Judge Napolitano delivers an excellent presentation on how the Constitution of the United States has been eroded. -LW
If you’ve heard of Common Law Grand Juries, but aren’t quite sure what they are or why we don’t hear about them (much) anymore, this article should help. -LW
Originally posted on Our New World:
There has been a lot of buzz this weekend after Carl Swensson and the common-law grand jury he convened in Georgia this weekend created a presentment of findings against Barack Hussein Obama aka Barry Soetoro aka Barry Sutoro. A lot of the commentary that I’ve read has been dismissive of the efforts of Mr. Swensson, and so I thought I’d pass along a few viewpoints on this matter. Frankly, whether the presentment against Obama gains traction or not really isn’t the point… but rather that Americans are becoming so fed up that they are becoming creative in the effort to use our constitution for its intended purpose – limiting the power of our benevolent overlords in government who pretend to be above the law. May a thousand more Cark Swenssons rise up across America in the coming weeks to shed light on the darkness that has become our government.
View original 1,479 more words
Restoring Common Law will immediately invalidate such things as Common Core, ObamaCare, and Agenda 21. -LW
Most people do not realize that the well-known thirteenth amendment – that which ended slavery in America – was not the first “Thirteenth” amendment proposed. As any Constitutional scholar (or anyone remotely familiar with American History) can readily tell you, the thirteenth amendment to the United States Constitution is an important one. Perhaps even the most important one of all. As most students learned at some point in school but quickly forgot, the thirteenth amendment that is so well known today was ratified by congress in 1865, and effectively abolished slavery in the United States.
While this amendment didn’t exactly end racism once and for all (it’s proven rather difficult to make laws to that effect), it certainly was quite an important step in that direction.
But the true history of the thirteenth amendment actually goes back much farther than The Civil War, and has very little to do with slavery.
The story begins in 1810, fifty-five years before slavery would be abolished.
There was a young woman from Baltimore, Ms. Betsy Patterson. This young lady, in some kind of flight of youthful fancy, moved to England, where she married Napoleon Bonaparte’s younger brother, Jerome, and with him had a child, young Jerome Napoleon Bonaparte (the young couple were clearly not known for coming up with clever names). Now, because of his mother’s heritage, this child by law was granted automatic citizenship into the United States, while at the same time retaining a status of nobility in France, being Napoleon’s nephew and all.
There were many among the nobles in America who viewed this as a travesty to their own national identity, and quite a good reason to add a little something to the Constitution that was apparently missing.
And thus was born the Titles of Nobility Act; a proposed constitutional amendment (it would be, of course, the 13th) stating that any citizen of the U.S. who receives a title of nobility or honor from a foreign nation without the consent of congress must be forced to give up his or her citizenship in the United States.
Apparently, the proposed amendment must have sounded quite good to congress at the time, as it passed quickly through both houses by quite a wide majority, then was sent down to the individual state legislatures to be voted on (as article 5 of the constitution requires). It is here that the amendment finally found trouble.
Such an amendment would have required approval of two thirds of the states for ratification. After three years of debate (as the War of 1812 continued to rage), the amendment finally fell just shy of the required state approval, and thus was not added to the constitution.
Or was it?
The Short, But Interesting, Legacy For several decades, it was quite a common misconception among many Americans that the Titles of Nobility Act had, in fact, been approved. Much of this can probably be blamed, one must suppose, on the yet-primitive methods of communication available in the nineteenth century. In fact, communication over long distances hadn’t been much improved over the previous several centuries at this point, apart from the introduction of the steam engine, which hadn’t yet caught on at this point, having been invented only a few years previously.
Similarly, the telegraph wouldn’t come for a few more decades, then the phone a few decades after that. In fact, word that the Titles of Nobility Act had failed spread so poorly that the amendment was actually included in several printings of the constitution during this time before the folks at the printing presses themselves finally got a clue. Eventually, it seems that people began to realize the error of their ways, though it wouldn’t surprise me if more than a few people were a bit confused when congress took it upon themselves to issue another thirteenth amendment forty years later.
