History

Subject: History Sun May 06, 2012 10:32 am

The United States is still a British
Colony

The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place and it can
be changed to fit someones belief and/or traditions, or it can be taught
in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts.
I know you have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated
the British, but I can prove to the contrary. I want you to read this paper
with an open mind, and allow yourself to be instructed with the following
verifiable facts. You be the judge and don't let prior conclusions on your
part or incorrect teaching, keep you from the truth.

I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that
our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by
our winning the Revolutionary War. I'm going to discuss a few documents that
are included at the end of this paper, in the footnotes. The first document
is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606 (footnote #1). In the first paragraph,
the king of England granted our fore fathers license to settle and colonize
America. The definition for license is as follows.

"In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade
or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with
the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful."
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British subjects.
So you can better understand what I'm going to tell you, here are the definitions
for subject and citizen.

"In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent
allegiance to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

"Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed
by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government.
Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they
enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws.
The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican
form of government." Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct.
213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.

I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better understand
what definition of citizen is really being used in American law. Below is
the definition of citizen from Roman law.

"The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private
civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and inheritance
law and the Roman contract and property law. All other subjects were peregrines.
But in the beginning of the 3d century the distinction was abolished and
all subjects were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's
Law Dictionary, 1914.

The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America,
and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king
had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia
Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in
paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive
if any is found by his subjects. There could have just as easily been none,
or his subjects could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was
a valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, "In right of the crown," Black's
forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total loss.

If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs and
successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver and copper
that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained in the colonies
was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a benefit for his subjects,
which amounted to further use of his capital. You will see in this paper
that not only is this valid, but it is still in effect today. If you will
read the rest of the Virginia Charter you will see that the king declared
the right and exercised the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in
his new colony. A license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer
of goods (commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal
of the king's declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of 1783.
I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which was not ceded
to America.

This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared
because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and
subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was
reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt
over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and
benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their
demands and grant relief, separation from England became the lesser of two
evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry
for the colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by
the militias.

The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered
to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated
the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty
of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War.
(footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself
as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from
this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position
of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay
and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the
king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also
need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For
the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard
bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.

An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by
the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire
is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see
the below definitions.

"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others
who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever studieth the
laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal
sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear
the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master,
and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below
knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers
at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth
ed. p. 641

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty
were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators
of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..

Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he
spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire
declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.

In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are
relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and
copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right
to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4
the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my
other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working
with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed
in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England,
how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in
status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would
these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that
this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence
and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king
granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his
loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty
in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won.
Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther
allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these
men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the
subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those
that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.

When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not
the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown
(footnote 3)

Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis
revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin
on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of
freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the
Crown."...."in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working
for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine
will be the British Empire."

All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation
of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects
and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt
owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars
a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the
kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26,
you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax
from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased
with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:

-CITE-

26 USC Sec. 1491

HEAD-

Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax

-STATUTE-

There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or resident
of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or partnership, or by
an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or trust, to a foreign
corporation as paid-in surplus or as a contribution to capital, or to a foreign
estate or trust, or to a foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent
of the excess of -

(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over

(2) the sum of -

(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the hands
of the transferor, plus

(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of the
transfer.

-SOURCE-

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455, title
X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600, title VII,
Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)

-MISC1-

AMENDMENTS

1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust' wherever
appearing.

1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.

(1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27 1/2 percent'
and in par.

(1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and securities'
and in par.

(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar. (B).

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT

Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments made
by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this title)
shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.'

EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT

Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made by
this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this section
and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section 1057 as 1058
of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after October 2, 1975.'

A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his land
back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his heirs with
the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the king speaking
to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.

(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain,
in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared "That he should not
answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he consented
to sacrifice either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease
and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance
and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country
must forever depend." The determined language of this speech, pointing to
the continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both
Lords and Commons.

In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that
a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion "That all
farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be
ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain." The rest
of the debate can be found in (footnote 4). What were the true interests
of the king? The gold, silver and copper.

The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war was
even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key personnel being
placed in key positions. The first two parts of "A Country Defeated In Victory,"
go into detail about how this was done and exposes some of the main players.

Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and
his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American
Charters.

The following is the definition of tribute (tax).

"A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his subjects
to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by an inferior
sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the friendship or
protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth ed. p. 1677

As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes that are
paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that study Title
26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master File, all tax payers
have one. To read one you have to be able to break their codes using file
6209, which is about 467 pages. On your IMF you will find a blocking series,
which tells you what type of tax you are paying. You will probably find a
300-399 blocking series, which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the
BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen
prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone
is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being held
liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the
U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA
- Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you won't find many people
using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288 form can be found in the Law
Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. If you will check the OMB's paper
- Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of
Active Information Collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you
will find this form under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding
tax-return for dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property
interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign persons, of
U.S. Form #8288 #8288a. These codes have since been changed to read as follows;
IMF 300-309, Barred Assement, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is
the code for 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same
as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. The long and
short of it is nothing changed, the government just made it plainer, the
1040 is the payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have
been in financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.

Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay's Treaty of
1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of 1783, John
Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794 he negotiated
another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy among the American
people about this Treaty.

In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed to
be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years after
America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone forgot to tell
the king of England. In Article 6, the king is still dictating terms to the
United States concerning the collection of debt and damages, the British
government and World Bankers claimed we owe. In Article 12 we find the king
dictating terms again, this time concerning where and with who the United
States could trade. In Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety
of material that would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material
going to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War?

That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing
that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status
as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse
now than then. I'll explain.

Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by
the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in
1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government
policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British,
after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of
1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was
to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier
was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The
purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government
who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that
these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of
nobility or honor.

The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th
Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the
first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national
debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in
1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815.

NEXT:

Return to American Patriot
Network