By: TLB Staff Writer | David-William
May 3, 2016
The Constitution of the united States of America
The original Article XIII, and the expiration of Alexander Levine’s (changed to Hamilton) twenty year charter for his Rothschild Bank, caused the War of 1812. Why would the internal business of the united States cause such a War? United States was still a British Colony, with a fancier name for DEBT slave. The “Star Spangled Banner” was written by Francis Scott Key as he sat watching the massive onslaught against those attempting to repel the British fleet.
The battle is best remembered for inspiring Francis Scott Key to write The Star-Spangled Banner. Detained aboard the ship Minden, Key had gone to meet with the British to secure the release of Dr. William Beanes who had been arrested during the attack on Washington. Having overhead the British attack plans, Key was forced to remain with the fleet for the duration of the battle. Moved to write during the fort’s heroic defense, he composed the words to an old drinking song entitled To Anacreon in Heaven. Initially published after the battle as the Defense of Fort McHenry, it eventually became known as the Star-Spangled Banner and was made the National Anthem of the United States. How could America have won the war?
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the united States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Article I, Section 10, Clause I
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
There was no penalty for violating Article I, Section 9, Clause 8, so in January of 1810, Senator Reed, proposed the original Article XIII. On April 26, 1810, it passed the Senate 26-1, and on May 3, 1810 it passed the House 87-3. On to the Seventeen States for Ratification; The real Article XIII:
“If any citizen of the united States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any Emperor, King, Prince, or foreign Power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the united States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.”
Thirteen of the seventeen States voted for Ratification of this proposed Article XIII, between 1810 and 1819; Maryland, Kentucky, Ohio, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, Tennessee, Georgia, North Carolina, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Virginia. New York, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Rhode Island were against it. On March 10, 1819, the Virginia Legislature passed Act 280, Virginia Archived the Richmond Miscellaneous file page 299: ” Be it enacted by the general assembly, that there shall be published an edition of the Laws of this Commonwealth, in which shall be contained the following matters, that is to say the Constitution of the united States the amendment thereto.”
The official day of Ratification was March 12, 1819, the date of republication of the Virginia Civil Code. Virginia ordered 4000 copies, almost triple their usual order. Word of Virginia’s 1819 Ratification spread throughout the States. Rhode Island and Kentucky published the Amendment in 1822, Ohio published it in 1824, Maine ordered 10,000 copies of the Constitution with the new Article for the public schools, and again in 1831 for their census edition. Indiana in 1831, Northwest Territories in 1833, Ohio again in 1831, and 1833, Connecticut in 1835, Wisconsin Territory in 1839, Iowa Territory in 1843, Ohio again in 1848, Kansas in 1855, Nebraska Territory six times from 1855-1860, Colorado Territory in 1865 and 1867 with the Freedom of the Slaves Article listed as Article XIV, Wyoming Territory in 1876 also with Article XIV for the Freedom of the Slaves, and Article XIV for the infamous, “14th Amendment,” which enslaved everyone, including all the Northern State Lemmings who fought with Attorney Abraham Lincoln, Esquire to save America by destroying it.
On December 2, 1817, Secretary of State, John Quincy Adams wrote a letter to Buck, an Attorney, regarding the position Buck had been assigned:
“If it should be the opinion of this government, that the acceptance on your part of the commission, under which it was granted, did not interfere with your citizenship, it is the opinion of the Executive, that under the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, by the acceptance of such an appointment from any foreign government, a citizen of the united States ceases to enjoy that character, and becomes incapable of holding any Office of Trust or profit under the united States or either of them.” John Quincy Adams
By virtue of these titles and honors, and special privileges, Lawyers have enjoyed political and economic advantages over the majority of citizens. This is why almost all of the committee or board of directors called “Congress” in the de facto UNITED STATES CORPORATION are Crown Temple B.A.R. Attorners/Brokers for the Crown-Vatican-Swiss Banksters. This is why the B.A.R. refuses to acknowledge that Article XIII exists, and why the B.A.R. refuses to acknowledge that the “14th Amendment” was never actually Ratified. Article XIII is another of the ways that the Foreign Agent B.A.R. is FORBIDDEN from holding Offices of Trust, and from citizenship, rendering them as Alien Foreign Invaders. B.A.R. Agents are priests of Ba’al, their lord Satan. Satan runs The United States of Rome.
There is another Title of Nobility, not protected by the Crown as the B.A.R. is, that is forbidden from being a citizen of the united States. the people, the Fellow Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven, Christians. Remember, a citizen of the united States is a Subject of the united States. A constitutor is a DEBTOR, an incompetent person or one who assumes the DEBT of another. Christians are forbidden DEBT. America is the Kingdom of Heaven, not the united States or those in contract with the Constitution.
Christians are not citizens, persons, resident aliens, property of the Federal Corporation:
Ephesians 2:12King James Version (KJV)
12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Ephesians 2:19-22New International Version (NIV)
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.
a Christian, one of the people, could never satisfy the requirements within the Naturalization Act of 1802 to be a citizen of the united States of America.