Of course, this is not the end of the story. Even today, there is absolutely no end of websites and message boards (including the “Titles of Nobility Act Research Comittee”) who declare the Titles of Nobility Act to have been passed in truth, but then swept under the rug by a vast government conspiracy. It’s an intersting thought, to be sure, but constitutional scholars tend to agree that the amendment did not, in fact, pass. If they somehow could have conspired to remove the act from the constitution, however, this surely deserves some sort of praise, as such a thing must not have been easy.
In closing, here are just a few of the many people who would lose their citizenship should such an amendment go into effect today: George H.W. Bush, Norman Schwarzkopf, Rudy Giuliani, and even Bill Gates; for all of these men have one important thing in common: they have been granted honorary knighthood from Britain.
AMERICANS CONTINUALLY DECEIVED!
LEGAL MENTALITY – LIE!
The amendment was also ratified by Virginia (state # 13): Virginia ratified the amendment on February 7, 1812. The state’s official records were burned when the British set fire to Washingtonand Richmond during the War of 1812, but numerous other records prove the amendment was ratified.
Nevertheless, the federal government insists the amendment never became law. This is a scan from a copy of “Military Laws of the United States,” by Trueman Cross. Published in 1825 by Edward de Krafft of Washington. Many books and official government documents printed between about 1820 to 1860 contain the original 13th amendment. It was never repealed.
In 1812, the votes of 13 states were needed to ratify an amendment.
The federal government admits the Titles of Nobility Amendment was
ratified by 12:
- Maryland (December 25, 1810)
- Kentucky (January 31, 1811)
- Ohio (January 31, 1811)
- Delaware (February 2, 1811)
- Pennsylvania (February 6, 1811)
- New Jersey (February 13, 1811)
- Vermont (October 24, 1811)
- Tennessee (November 21, 1811)
- Georgia (November 22, 1811)
- North Carolina (December 23, 1811)
- Massachusetts (February 27, 1812)
- New Hampshire (December 9, 1812)
The original 13th Amendment was secretly removed during the US Civil War. It was discovered in 1983 by David Dodge and Tom Dunn in a Belfast Library on the coast of Maine. They uncovered the United States Constitution printed in 1825, which was to prohibit lawyers from serving in government.
Since this Amendment was never officially removed from US law, it is stil on the books, and still in effect. How many Congressmen or Senators do you know who came from careers as lawyers?
Read all about it here.
First, Alfred Webre from Exopolitics.com shared the following. It sounds encouraging and very interesting so I’ll be tuning in on the 19th.
GOOD NEWS – THE WHITE HATS HAVE LANDED!
Randy Cramerz is a Capt in the US Marine Corps authorized by his command under Article 21 of the USMC Special Section Special Code, when 50% of the Constitutional Guarantees of the US are not functioning, to speak out publicly and warn against traitors and treasonous behavior against the USA.
This is evidence that White Hats at top levels of the US Government are now acting under power of law to restore lawful constitutional order to the USA. Mars experiencers Capt. Randy, Andrew D. Basiago, Laura Magdalene Eisenhower, and myself completed a media panel today with Mark Dr. Dream Peebler hosting covering in part how the secret US mission to Mars has been perverted to attempt to depopulate and destroy Earth civilization, that will be broadcast on Tuesday Aug. 19 on Awakeinthedream radio
Also from Alfred…
The police shooting in Missouri has sparked protests in Times Square, New York City, Union Square and other locations.
Click the link for the story and video.
Kevin Annett shared this with regard to Canada’s current steps to sever remaining ties to the Crown, and urges the other colonies to do the same because the British Monarchy is a sham and must be abolished to return us all to sovereign beings and nations.
He says, “our colleagues in England, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand must take precisely the same step.”
Kevin’s history lesson is certainly one that never found its way into MY classes at school. Fascinating, and good to know that we are systematically taking the air out of the corrupt government and justice system across the board in favour of Common Law—the only REAL Law of the Land. ~ BP
FROM KEVIN ANNETT ;-) Republic of Kanata Background Paper No. 1 -
The Basis for the Republic of Kanata and of England:
The History and Lawfulness of the Abolition of the “Crown” – A Brief Survey of Constitutional and Legal Precedents, and Applying them to our Work Today
The Commons of England assembled in Parliament declare that the people under God are the origin of all just power … and have the supreme authority of the nation. Whatsoever is enacted and declared law by the Commons alone has the force of law, and all the people are included thereby, with or without the consent of the king.
