided in the Act of 1933.
While previously Congress in 1917, had clearly differentiate between the regulatory control to be
exercised over all transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies within our continental
borders, and the exclusion of such restraint afforded to citizens of the United States, now Section 2 of
the Act of March 9, 1933, regulated all trading "by persons within the United States or any place
subject to the jurisdiction thereof." United States Citizens became subject to the controls of the Trading
with the enemy Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, previously intended only to regulate the enemy,
and from that time Citizens have been treated no differently than enemies.
Both Acts state: "during times of war or during any other national emergency declared by the
President." The war powers not only included a period of war, but also any period of "national
emergency" as arbitrarily defined by the President of the United States. In such situations the President
___________________________________________________________________________________
may, "through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under
such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in
foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the
President and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by
persons within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Under this section the President can now do to We the People anything he wants to do, at his
discretion, and he can use any agency or any license necessary to control our lives. This is a
dictatorship.
The Act of March 9, 1933 states in Title 1, Section 1: "The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders
and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made or issued by the President of the
United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority
conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby
approved and confirmed."
This is the exact wording found today in Title 12, USC 95 (b), showing we are still under the Doctrine
of Necessity, in a declared state of national emergency, which has existed, uninterrupted, since 1933,
for over seventy years. The authority to enact the emergency in this Act was the Act of October 6,
1917, where it stated: "An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other
purposes."
The Senate in Document 93-549 from 1973, declared that a serious emergency exists, that “The
exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in the Act [of 1917], was deleted from Sec. 5 (b) at
this time."
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 7
PUBLIC SERVANT'S QUESTIONNAIRE
Public Law 93-579 [Right to Privacy Act] states in part: "The purpose of this Act is to provide certain
safeguards for an individual against invasion of personal privacy by requiring Federal
agencies...to permit and individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected,
maintained, used, or disseminated by such agencies." The following questions are based upon that act
and are necessary in order that this Private Christian might make a reasonable determination
concerning disclosure of information to agents and agencies with whom he might have confrontation.
Fill out the form completely. If any question does not apply, mark the answer with “N/A” or “Not
applicable.” Do not leave any question blank.
Public Servant Information

1. Full Legal Name:
___________________________________________________________________________
2. Residence Address__________________________________________________________
City _____________________________State _________________ Zip _________________
Department Information
3. Name of department, bureau, or agency by which public servant is employed:
__________________________________________________________
City _____________________________State _________________ Zip __________________
Supervisor's name:
__________________________________________________________
4. Mailing address
__________________________________________________________
City __________________________State _______ Zip ____________
Public Servant Duty

5. Will public servant uphold the Constitution of the United States?
__________________________________________________________
6. Did public servant furnish proof of identity?
__________________________________________________________
7. What was the nature of proof?
__________________________________________________________
8. Will public servant furnish a copy of the law or regulation which authorizes this investigation?
__________________________________________________________
9. Will the public servant read aloud the portion of the law authorizing the questions he will ask?
__________________________________________________________
Nature of Investigation
10. Are the answers to the questions voluntary or mandatory?
__________________________________________________________
11. Are the questions to be asked based upon a specific law/regulation, or are they being used as a
___________________________________________________________________________________
discovery process?
__________________________________________________________
12. What other uses may be made of this information?
__________________________________________________________
13. What other agencies may have access to this information?
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
14. What will be the consequences if I should choose not to answer any part or all of these questions?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Basis for Investigation

15. Name of person in government requesting that this investigation be made.
__________________________________________________________
16. Is this investigation 'general' or is it 'special'?
__________________________________________________________
17. Have you consulted, questioned, interviewed, or received information from any third party relative
to this investigation?
__________________________________________________________
18. If so, the identity of such third parties:
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Expected Results of Investigation

19. Do you reasonably anticipate either a civil or criminal action to be initiated or pursued based upon
any of the requested information?
__________________________________________________________
Agency Information
20. Is there a file of records, information, or correspondence relating to me being maintained by this
agency? ______________ If yes, which?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
21. Is this agency using any information pertaining to me which was supplied by another agency or
government source?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
22. May I have a copy of that information? ______________ If not, why not?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
If so, how may I obtain a copy of that information?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
23. Will the public servant guarantee that the information in these files will not be used by any
___________________________________________________________________________________
department other than the one by whom he is employed? __________
If not, why not?
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
Affirmation
If any request for information relating to me is received from any person or agency, you must advise
me in writing before releasing such information. Failure to do so may subject you to possible civil or
criminal action as provided by the act.
I swear (affirm) that the answers I have given to the foregoing questions are complete and
correct in every particular.
Printed name: ___________________________________________________

Signature:
___________________________________________________
Date:
________________(month)_________(day)___________________(year)
First Witness Printed Name: ________________________________________

First Witness Signature: ________________________________________
Second Witness Printed Name: ______________________________________

Second Witness Signature: ________________________________________
Authorities for Questions:

1,2,3,4 To have specific knowledge of exactly who is collecting information, including residence and business
addresses in case of necesity to serve process in a civil or criminal action upon this individual.
5 All legitimate public servants have taken a sworn oath to uphold and defend the constitution.
6,7 Standard procedure by government agents and officers. See Internal Revenue Manual, MT-9900-26, Section
242.133.
8,9,10 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (A)
11 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (5), (e) (1)
12,13 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (B), (e) (3) (C)
14 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (D)
15 Public Law 93-579 (b) (1)
16 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (3) (A)
17,18 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (2)
19 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (5)
20,21 Public Law 93-579 (b) (1)
22 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (d) (1)
23 Title 5 USC 552a, paragraph (e) (10)
___________________________________________________________________________________
Reference 8
THE PRIVACY ACT OF 1974 [Excerpts]

