Deed Poll – Expatriation


A Collateral Notice




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

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

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

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

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

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

One man with the Law is a majority.



Right of Expatriation


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


And is intended as the Remedy from the said amendment


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


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


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

Facts to be communicated to Congress.

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

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

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


Divine Right Of Kings


Human enslavement has taken all sorts of forms since the beginning of time. The most insidious form is when one individual, such as a king, claims that God gave him the right of enslavement. This is called The Divine Right of Kings. At the root of this assumed right is basic feudal slavery. The divine right the King of England claimed was the right to have absolute authority over every one of his subjects so they could not leave his political-religious jurisdiction. That is, the king’s subjects did not have the right to expatriate, according to his assumed divine right over them.

The American Revolution of 1776 was the result of individuals who believed that the King did not have the right to prevent the people from leaving his political-religious jurisdiction. The Revolution was fought over liberty of choice premised upon the “Natural Right”. Our Constitution is the political document that resulted from that struggle and it guarantees our liberty to choose the political domain we want to be controlled by without compelled performance. Therefore, if we want to move from one political jurisdiction to another, we are guaranteed that natural right – entitled expatriation. We are guaranteed the right to change our political territory at any time we so choose.

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

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

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


Communalism Raises Its Ugly Head


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“The United States, but particularly the States west of the Allegheny Mountains, have been prepared in the most remarkable manner for the New System. The principle of union & cooperation for the promotion of all virtues & for the creation of wealth is now universally admitted, to be far superior to the individual selfish system & all seem prepared or are rapidly preparing to give up the latter & adopt the former. In fact, the whole of this country is ready to commence a new empire upon the principle of public property & discard private property & the uncharitable notion that man can form his own character as the foundation & root of all evil.”

Owen had a lot of problems from the start. A major problem was poor production. The low level of production was caused by the lack of trained and competent foreman, supervisors and skilled craftsmen. His plan for equality was failing from the start because those who were trained could go work in the open market and receive more pay. The first Constitution that was drawn was short lived because of a crisis of morale. The land of milk and honey that Owen promised did not materialize. Equality for all was running into trouble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fourier’s work was largely conditioned by an unfortunate event that took place early in his otherwise uneventful life. His father, a wealthy merchant, died and left a fortune of nearly a quarter of a million francs. However, the whole of Fourier’s  inheritance was lost in the French Revolution. Because of this event, he set himself to invent system of society that would prevent the recurrence of revolution, preserve his own petit-bourgeois class, and abolish the appalling conditions of labor prevalent everywhere. (Has a familiar “New World Order” feel)

Charles Fourier never set a foot upon American soil, but his theories did. Albert Brisbane was a young American of liberal education and at the age of eighteen, he went to Europe to study social philosophy. Eventually Brisbane found what he was looking for in Fourier’s treatise on “Association,”/3 and he promoted Charles Fourier’s ideas and wrote extensively upon the subject.

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

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


Democracy and Communism


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

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


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


“A government of Russia could not terminate its existence either by dissolution or by merger, for it was a corporation formed under our laws, and its corporate life continued until the law of its creation declared that it should end.”/8


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


Private Law And Public Municipal Law


Let’s understand the meaning of private law versus public municipal law. Private law, also called non-positive law and local law, is a term that is used to describe the principles and regulations that an individual uses to direct his or her own life. It is also called the “law of conscience.” That is, it is your personal philosophical and religious belief system that you use to control your own life and decisions. For example, if you state that you believe that abortions are not proper, then you are verbalizing a part of your private law. If you express that you believe that it is not proper for you to own a gun, then you are again expressing a part of your private law.

Private law’s only area of function outside your own conscience is in the area of contracts. In other words, a person will always use his personal principles of conscience in negotiating any agreement with another individual. An example of this would be the merchant who works out a contract with a company to provide items for sale in a store he owns. His reason for contracting with this particular company is because he believes the items they manufacture should be in every household for health reasons. The merchant’s personal beliefs or conscience are involved in this contract as in any contract.