– An Act to Establish the High Court of Justice, House of Commons, London, January 4, 1649
It has been found by experience that the office of a monarch in this nation holding such power in any single person is unnecessary, burdensome, and dangerous to the liberty, safety, and public interest of the people … Be it therefore an Act ordained by the present Parliament, that the office of a king or other monarch in this nation shall not henceforth reside in or be exercised by any one single person and that monarchy be dispensed with in its entirety, as the chief threat to the people’s well being.
- An Act Abolishing the Office of King, House of Commons, London, March 17, 1649
For it is clear both by scripture and the laws of England that monarchs are anathema to divine law. Kings are of man’s creation, not God’s, and therefore they stand under judgement and the common law.
– John Cooke, public prosecutor of King Charles 1 (from “Monarchy: No Creature of God’s Making, Waterford, 1651)
Let the Chosen be joyful in glory; let the high Judgements of the Lord be in their mouths, and God’s sword be in their hands, to execute justice against the rulers, and to bind their kings in chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron, so that they may execute upon them the judgement that is from God. This is the honour given to God’s Chosen. (Psalm 149:5-9)
– Cited in the Judgement of the High Court’s trial of Charles Stuart, 1649
On January 30, 1649, the King of England, Charles Stuart, was executed in London after being lawfully convicted by a Parliamentary High Court of Justice for treason and conducting a war against the laws and people of England.
Weeks later, on March 17, 1649, the English Crown, including the Monarchy and the House of Lords, was legally and forever abolished and constitutionally prohibited in England. It was declared a treasonable act to attempt to re-establish monarchy and proclaim anyone King or Queen.
Eleven years later, this defunct royal power was reimposed on England and its colonies, fraudulently and illegally, by a military coup of Charles Stuart, son of the deposed King. The new regime that “restored” the monarchy was an illegal and de facto power, unlawfully created as an act of war against the laws of Parliament and the will of the people. Thus, every British monarch since 1660 has ruled illegally and unconstitutionally.
For three and a half centuries, we have lived in the shadow of that imposed tyranny and its fraudulent and unlawful authority. In reality, the English Crown has no just or operable power, and never has had, since its legal abolition in the spring of 1649.
The aim of any patriot and adherent of the common law in England, Canada or any so-called “commonwealth” nation is to reclaim the lawful authority established by the Parliamentary Republic in England in 1649, and unseat the de facto corporate fiction known as the “crown of England” and its propaganda arm, the church of England and its master in Rome.
It is not only lawful and right to stand on the Republican constitution and laws of the original Commonwealth, but it is the requirement of God’s law that monarchy, like papacy, be abolished. The rule of one man or woman is antithetical to God’s authority, to natural law and the requirements of liberty, as enunciated in the First Commandment: “Thou shall have no other gods (authorities) before me” (1).
Monarchy, whether secular or religious, is idolatry, for it places one ruler, whether king or pope, as co-equal with God, beyond law or judgement. And when such a solitary ruler has also been found guilty of crimes against the people, their continued reign becomes intolerable.
In 1649, Charles I of England was lawfully convicted of waging a treasonous war against his own people. Elizabeth II of England has similarly been lawfully convicted of committing treason against her people and her coronation oath, and of participating personally in crimes against humanity. Accordingly, on February 25, 2013, Elizabeth Windsor was deposed from her office and ordered arrested by a lawful common law court of justice convened under the laws of England.
Because of this recent verdict, there exists no legal authority in Canada, England, or any Commonwealth nation. The laws of the “crown” are inoperative today, as are the oaths of allegiance taken to the Crown by every politician, judge, police officer and soldier in these nations. Therefore, in the absence of any authority, the opportunity has been created to re-establish the lawful and sovereign Republic constituted by the People in Parliament in 1649, whose laws have never lost their authority.
Despite this, out of fear or ignorance, many people raised under the fiction known as the “crown” still hesitate from seizing back their own power as sovereign men and women from the mistaken belief that the “crown” still is lawful and legitimate. The first task of any common law Republican movement is to educate the people through word and deed of their own God given natural liberty, and unite them in a new nation of equals.