A Christian is not, nor ever could be a U.S. citizen of the Organic Constitution of 1871, of the de facto Corporation, The United States.
A Christian is not, nor may not be liable for any public debts or liabilities at any time whatsoever.
A legal fiction, corporation cannot secure in personam jurisdiction over or against a Christian.
A Christian is one of the Sovereign people.
Statutes and Codes are creations of a STATE CORPORATION, therefore are not law over men who are not citizens or in contract with said STATE, and the STATE can control only that which it creates, except by unlawful terrorism, which is how and why the Crown Temple B.A.R. commits land piracy over men, the people, Christians, whom the CORPORATION did not create. Observe below, that which binds the de facto to it’s own rules:
” ‘in common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign people, and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b)
“The sovereign people are not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S.v. Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192.
“A corporation is not a citizen within the meaning of that provision of the Constitution, which declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States. Special privileges enjoyed by citizens in their own States are not secured in other States by this provision such as grants of corporate existence and powers. States may exclude a foreign corporation entirely or they may exact such security for the performance of its contracts with their citizens as, in their judgment, will best promote the public interest.” [Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall (U.S.) 168; 19 L.Ed 357 (1868)]
What a person is:
Blacks Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 1028
Person. In general usage, a human being (i.e. natural person), though by statute term may include a firm, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in bankruptcy, or receivers. National Labor Relations Act, § 2(1).
Bankruptcy Act. “Person” includes individual, partnership, and corporation, but not governmental unit. Sec. 101(30).
Corporation. A corporation is a “person” within meaning of equal protection and due process provisions of United States Constitution. Allen v. Pavach, Ind., 335 N.E.2d 219, 221; Borreca v. Fasi, D.C.Hawaii, 369 F.Supp. 906, 911. The term “persons” in statute relating to conspiracy to commit offense against United States, or to defraud United States, or any agency, includes corporation. Alamo Fence Co. of Houston v. U. S., C.A.Tex., 240 F.2d 179, 181.
Foreign government. Foreign governments otherwise eligible to sue in U.S. courts are “persons” entitled to bring treble-damage suit for alleged anti trust violations under Clayton Act, Section 4. Pfizer, Inc. v. Government of India, C.A.Minn., 550 F.2d 396.
Illegitimate child. Illegitimate children are “persons” within meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68, 88 S.Ct. 1509, 1511, 20 L.Ed.2d 436; and scope of wrongful death statute, Jordan v. Delta Drilling Co., Wyo., 541 P.2d 39, 48.
Interested person. Includes heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries and any others having a property right in or claim against a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward or protected person which may be affected by the proceeding. It also includes persons having priority for appointment as personal representative, and other fiduciaries representing interested persons. The meaning as it relates to particular persons may vary from time to time and must be determined according to the particular purposes of, and matter involved in, any proceeding. Uniform Probate Code, § 1-201(20).
Municipalities. Municipalities and other government units are “persons” within meaning of 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Local government officials sued in their official capacities are “persons” for purposes of Section 1983 in those cases in which a local government would be sue able in its own name. Monell v. N.Y. City Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611. See Color of law.
Protected person. One for whom a conservator has been appointed or other protective order has been made Uniform, Probate Code § 5-101(3).
U.S. Supreme Court decisions regarding the sovereign people, are not a person, or persons. The use of the word person is the reason the sovereign American people have been tricked into paying for filing fees. It is the use of the word person in law, and the confusion, the word person creates for the average sovereign people, when used in law.
A person is a corporation and CODES do not apply to sovereign American people. The CODE only applies to a person or persons, which are corporations.
“A “US Citizen” upon leaving the District of Columbia becomes involved in “interstate commerce”, as a “resident” does not have the common-law right to travel, of a Citizen of one of the several states.” Hendrick v. Maryland S.C. Reporter’s Rd. 610-625. (1914)
“The term resident and citizen of the United States is distinguished from a Citizen of one of the several states, in that the former is a special class of citizen created by Congress.” U.S. v. Anthony 24 Fed. 829 (1873)
“Therefore, the U.S. citizens [citizens of the District of Columbia] residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an “individual entity.” Wheeling Steel Corp. v. Fox, 298 U.S. 193, 80 L.Ed. 1143, 56 S.Ct. 773.
Citizens (Federal) and Persons vs. People
CITIZENS. Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associated capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.—U.S. v Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542—
If one is established as a “people”, individually or collectively, then one is entitled to all the rights, which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 10C Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.
A people may do anything he or she wishes to do so long as it does not damage, injure, or impair the same Right or property of another individual. 10 Pick. 9; United States Exp. Co. v. Henderson, 69 Iowa, 40, 28 N. W. 426; Greenl. Ev. 469a quoted in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906). A people owes no duty to the state or the public as long as he does not trespass.