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

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

Public municipal law (also referred to as positive law and general law in contrast to private law) is the expression of all the laws that limit government and maintain the separation of powers of the “states in this union.”/9Public municipal law is an expression of the people limiting government for their own personal benefit and liberty. Remember, the people are the government. What powers the people do not delegate for the administration of government are kept by them. The Public Laws are laws that assure the people of maintaining their private rights of bilateral contracts separate from any government intervention or fraudulent inducement by departments of corporate government to waive a natural right for the unconscionable circumstance to be regulated in commerce. The only time that public municipal law is used actively for private purposes, in a legal sense, is when a private right has been violated and the public municipal law is used in the court to address the wrong and correct that wrong.

“The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his own private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing there-from, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State. … He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”/10


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

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

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


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


Roman Civil Law


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

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

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

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


Yes, history is being repeated even now as you read this. Guilt and self righteousness compels the alteration of public policy in more bizarre ways by the pressure of the special interest groups of the trust – and the inquisition is being repeated.

Church law first got involved with commercial ventures when the Roman Church started funding the Roman Army during the time they were fighting Greece. From there it was an easy transition to becoming directly involved in the civil government of Rome and then converting the Roman Empire, what was left of it, into their own commercial state. When the Roman Church set up their own state they became a commercial enterprise. It was from that point on that Church law, controlling civil government, became known as Roman civil law.

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

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

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

Moving Roman civil law into England was strictly using a commercial venture of the mercantile Church to take over the economy and the country and enslave its people to the private or conscience law of the Church. It was the authority and conscience of the Roman Church that dictated the Statutes, Codes and laws through the King and Parliament for controlling human behavior that resulted in the best economic and commercial advantage for the Church. Anyone who was not controlled by Roman civil law at that time was considered to be pagan. That is, if you were operating free of the Roman civil law – under the common law – you were a heathen as far as the Roman Church was concerned. It was their intent to enslave everyone possible to the Roman civil law for a commercial advantage. By the way, this Roman civil law was referred to as “Black Letter Law.”/18

To see how this law is acknowledged, look up the books in which your state’s Constitution and Statutes are published. What many have found is that the titles to the first volumes, that cover the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution and the state’s Constitution, are printed differently than the titles to the volumes that cover the consolidated Statutes and Codes of the state. We are aware that in many states (possibly all) you will find the titles to the volumes that begin the state Statutes will be printed in black gothic letters. This confirms the fact the “black letter law” – Roman civil law – is the basis of state Statutes that dictate public municipal policy via private laws of the trust. It was this Roman civil law that had taken over all Europe and England and our founding fathers wanted nothing of it in the “commercial law system of the American states.” It represented to them the most insidious form of slavery of both body and mind, that is, slavery by entrapment through one-sided or implied contracts the individual never was aware he was getting into until he was hit with compelled performance.

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

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

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


Yet the common law of England did become polluted with the compelled performance of private church law and Jefferson’s understanding of the problem marked out the path for the new commercial system of the American states to be protected from the slavery of ecclesiastical authority dictating public commercial law i.e. (policy).

In truth, the alliance between Church and State in England has never made their judges accomplices in the frauds of the clergy; and even bolder than they are. For instead of being contented with these four surreptitious chapters of Exodus, they have taken the whole leap, and declared at once that the whole Bible and Testament in a lump, make a part of the common law; … And thus they incorporate into the English code, laws made for Jews alone, and the precepts of the Gospel, intended by their benevolent Author as obligatory only for their conscience; and they arm the whole with the coercions of municipal law. In doing this, too, they have not even used the Connecticut caution of declaring, as is done in their blue laws, that the laws of God shall be the laws of their land, except where their own contradict them;/22

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

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


One of the most important aspects of the common law before 1760 was that it did not recognize unilateral contracts where there was no full disclosure and no meeting of the minds. The right to the private law of contracting was basic to the common law. However, those common law contracts always meant that all parties involved understood all the facts and clauses and all parties had to agree by endorsement in order for the contract to be valid. Everything was spelled out. No hidden implications or strings attached.

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

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

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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


Two Federalisms


The United States Constitution starts out: “We the people of the United States.” This phrase in referring to laws the commercial government of the United States used to assure a “commercial law system in the American states,” without operation of Roman civil law, except anywhere the tide ebbed and flowed. That is, the Roman civil law was left to operate where it always had, as a part of the admiralty-maritime law of the sea in the seaports.