This process has begun, through the rise of a common law movement to re-establish the rule of law and trial by jury in Canada, England, New Zealand and Australia. But common law courts now being formed in these countries lack a constitutional basis and thus, ultimate legitimacy, operating as they are in the present political vacuum of a discredited “crown” law that has not been replaced with a Republican constitution and nation. And so to attempt to create common law courts without the overarching political authority to do so is to place the cart before the horse by setting up courts that have no constitutional authority, and whose judgements can therefore be considered invalid.
It is for this reason that the efforts today to create common law courts in Canada, England, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand must be accompanied by a similar movement to establish, and re-establish, a constitutional Republic in these lands. For without such legitimating power behind the courts, one cannot honesty answer the question, “Where do you get the authority to convene common law courts?”.
In a nutshell, that authority derives from a Constitution established by free men and women gathered as equal sovereigns under God and the natural law: not under de facto rulers. This principle runs throughout centuries of common law verdicts in England, in which authority rests in the people gathered as “the Commons”, meaning within free political assemblies such as Parliament.
The Parliamentary Act establishing the High Court Act of January 4, 1649 stated “the King can not challenge the legitimacy of a court established solely by the Commons … for henceforth, monarchs may not preside over government according to divine ordainment or sovereign immunity”. In short, as of that date, the people were under to be the source of law, not kings or rulers:
“The Commons of England assembled in Parliament declare that the people under God are the origin of all just power … and have the supreme authority of the nation. Whatsoever is enacted and declared law by the Commons alone has the force of law … with or without the consent of the king.”
Applying this to today, no common law court we establish can be declared illegitimate by the “crown” as long as such courts rest on a Constitution ratified by the Commons: by the people in sovereign assembly. And it is such an Assembly that is gathering, in Canada, on October 27 in Winnipeg, to frame a new Constitution and Nation. And our colleagues in England, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand must take precisely the same step.
Future papers will discuss why the “Restoration” of the monarchy in England was fraudulent and invalid, and established a de facto government that has no operating or lawful authority, either then or now. Common law and Republican activists must be armed with this knowledge to re-educate the people once more in liberty, and fortify their efforts to actively reclaim the law and the land for a sovereign nation.
Issued 20 July, 2014 by The Provisional Council for the Republic of Kanata
Drake sent this and I thought I would share for anyone who feels inclined.
It makes sense to me that if The People want more control over how things are handled in future, that they would join forces to manage situations rather than leaving it to state or federal government to do it FOR them. ~ BP
This is the first step to becoming the resistance to federal oppression and tyranny. usCrow United States Civic Response and Operational Warfare is an alliance of conservative Americans organizing a planned response to any hostile action taken by the federal government. There are two working departments of usCrow:
Civic Militarized Force – National Militia
usCrow Civic Militarized Force is a militia operated by honorable Armed Forces members and assists in the training of CDF members. Our enlistment coordinators will verify your compliance with the CMF Code of Conduct and Disqualifications. We are only seeking people who are willing to make a commitment, while regional commanders will work with your schedules when considering your level of involvement. After submitting your enlistment you will be contacted by your regional command, CMF has FOBs in every state.
CMF National Militia Mission
One of the primary faults of Americans is the use of the militia structure by fringe elements. Fringe elements with clearly radical missions that violate rights recognized in the United States Constitution. This is not usCrow CMF. If you disagree, stop viewing our site immediately, you are not in the right place.
CMF’s primary mission is to protect every American’s constitutional rights, while providing an organized defensive response to national disasters. Such national disasters include; widespread martial law, foreign invasions, economical or societal collapse, natural or man-made disasters.
Civic Defense Force – Not a Militia
Civil Defense Force which is not a militia and provides Firearms Safety for Families, CCW Classes, First Aid/CPR Certification, and Prepper/Survivalist Training that provides defensive planning for your family and community.
Are national militias illegal?
Absolutely not! Our founders were very clear and concise when writing the United States Constitution by stating ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’. The National Guard is not a militia because it is regulated by state governments and would ultimately fall under federal control in most cases. You, the everyday civilian and the active/retired military personnel represent a constitutional American militia.