Quintal
2005-07-16 22:57:53 UTC
francom.esoterisme,fr.soc.complots,fr.soc.politique,alt.conspiracy
The United States is still a British Colony
The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place and
it can be changed to fit someones belief and/or traditions, or it can
be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and
withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the
Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the
contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow
yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be
the judge and don't let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect
teaching, keep you from the truth.
I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books
that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was
secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I'm going to discuss a
few documents that are included at the end of this paper, in the
footnotes. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606
(footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our
fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition
for license is as follows.
"In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some
trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute,
except with the permission of the civil authority or which would
otherwise be unlawful." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British
subjects. So you can better understand what I'm going to tell you,
here are the definitions for subject and citizen.
"In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes
permanent allegiance to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
"Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is
governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the
British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as
citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects
they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this
sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government." Swiss
Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed.
504. Blacks fifth Ed.
I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better
understand what definition of citizen is really being used in American
law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law.
"The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of
private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family
and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other
subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the
distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel.
Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to
America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would
admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his
venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the
land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of
gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his
subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects
could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid
right of the king (Jure Coronae, "In right of the crown," Black's
forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total
loss.
If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs
and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver
and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained
in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a
benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his
capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but
it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia
Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised
the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A
license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods
(commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of
the king's declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of
1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which
was not ceded to America.
This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was
declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant
between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without
representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted
by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of
England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king.
Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief,
separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of
freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the
colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the
militias.
The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis
surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been
taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next
document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally
contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).
I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to
himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States.
You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this
Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is
obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a
Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep
this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand
the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it
was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of
freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.
An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility
by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An
Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this
status, see the below definitions.
"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and
others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever
studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who
professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without
manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a
gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a
gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562
"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman,
and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants,
and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law
Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the
Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the
only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was
David Hartley Esqr..
Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty,
he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use
of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty
to the crown.
In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America
are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold,
silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives
Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and
its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide
debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand
that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he
protect their interest with this Treaty?
I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was
signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States
defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we
were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the
Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign
such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty
gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War?
If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land
would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the
Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a
position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won.
Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did
McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No
way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the
king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of
all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the
chance to be free.
When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle,
not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at
Yorktown (footnote 3)
Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that
Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy
war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be
supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly
be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than two hundred years
the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That
government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire."
All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and
obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to
support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained
financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is
still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs
and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original
venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will
see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from
those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased
with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:
-CITE-
26 USC Sec. 1491
HEAD-
Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax
-STATUTE-
There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or
resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or
partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or
trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a
contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a
foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess
of -
(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over
(2) the sum of -
(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the
hands of the transferor, plus
(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of
the transfer.
-SOURCE-
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455,
title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600,
title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)
-MISC1-
AMENDMENTS
1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust'
wherever appearing.
1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.
(1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27
1/2 percent' and in par.
(1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and
securities' and in par.
(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar.
(B).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT
Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments
made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this
title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.'
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT
Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made
by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this
section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section
1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after
October 2, 1975.'
A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his
land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his
heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the
king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.
(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great
Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared "That
he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free
people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of
peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights
and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of
which the future strength and security of the country must forever
depend." The determined language of this speech, pointing to the
continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both
Lords and Commons.
In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons
that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion
"That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by
force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of
Great Britain." The rest of the debate can be found in (footnote 4).
What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper.
The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war
was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key
personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of "A
Country Defeated In Victory," go into detail about how this was done
and exposes some of the main players.
Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king,
and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the
original American Charters.
The following is the definition of tribute (tax).
"A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his
subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by
an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the
friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth
ed. p. 1677
As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes
that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that
study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master
File, all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to
break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your
IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax
you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series,
which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which
is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to
1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone
is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being
held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K.,
payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is
form 8288, FIRPTA - Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you
won't find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288
form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3.
If you will check the OMB's paper - Office of Management and Budget,
in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections,
Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under
OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for
dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property
interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign
persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a. These codes have since been
changed to read as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assement, CP 55
generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF
310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF
390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is
nothing changed, the government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the
payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in
financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.
Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay's Treaty
of 1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of
1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794
he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy
among the American people about this Treaty.
In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed
to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years
after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone
forgot to tell the king of England. In Article 6, the king is still
dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt
and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe.
In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time
concerning where and with who the United States could trade. In
Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that
would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going
to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War?
That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into
believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had
the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because
our status is far worse now than then. I'll explain.
Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made
by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was
canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in
order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never
asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all
our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over
the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest
barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly
adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose
for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government
who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious
that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the
Title of nobility or honor.
The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the
13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the
evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it
increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to
reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was
ratified by the Senate in 1815.
The United States is still a British Colony
The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place and
it can be changed to fit someones belief and/or traditions, or it can
be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and
withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the
Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the
contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow
yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be
the judge and don't let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect
teaching, keep you from the truth.
I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books
that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was
secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I'm going to discuss a
few documents that are included at the end of this paper, in the
footnotes. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606
(footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our
fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition
for license is as follows.
"In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some
trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute,
except with the permission of the civil authority or which would
otherwise be unlawful." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British
subjects. So you can better understand what I'm going to tell you,
here are the definitions for subject and citizen.
"In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes
permanent allegiance to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
"Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is
governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the
British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as
citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects
they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this
sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government." Swiss
Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed.
504. Blacks fifth Ed.
I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better
understand what definition of citizen is really being used in American
law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law.
"The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of
private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family
and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other
subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the
distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel.
Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.
The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to
America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would
admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his
venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the
land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of
gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his
subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects
could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid
right of the king (Jure Coronae, "In right of the crown," Black's
forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total
loss.
