The United States is still a British Colony by Jeff Anderson




The United States is still a British Colony
The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place and it can be

changed to fit someones belief and/or traditions, or it can be taught in the

public schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts. I know you

have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I

can prove to the contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and

allow yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be the

judge and don't let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect teaching, keep you

from the truth.

I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that our

freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning

the Revolutionary War. I'm going to discuss a few documents that are included at

the end of this paper, in the footnotes. The first document is the first Charter

of Virginia in 1606 (footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England

granted our fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition

for license is as follows.

"In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or

business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with the

permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful." Bouvier's

Law Dictionary, 1914.

Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British subjects. So you

can better understand what I'm going to tell you, here are the definitions for

subject and citizen.

"In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance

to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

"Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by

his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men

in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy

rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is

little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of

government." Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69

L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.

I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better understand

what definition of citizen is really being used in American law. Below is the

definition of citizen from Roman law.

"The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private civil

rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and inheritance law and

the Roman contract and property law. All other subjects were peregrines. But in

the beginning of the 3d century the distinction was abolished and all subjects

were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's Law Dictionary,


The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and

used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king had a

lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter

he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he

declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by

his subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects could

have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid right of the king

(Jure Coronae, "In right of the crown," Black's forth Ed.), the king expended his

resources with the risk of total loss.

If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs and

successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver and copper that he

claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained in the colonies was also the

kings. He provided the remainder as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to

further use of his capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this

valid, but it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia

Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised the power to

regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A license had to be granted

for travel connected with transfer of goods (commerce) right down to the furniture

they sat on. A great deal of the king's declared property was ceded to America in

the Treaty of 1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which

was not ceded to America.

This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared

because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject.

The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in

the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject

to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the

king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief,

separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and

self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan "Don't

Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the militias.

The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to

Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king

and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which

will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as

prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that

the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength

and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams

negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep

this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players

of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin

Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title

includes Esquire.

An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the

king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone

that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below


"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who

bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever studieth the laws of the

realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and

who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and

countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a

gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562

"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below

knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at

law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641

Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all

Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the

Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..

Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent

most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared

his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.

In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are

relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper

as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the

waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States

agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you

will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he

protect their interest with this Treaty?

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in

1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the

king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We

supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed

patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any

sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War?

If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be

necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not

dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war;

means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we

defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for

surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the

king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they

sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.

When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war.

Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown (footnote 3)

Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis

revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin on

America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom,

but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less

than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world

government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British


All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of

the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and

colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed

after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day.

And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original

venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one

situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a

benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies,

at almost the same percentage:

Views: 29


You need to be a member of K.I.K to add comments!

Join K.I.K


Mark Wells created this Ning Network.

All donations will go towards operating this website, thank you

© 2017   Created by Mark Wells.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

online address book app