Only the individual, as “one people” – declared in the Declaration of Independence – has the power to determine a Republican form of government as stated in Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution by calling on Public Law for private purposes. This is why the Declaration of Independence was written first. It was the basis of the “one people” sovereignty which then set up the Constitution.

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

Indeed, the main task was to get those old centers to surrender certain prerogative; and the effect at reassuring them led to lingering ambiguities in our use of the term “federalism.” In itself, this has to do with treaties (foedera) or alliances – the neutral use at, e.g. Jefferson Papers, 1:311. But there was an emphasis, in the 1780s, on the ties that connect those under treaty – on union and united force, as in the term “federal [i.e. covenant] theology.” Federalists were, therefore, thought to stand for federal power over against the states. But in explaining their position, Madison and Hamilton labored in the Federalist Papers to show the states they had noting to fear from this central (federal) power. Thus federalism has come, in modern parlance, to mean the division or dispersal of central power. Those who opposed a Bill of Rights at the Constitutional Convention – including, at first, Madison himself, who drafted and steered through the final bill – were assuming that the individual was already protected by the states’ bills; that the central government could not reach the individual except through the states, which had put impenetrable barriers around individual rights./31

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 14th Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It [the 14th Amendment] is a set-back to proper government. This operation of the 14th Amendment runs counter to the ideals expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution itself. It does anything but promote domestic tranquility. They [the Republican Party] knew what they intended by the vague terms of section one of the Amendment. They knew that it could be interpreted so as to extend far beyond the negro race question. They desired to nationalize all civil rights; to make the Federal power supreme; and to bring the private life of every citizen directly under the eye of Congress … . This result was to be obtained by disenfranchising the whites and enfranchising the blacks … . It meant the death knell of the doctrine of State’s rights – the ultimate nationalization of all civil rights and the consequent abolition of State control over the private rights and duties of the individual. It meant the passing over of the police power of the State, into the police power of the national government, thereby giving Congress undefined and unlimited powers whereby it would be enabled to enter fields of legislation from which hitherto it had been barred (remember, the federal government never had any police powers provided under the organic constitution.) . . . The States of this Union were never sovereign. Neither is the Federal Government sovereign. Sovereignty is now and has always been inherent in the American people … . This would be a different matter if the Fourteenth Amendment presented to the courts only questions of law, but this is not the case. As a rule, when the Supreme Court declares a State law unconstitutional under the Amendment, what it really does is not to decide a question of law, but a question of governmental policy. … the primary purpose of the adoption of the 14th Amendment was to elevate the negro to a plane of equality with the white people and to protect him in his newly given rights. In its attempt to carry out this ideal, Congress was effectually restrained by the Supreme Court. Consequently, as related to the negro race, the Amendment is negative and non-automatic. It has failed of its purpose because there is no Federal power to enforce the 14th Amendment, and because the negroes have not been qualified to gain for themselves the ideals which it seeks to enforce. When they do become so qualified, they will have no need of the 14th Amendment. One of the immediate purposes of the adoption of the 14th Amendment was to assist in destroying the power of the Democratic Party in the South and in its place to build up Republicans. This result was to be obtained by disenfranchising the whites and enfranchising the blacks … . It was a nationalization of all civil rights./37

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amendment IX – “The enumeration of the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other retained by the people.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 2. “Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.”

Section 3. “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as member of any State Legislature, or an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote to two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.”

Section 4. “The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellions against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Separation Of Church And State

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

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

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

Amendment I. (1791) “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A territorial division, or colony, of a country. Duty; power; responsibility; thus it is the province of the court to judge the law, that of the jury to decide the facts./51

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

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


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

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

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

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

Public Policy And The Democracy

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

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

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

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

Now take a look at how your own federal government defines the difference between a republic and democracy. The following was taken from U.S. Government Training Manual, No. 2000-25 dated WAR DEPARTMENT, Washington, November 30, 1928 and prepared under direction of the Chief of Staff. Under which do you live?

DEMOCRACY: A government of the masses. Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of “direct” expression. Results in mobocracy. Attitude toward property is communistic- negating property rights. Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether it be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences. Results in demagogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.

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

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

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

“The tyranny of public opinion,”

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

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

“What remains,”

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