OATHS OF OFFICE
There is much debate on oaths of office of government officials flying around and people have no idea what they are talking about so I decided to let you in on some research and common logical understanding. Almost 100 percent of the people believe the government people should take the oaths and if they don't then when they come after people, like you and me , Mr. and Mrs. John Q .. They have no authority to come after you, you say. What I would like to make certain is that the oath taken to the letter of the law is what they are following when they "come after you." People do not realize that when the oath is cited it is cited for a contract called a constitution of the corporation known as either the State or the United States. It is not taken of, by, or for the people of the country. To prove that states and counties are corporations is found in the North Carolina Library cite on the internet at http://statelibrary.dcr.state.nc.us/...NT.HTM#POLITIC In there is this excerpt and applies to every state in the union.
The County as a Body Politic and Corporate
A county, as a defined geographic subdivision of the state, serves many purposes. Churches, civic clubs, and other societal institutions use counties as convenient subdivisions for their own purposes. The business world may assign sales territories and franchises to areas composed of one or more counties. The county may play a role in the psychology of people born and raised "in the country" - it serves to establish where they are from and who they are, thus becoming a part of their personal identity. But the county was created in the first instance by the state as a political unit, and this remains its primary purpose.
More than forty years ago, the North Carolina Supreme Court was called upon to define a county from a legal point of view. (In the case, Wake County was a litigant and the court spoke in terms of that county, but what the Court had to say is equally true of the other ninety-nine counties):
"Wake County is a body politic and corporate, created by the General Assembly of
North Carolina for certain public and political purposes. Its powers as such, both
express and implied, are conferred by statutes, enacted from time to time by the
General Assembly, and are exercised by its Board of Commissioners .... In the
exercise of ordinary government functions, [counties] are simply agencies of the
State, constituted for the convenience of local administration in certain portions of
the State's territory, and in the exercise of such functions they are subject to almost
unlimited legislative control, except when the power is restricted by constitutional
The language used by the court is important as it established the definition of a county. A county, according to the court, is a "body politic and corporate." A body politic is a civil division of the state for purposes of governmental administration. A body corporate is a legal entity. In private law, a corporation is a legal person. A county is a legal entity or corporation of a special sort and with a public function. As such, it can buy and hold property, sue and be sued, and enter into contracts - all functions necessary to make its work as a body politic effective.
In O'Berry, State Treasurer v. Mecklenburg County, [198 N.C. 357,151 S.E. 880 ( 1930)], the court stated that "the weight of authority is to effect that all the powers and functions of a county bear reference to the general policy of the State, and are in fact an integral portion of the general administration of State policy. Historically, the primary purpose for erecting a county was to serve state purposes and to perform state functions in a given area rather than to serve the purposes of a particular geographic community. (By way of contrast, a city was primarily formed at the request of the people within its jurisdiction to serve the needs of the inhabitants.)
For the Supreme Court to say that "all the powers and functions of a county bear reference to the general policy of the State and are in fact an integral portion of the general administration of State policy" is not as restrictive as might at first reading appear. "State policy" is a very broad frame of reference; it can touch any aspect of local government. Thus, the truly significant nugget in the Supreme Court's definition of the role of counties is its statement that in the exercise of their functions, counties "are subject to almost unlimited legislative control, except when the power is restricted by constitutional provisions." In effect, if the General Assembly can be persuaded to assign counties any given power or responsibility, and, if the Constitution does not prohibit it, that assignment becomes state policy for county administration.
Now that you have irrefutable proof that you , when calling yourself a "state citizen" are an integral part of a corporate body and you yourself take on the character of a legal entity called a "person". All statutes are private corporate law and they all address a "person" and not a man. The common law of God would address a man and that's why there is no common law anymore when dealing with statutes which are all corporate in nature. Now you know why they refer to you as person. This I had explained on the articles on atgpress.com and in my book, The New History of America , and in Which One Are You published back in 1990. In fact I include here one small portion of Which One Are You here to show even back then I was on point.