(As Amended)
Public Law 93-579, as codified at 5 U.S.C. 552a
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, that this Act may be cited as the "Privacy Act of 1974."
SECTION 2
(a) The Congress finds that –
(1) the privacy of an individual is directly affected by the collection, maintenance, use, and
dissemination of personal information by Federal agencies;
(2) the increasing use of computers and sophisticated information technology, while essential to the
efficient operations of the Government, has greatly magnified the harm to individual privacy that can
occur from any collection, maintenance, use, or dissemination of personal information;
(3) the opportunities for an individual to secure employment, insurance, and credit, and his right to due
process, and other legal protections are endangered by the misuse of certain information systems;
(4) the right to privacy is a personal and fundamental right protected by the Constitution of the United
States; and
(5) in order to protect the privacy of individuals identified in information systems maintained by
Federal agencies, it is necessary and proper for the Congress to regulate the collection, maintenance,
use, and dissemination of information by such agencies.
(b) The purpose of this Act is to provide certain safeguards for an individual against an invasion of
personal privacy by requiring Federal agencies, except as otherwise provided by law, to --
(1) permit an individual to determine what records pertaining to him are collected, maintained, used, or
disseminated by such agencies;
(2) permit an individual to prevent records pertaining to him obtained by such agencies for a particular
purpose from being used or made available for another purpose without his consent;
(3) permit an individual to gain access to information pertaining to him in Federal agency records, to
have a copy made of all or any portion thereof, and to correct or amend such records;
(4) collect, maintain, use, or disseminate any record of identifiable personal information in a manner
that assures that such action is for a necessary and lawful purpose, that the information is current and
accurate for its intended use, and that adequate safeguards are provided to prevent misuse of such
information;
(5) permit exemptions from such requirements with respect to records provided in this Act only in
those cases where there is an important public policy need for such exemption as has been determined
by specific statutory authority; and
(6) be subject to civil suit for any damages which occur as a result of willful or intentional action which
violates any individual's rights under this Act.
SECTION 3
Title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding after section 552 the following new section:
552a. Records maintained on individuals
___________________________________________________________________________________
(a) DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this section --
(1) the term "agency" means agency as defined in section 552(e) of this title;
(2) the term "individual" means a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for
permanent residence;
(3) the term "maintain" incudes maintain, collect, use, or disseminate;
(4) the term "record" means any item, collection, or grouping of information about an individual that is
maintained by an agency, including, but not limited to, his education, financial transactions, medical
history, and criminal or employment history and that contains his name, or the identifying number,
symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual, such as a finger or voice print or a
photograph;
(5) the term "system of records" means a group of any records under the control of any agency from
which information is retrieved by the name of the individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or
other identifying particular assigned to the individual;
[This Act is Composed of about 24 Subsections written on 27 Pages]
___________________________________________________________________________________

Restoring America - Jural Society Handbook

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Restoring America - Jural Society Handbook

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From a Corporate Democracy back to the Constitutional Republic

Reinstating the Law of the Land

A Handbook on Jural Societies and the Common Law

Offered by Sons of Liberty of Southern Idaho and Northern Utah

Compiled, Written and Edited in 1997, by

This book is available at http://www.brainwashington.info

According to the United States Supreme Court

Thoughts on keeping the Commandments

The scriptures also mention that, although many men might be

Interestingly enough, these two natures of man have also been

It is because the people and activities of Babylon, by nature are without

This right of the organized body of People to alter or abolish

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

It has also become widely recognized that the government in this

This present work is dedicated to the education of, and demonstration

America was founded by Christians seeking the religious freedoms

The Founding Fathers proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence

An examination of the Constitution reveals that the rules and

The following pages have been written to demonstrate and to document

It is my hope and my sincere prayer that this booklet may offer a

This book is prepared and distributed without any intention to make

“Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should

“For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow

“Wherefore, I, Moroni, am commanded to write these things that evil

Chapter One Remedies Against a Beast xx

Christianity and the Common Law. contained in our Declaration of Independence

The Christian Form of Defense. Common Law for All Nations.

No true Christian can engage in Christ commissioned His followers to go

Reference 1 PUBLIC LAW 97-280 - OCT. 4, 1982

PUBLIC LAW 97-280 - OCT. 4, 1982

One Hundred First Congress of the United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

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

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

About Henry of Bracton

Chief Justices of the Common Pleas, 1217-1880

Magna Carta – [Excerpts]

JOHN, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of

[Approximately two-thirds of the clauses of Magna Carta of 1215 are concerned

(1) FIRST, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present

(63) IT IS ACCORDINGLY OUR WISH AND COMMAND that the English

August Belmont, was Judah Benjamin's Northern counterpart, and another

The Emancipation Proclamation

By the President of the United States of America:

By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN

The Lieber Code of 1863 [Excerpts]

GENERAL ORDERS No. 100.

WAR DEPT., ADJT. GENERAL'S OFFICE,

By order of the Secretary of War:

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES

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

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

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT (“TWEA”) [Excerpts]

UNITED STATES CODE TITLE 50.

WAR AND NATIONAL DEFENSE

Senate Report 93-549 [Excerpts]

EMERGENCY POWERS STATUTES:

PROVISIONS OF FEDERAL LAW NOW IN EFFECT

NOVEMBER 19, 1973