If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs
and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver
and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained
in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a
benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his
capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but
it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia
Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised
the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A
license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods
(commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of
the king's declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of
1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which
was not ceded to America.
This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was
declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant
between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without
representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted
by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of
England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king.
Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief,
separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of
freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the
colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the
militias.
The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis
surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been
taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next
document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally
contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).
I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to
himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States.
You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this
Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is
obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a
Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep
this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand
the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it
was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of
freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.
An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility
by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An
Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this
status, see the below definitions.
"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and
others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever
studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who
professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without
manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a
gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a
gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562
"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman,
and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants,
and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law
Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the
Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the
only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was
David Hartley Esqr..
Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty,
he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use
of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty
to the crown.
In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America
are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold,
silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives
Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and
its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide
debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand
that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he
protect their interest with this Treaty?
I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was
signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States
defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we
were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the
Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign
such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty
gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War?
If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land
would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the
Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a
position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won.
Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did
McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No
way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the
king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of
all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the
chance to be free.
When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle,
not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at
Yorktown (footnote 3)
Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that
Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy
war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be
supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly
be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than two hundred years
the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That
government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire."
All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and
obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to
support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained
financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is
still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs
and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original
venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will
see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from
those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased
with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:
-CITE-
26 USC Sec. 1491
HEAD-
Sec. 1491. Imposition of tax
-STATUTE-
There is hereby imposed on the transfer of property by a citizen or
resident of the United States, or by a domestic corporation or
partnership, or by an estate or trust which is not a foreign estate or
trust, to a foreign corporation as paid-in surplus or as a
contribution to capital, or to a foreign estate or trust, or to a
foreign partnership, an excise tax equal to 35 percent of the excess
of -
(1) the fair market value of the property so transferred, over
(2) the sum of -
(A) the adjusted basis (for determining gain) of such property in the
hands of the transferor, plus
(B) the amount of the gain recognized to the transferor at the time of
the transfer.
-SOURCE-
(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 365; Oct. 4, 1976, Pub. L. 94-455,
title X, Sec. 1015(a), 90 Stat. 1617; Nov. 6, 1978, Pub. L. 95-600,
title VII, Sec. 701(u)(14)(A), 92 Stat. 2919.)
-MISC1-
AMENDMENTS
1978 - Pub. L. 95-600 substituted 'estate or trust' for 'trust'
wherever appearing.
1976 - Pub. L. 94-455 substituted in provisions preceding par.
(1) 'property' for 'stocks and securities' and '35 percent' for '27
1/2 percent' and in par.
(1) 'fair market value' for 'value' and 'property' for 'stocks and
securities' and in par.
(2) designated existing provisions as subpar. (A) and added subpar.
(B).
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1978 AMENDMENT
Section 701(u)(14)(C) of Pub. L. 95-600 provided that: 'The amendments
made by this paragraph (amending this section and section 1492 of this
title) shall apply to transfers after October 2, 1975.'
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1976 AMENDMENT
Section 1015(d) of Pub. L. 94-455 provided that: 'The amendments made
by this section (enacting section 1057 of this title, amending this
section and section 1492 of this title, and renumbering former section
1057 as 1058 of this title) shall apply to transfers of property after
October 2, 1975.'
A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his
land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his
heirs with the help of his world financiers. Here is a quote from the
king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.
(Six weeks after) the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great
Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared "That
he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free
people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of
peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights
and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of
which the future strength and security of the country must forever
depend." The determined language of this speech, pointing to the
continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both
Lords and Commons.
In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons
that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion
"That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by
force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of
Great Britain." The rest of the debate can be found in (footnote 4).
What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper.
The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war
was even being waged, it was to be fought by subterfuge and key
personnel being placed in key positions. The first two parts of "A
Country Defeated In Victory," go into detail about how this was done
and exposes some of the main players.
Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king,
and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the
original American Charters.
The following is the definition of tribute (tax).
"A contribution which is raised by a prince or sovereign from his
subjects to sustain the expenses of the state. A sum of money paid by
an inferior sovereign or state to a superior potentate, to secure the
friendship or protection of the latter." Blacks Law Dictionary forth
ed. p. 1677
As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes
that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England. For those that
study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means Individual Master
File, all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to
break their codes using file 6209, which is about 467 pages. On your
IMF you will find a blocking series, which tells you what type of tax
you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series,
which 6209 says is reserved. You then look up the BMF 300-399, which
is the Business Master File in 6209. You would have seen prior to
1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning everyone
is considered a business and involved in commerce and you are being
held liable for a tax via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K.,
payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this is
form 8288, FIRPTA - Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you
won't find many people using this form, just the 1040 form. The 8288
form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3.
If you will check the OMB's paper - Office of Management and Budget,
in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections,
Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form under
OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for
dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property
interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign
persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a. These codes have since been
changed to read as follows; IMF 300-309, Barred Assement, CP 55
generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040 form. IMF
310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF
390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is
nothing changed, the government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the
payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have been in
financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.
Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay's Treaty
of 1794 (footnote 5). If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of
1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794
he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy
among the American people about this Treaty.
In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed
to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years
after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone
forgot to tell the king of England. In Article 6, the king is still
dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt
and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe.
In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time
concerning where and with who the United States could trade. In
Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that
would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going
to its enemies ports. Who won the Revolutionary War?
That's right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into
believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had
the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because
our status is far worse now than then. I'll explain.
Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made
by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was
canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in
order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never
asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all
our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over
the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest
barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly
adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose
for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government
who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious
that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the
Title of nobility or honor.
The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the
13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the
evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it
increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to
reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was
ratified by the Senate in 1815.