What was the American before he "resided" in a State? Wasn't he a "free white person?" See Works of John Adams, 213 and Thayer, Cases on Constitutional Law,note on page 459, stated in part:
"The proper english meaning of the term `citizen' imported membership of a borough or local municipal corporation. The usual word for a man's political relation to the monarch of the state was `subject'. . . . The word `citizen' is not found in any of our state constitutions before that of Massachusetts (1780); . . . In the Declaration of Independence (1776), we read it once, `He has restrained our fellow citizens,' etc. and once in the Articles of Confederation."
Yet no one will take the time to understand what I had written was all documented and then proceed to engage in arguments with each other that go nowhere except on a merry- go- round. So, both the State government and the United States government are corporate entities of the Crown/Vatican cabal and the people you call criminals are just obeying the contract set upon them when they took office. With that in mind we go to oaths.
The oath thus states in part; I, ......... do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution ...
Now we go to the paper called the Constitution of the United States. The two main parts that this oath apply are Article VI and the 14th Amendment Paragraph three. Remember that the oath is to a contract that they have to abide by and nothing else. You are not involved nor mentioned in the oath and with good reason. So let's see what they are abiding with.
First is the oath to Article VI.
United States Article VI protects the debt owed to the creditor King by each debtor colony. It protects the treaties the Colonies had with the King and proves the works of James Montgomery that we are still under the control of the King by treaty.
Article VI, U.S. Constitution. 1. All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid as against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. [The King's money and debt is protected and this is their solemn oath they take.]
2. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made [the treaty of 1606 and 1782 made with the King], or which shall be made [Jay's treaty of 1792 with the King], under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; [despite anything to the contrary Treaties are part of the Constitution and reign supreme over all you people despite the fact you have nothing to do with it. You said it's your constitution, live with it and don't complain]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
To prove these treaties are the "Law of the Land" here is what the HAMILTON v. EATON, 1 N.C. 641 (1796), HAMILTON v. EATON. 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.), had to say.
"Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an Act of Assembly of this State passed in 1787, to be law in this State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United States in 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the land. The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from each state, to whom were delegated by the articles of confederation, expressly, "the sole and exclusive right and power of entering into treaties and alliances"; and being ratified and made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and law of every state.
If, however, a subsequent sanction of this State was at all necessary to make the treaty law here, it has been had and repeated. By a statute passed in 1787, the treaty was declared to be law in this State, and the courts of law and equity were enjoined to govern their decisions accordingly. And in 1789 was adopted here the present Constitution of the United States, which declared that all treaties made, or which should be made under the authority of the United States, should be the supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every state should be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or laws of any state to the contrary not withstanding. Surely, then, the treaty is now law in this State, and the confiscation act, so far as the treaty interferes with it, is annulled."
Evidence what was stated by the same court; that those that join the State are "SUBJECTS" not sovereigns:
"By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April, 1777, it was, among other things, enacted, "That all persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State."
Well I told you that the masses just traded kings and are now "citizens" (slaves) of a State rather than the King of England. The Declaration took you out from under the King but left the people worse off, because they became the credit of the State to pay the King's money that the people were indebted to in the first place. This is an excerpt from my book The New History of America
Now that you know what the paramount reason for the US Constitution was, how can we say the government officials are shrugging their oath and not obeying it? They are very much in conformance to that oath that they defend the Crowns property and to make sure that treaties before 1787 and immediately after it, like they knew Jay's treaty of 1791 was to be consummated, were adhered to. You cannot say no to this. So lets go to the 14th Amendment and see if they are following their oaths to obey and defend the contract of the corporations (state and federal).
But before we do we must set the stage for the reason the judges are only following their oath to the contract, which is in no way directed to you as you are not a party to the contract and never were. I will get to the Bill of Rights later.
Bouviers Law Dictionary defines Insurgent as, "One who is concerned in an insurrection. He differs from a rebel in this, that rebel is always understood in a bad sense, or one who unjustly opposes the constituted authorities; insurgent may be one who justly opposes the tyranny of constituted authorities. The colonists who opposed the tyranny of the English government were insurgents, not rebels."