Lansing v. Smith 21 D. 89. people of a state are entitled to all rights which formerly belonged to the king by his prerogative……….2. Citizens – United States citizenship does not entitle citizen to rights and privileges of state citizenship. Citizenship of the United States does not entitle citizen to privileges and immunities of citizen of the state,since privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other. Tashiro v. Jordan S.F.1234G. S.C.C. 5-20-1927
“Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state.” Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections (1966) 221 A.2d 431 p.4
“The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1868, CREATES or at least recognizes for THE FIRST TIME a [federal] citizenship of the United States, AS DISTINCT FROM THAT OF THE STATES…”
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
Although the Courts across The United States fail to recognize the fact that “Article XIV/14th Amendment” was never lawfully ratified, nor could it have been, per Article V of the U.S. Constitution (Congressional Record House, June 13, 1967, pg 15641-15646 and Dyett v Turner (1968) are VERY CLEAR about this).
These rulings & statutes make it clear the Residents or U.S. Citizens are Government Employees, who have no constitutional protection, like the citizens of the several States, therefore Affiant cannot be a part of the body politic, and Affiant further swears that Affiant is not a part of any body politic, nor has Affiant ever promised to abide by the body politic.
” ‘In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign people, (citizens of several states) and statutes employing the (word person) are normally construed to exclude the sovereign people.’ Wilson v Omaha Tribe, 442 US653 667, 61 L Ed 2d 153, 99 S Ct 2529 (1979) (quoting United States v Cooper Corp. 312 US 600, 604, 85 L Ed 1071, 61 S Ct 742 (1941). See also United States v Mine Workers, 330 US 258, 275, 91 L Ed 884, 67 S Ct 677 (1947)” Will v Michigan State Police, 491 US 58, 105 L. Ed. 2d 45, 109 S.Ct. 2304 b)
The sovereign people (citizens of the several states) are not a person in a legal sense” In re Fox, 52 N. Y. 535, 11 Am. Rep. 751; U.S.v.Fox, 94 U.S. 315, 24 L. Ed. 192.
3C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, § 247
“As expressed otherwise, the powers delegated to a public officer are held in trust for the people and are to be exercised in behalf of the government or of all citizens who may need the intervention of the officer.  Furthermore, the view has been expressed that all public officers, within whatever branch and whatever level of government, and whatever be their private vocations, are trustees of the people, and accordingly labor under every disability and prohibition imposed by law upon trustees relative to the making of personal financial gain from a discharge of their trusts.  That is, a public officer occupies a fiduciary relationship to the political entity on whose behalf he or she serves.  and owes a fiduciary duty to the public.  It has been said that the fiduciary responsibilities of a public officer cannot be less than those of a private individual.  Furthermore, it has been stated that any enterprise undertaken by the public official which tends to weaken public confidence and undermine the sense of security for individual rights is against public policy.”
[63C Am.Jur.2d, Public Officers and Employees, §247]
 State ex rel. Nagle v Sullivan, 98 Mont 425, 40 P2d 995, 99 ALR 321; Jersey City v Hague, 18 NJ 584, 115 A2d 8.
 Georgia Dep’t of Human Resources v Sistrunk, 249 Ga 543, 291 SE2d 524. A public official is held in public trust. Madlener v Finley (1st Dist) 161 Ill App 3d 796, 113 Ill Dec 712, 515 NE2d 697, app gr 117 Ill Dec 226, 520 NE2d 387 and revd on other grounds 128 Ill 2d 147, 131 Ill Dec 145, 538 NE2d 520.
 Chicago Park Dist. v Kenroy, Inc., 78 Ill 2d 555, 37 Ill Dec 291, 402
NE2d 181, appeal after remand (1st Dist) 107 Ill App 3d 222, 63 Ill Dec 134, 437 NE2d 783.
 United States v Holzer (CA7 Ill) 816 F2d 304 and vacated, remanded on other grounds 484 US 807, 98 L Ed 2d 18, 108 S Ct 53, on remand (CA7 Ill) 840 F2d 1343, cert den 486 US 1035, 100 L Ed 2d 608, 108 S Ct 2022 and (criticized on other grounds by United States v Osser (CA3 Pa) 864 F2d 1056) and (superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in United States v Little (CA5 Miss) 889 F2d 1367) and (among conflicting authorities on other grounds noted in United States v Boylan (CA1 Mass) 898 F2d 230, 29 Fed Rules Evid Serv 1223).
During the “Banking Emergency” of 1933, the gold was confiscated from all U.S. citizens/persons, “U.S. citizens were declared enemies of the U.S. by F.D.R. by Executive Order No. 2040 and ratified by Congress on March 9, 1933, see the FDR Amendment to Trading With the Enemy Act, when FDR changed the meaning of The Trading with the Enemy Act of December 6, 1917 by changing the word “without” to citizens “within” the United States leaving everyone, U.S. citizens and the people-not U.S. citizens, without substantive currency, so even though House Joint Resolution has been rendered useless, the people still have power of set-off and because there is still no substantive currency, leaving the people with only DEBT instruments, I.O.U.s, and unlawful counterfeiting by way of the foreign (see Lewis vs. UNITED STATES) FEDERAL RESERVE. See Public Law 73-10.