"Get into the Know"
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
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: www.stopthepirates.blogspot.com