As a side note , the 1933 trading with the enemy Act did not, I repeat, DID NOT make you the enemy of the United States despite what anyone says or writes about it. What it did was make you the enemy of the banks and that's why the banks were closed for 6 days so the President could issue them licenses to deal with the enemy, A.K.A. the American people. Your ancestors were already the enemy starting 1863, therefore, you too are the enemy and there is nothing you can do about that unless you want to declare war against this government who is the conqueror. We are a people under conquest and if you have not read up on conquest I suggest you do so, soon. James Montgomery is the expert on this and has written extensively about it.
Now we go to Article 149 of the Lieber Code or General Order 100 of President Lincoln, who, prior to this, through 12 Stat 319, made you the enemy of the "State". That 1863 statute was never repealed and exists in Title 50 Sections 212, 213 and 215 as well as in Title 28 sections 2461 to 2465 seizure. If you do not believe me go and pull those Title 50 sections and go to the source law. Also note what Title 50 is named. So they still, unbeknownst to you, operate under this General Order 100. This is the part that they use against us today because remember, WE ARE STILL THE ENEMY INSURGENTS when attacking any laws of government. Read carefully.
The Lieber Code of 1863
CORRESPONDENCE, ORDERS, REPORTS, AND RETURNS OF THE
FROM JANUARY 1 TO DECEMBER 31, 1863.
--#7 O.R.--SERIES III--VOLUME III [S# 124]
GENERAL ORDERS No. 100.
WAR DEPT., ADJT. GENERAL'S OFFICE,
Washington, April 24, 1863.
The following "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., and revised by a board of officers, of which Maj. Gen. E. A. Hitchcock is president, having been approved by the President of the United States, he commands that they be published for the information of all concerned.
SECTION X.--Insurrection-- Civil war--Rebellion.
149. Insurrection is the rising of people in arms against their government,
or portion of it, or against one or more of its laws, or against an officer or officers
of the government. It may be confined to mere armed resistance, or it may have
greater ends in views.
Now, "when we go against one or more of its laws", and that is the income tax laws, the Registration laws, the Driver license laws or any one of the multitude of laws they make, we are in insurrection because we are, remember, the enemy. When we defy an officer collecting revenue by any means then we are going "against an officer or officers" and are therefore considered dangerous and an insurrectionist.
In comes the 14th amendment paragraph to which the judge took his oath to obey. It states- "No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disabilities.
Please note the passage "or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof". This is a key part because the judges are bound by oath to obey Article VI as to the debts to be paid and this paragraph three. You might see that paragraph four states that we cannot question the debt. We are a declared enemy under 12 Stat 319 and a declared enemy of the banks under section 5 b of the Trading with the Enemy Act that was not repealed with the rest of the act. Then if the judge, in ruling in the enemy's favor in any revenue laws, would be violating his oath of office. So you cannot complain that they are not following the oath of office. If ruling against the IRS they would then be violating their oath to protect the status quo of the corporation.
We now proceed to the oath as was stated above. No where did they state in the oath that they were to obey the Bill of Rights as that is a separate document only dealing with United States citizens. It carries its own Preamble. It does not deal with the people in the states. The ultimate case for this is the John Barron vs the Mayor and the City of Baltimore, which I have gone into detail on the atgpress.com site, so there is no need to go into and rehash it here. Too many people have understood this Bill of Rights to be the Constitution. Again, it is not and rather to go into it here; that too is on the atgpress.com site.
In conclusion the judges are really obeying the contract that they have with the states and the Crown and they have no contract with you, the private man. See 14 Ga 438, Padleford and Fay vs the Mayor and City of Savannah. But you, as the private man, are a man under conquest and you better understand that because that misunderstanding is your downfall and why you cry that the judges are not obeying the contract. You just have been lied to all your lives and believe all the myths from the inception of this government called the United States, that that contract was formed by people like you, for you. That is the biggest lie in history. In fact I wrote an article called The Big Lie and the Big Lie II. In order to understand conquest I suggest you read James Montgomery's articles on www.atgpress.com under Knowledge is Freedom.
The Informer 7-24-2002