Common Law Versus Conquest

August 9, 1998

Lysander Spooner, in his paper on "The Constitution of No Authority" shows that the forefathers represented the best interests of the states, formally those colonies, which were created by the king of England, by his Charters and his established Cestui Que Trust. The 1783 Treaty of Peace ceded the land above ground to the states, while reserving through Article 6 of the 1783 Treaty his corporation, and the corporations of his British subjects. As I have said before, if you will look at other charters you will see the king is very specific when he gives land by grant, or charter to his subjects. If the king had meant to give the minerals to the states he would have said so very clearly in the 1783 Treaty of Peace. The 1783 Treaty of Peace is void of any such grant. The king did not relinquish his claim for his heirs and successors, nor could he; his tax was to continue forever, for his expenditure in starting America Inc.. This condition does tie together with what happened post Civil War, the king's interest, continued to be observed and a tax collected.

In a few of the quotes below you will see Lysander Spooner presents a synopsis on how the common law is supposed to work, but his arguments are flawed as he fails to take into account, Charters, Treaties and Conquest. To demonstrate Lysander Spooner's view on how the law is supposed to work, I have compared them with a definitive reading of the Reconstruction Acts by the Attorney General serving at the time they were enacted. You will be astounded at his candor and blatant disregard for the 1787 Constitution and Anglo Saxon common law, so ably expounded upon by the quotes of Lysander Spooner.

"The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. AND THE CONSTITUTION, SO FAR AS IT WAS THEIR CONTRACT, DIED WITH THEM. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they COULD bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but "the people" THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or implied, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is: No Treason:" (The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner).

"THE CONSTITUTION NOT ONLY BINDS NOBODY NOW, BUT IT NEVER DID BIND ANYBODY. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him. It is a general principle of law and reason, that a WRITTEN instrument binds no one until he has SIGNED it. (The Informer asked me to inject here: that in Title 12 it is your signature that binds you to the debt, and or the lack of a signature that makes you an involuntary contributor.) This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still "make his mark," before he is bound by a written contract. This custom was established ages ago, when few men could write their names; when a clerk -- that is, a man who could write -- was so rare and valuable a person, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to pardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his services. Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men who could not write, either "made their mark," or signed their contracts by stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their contracts were written. Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has continued to this time." (The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner).

"The very men who drafted it, never signed it in any way to bind themselves by it, AS A CONTRACT. And not one of them probably ever would have signed it in any way to bind himself by it, AS A CONTRACT." (The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner).

"....And yet we have what purports, or professes, or is claimed, to be a contract -- the Constitution -- made eighty years ago, by men who are now all dead, and who never had any power to bind US, but which (it is claimed) has nevertheless bound three generations of men, consisting of many millions, and which (it is claimed) will be binding upon all the millions that are to come; but which nobody ever signed, sealed, delivered, witnessed, or acknowledged; and which few persons, compared with the whole number that are claimed to be bound by it, have ever read, or even seen, or ever will read, or see. And of those who ever have read it, or ever will read it, scarcely any two, perhaps no two, have ever agreed, or ever will agree, as to what it means." (The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

"If, then, those who established the Constitution, had no power to bind, and did not attempt to bind, their posterity, the question arises, whether their posterity have bound themselves. If they have done so, they can have done so in only one or both of these two ways, viz., by voting, and paying taxes." (The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

"3. It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice. On this point I repeat what was said in a former number, viz.: "In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, EVEN FOR THE TIME BEING. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot -- which is a mere substitute for a bullet -- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him." (The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

Again, in the perfect world, not ruled or controlled by Conquest, Military necessity or public policy, and assuming you had honorable judges and informed juries; you may be relieved of liability for voting. However, since the end of the Civil War, the Conqueror has used voting or your mere presence in the state for proof of residence, as your tacit admission and agreement for whatever action Congress takes, whereby they levy a tax. The following quote is very true. I have been warning this is the condition of our country, and that the government controls this country contrary to the 1787 U.S. Constitution, at least since March 4, 1791, and for sure since March 2, 1867, when an Act of Congress destroyed they 1787 Constitution.

"Go to A_____ B_____, and say to him that "the government" has need of money to meet the expenses of protecting him and his property. If he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him, and that he wants none of our protection, say to him that that is our business, and not his; that we CHOOSE to protect him, whether he desires us to do so or not; and that we demand pay, too, for protecting him. If he dares to inquire who the individuals are, who have thus taken upon themselves the title of "the government," and who assume to protect him, and demand payment of him, without his having ever made any contract with them, say to him that that, too, is our business, and not his; that we do not CHOOSE to make ourselves INDIVIDUALLY known to him; that we have secretly (by secret ballot) appointed you our agent to give him notice of our demands, and, if he complies with them, to give him, in our name, a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand for the present year. If he refuses to comply, seize and sell enough of his property to pay not only our demands, but all your own expenses and trouble beside. If he resists the seizure of his property, call upon the bystanders to help you (doubtless some of them will prove to be members of our band.) If, in defending his property, he should kill any of our band who are assisting you, capture him at all hazards; charge him (in one of our courts) with murder; convict him, and hang him. If he should call upon his neighbors, or any others who, like him, may be disposed to resist our demands, and they should come in large numbers to his assistance, cry out that they are all rebels and traitors; that "our country" is in danger; call upon the commander of our hired murderers; tell him to quell the rebellion and "save the country," cost what it may. Tell him to kill all who resist, though they should be hundreds of thousands; and thus strike terror into all others similarly disposed. See that the work of murder is thoroughly done; that we may have no further trouble of this kind hereafter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination, they will be good loyal citizens for many years, and pay their taxes without a why or a wherefore." (The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)


Spooner's below statement is true except for the reality of Conquest.

"These facts are all so vital and so self-evident, that it cannot reasonably be supposed that any one will voluntarily pay money to a "government," for the purpose of securing its protection, unless he first make an explicit and purely voluntary contract with it for that purpose. It is perfectly evident, therefore, that neither such voting, nor such payment of taxes, as actually takes place, proves anybody's consent, or obligation, to support the Constitution. Consequently we have no evidence at all that the Constitution is binding upon anybody, or that anybody is under any contract or obligation whatever to support it. And nobody is under any obligation to support it." (The Constitution of No Authority", which was written in 1869, Lysander Spooner)

Remember in a previous post where you were shown the Judge Advocate General's authority over the districts was given to the Attorney General, now you know why certain things have taken place in our government. I include it here for you.

"If a question of martial law is to be determined by the law officers of government, it will now belong to the Attorney General, or to this Department of Justice. It will not belong to the Judge Advocate General of the Army. He will not be called upon for any opinion relating to martial law or military law except as to that portion of the administration of military law which relates to military justice." Congressman Lawrence

The quotes below are from Attorney General Henry Stanbery, June 12, 1867. He defines the Reconstruction Acts, as the head law enforcement officer of the United States government.

"The 3d section declares, "that it shall be the duty of each officer, assigned as aforesaid, to protect all persons in their rights of person and property, to suppress insurrection, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punished, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals, and to this end he may allow local civil tribunals to take jurisdiction of and try offenders, or, when in his judgment it may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have power to organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose; and all interference, under color of State authority; with the exercise of military authority under this act, shall be null and void." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"The 5th section declares the qualification of voters in all elections, as well to frame the new constitution for each State, as in the elections to be held under the provisional government, until the new State constitution is ratified by Congress, and also fixes the qualifications of the delegates to frame the new constitution." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

Are you listening America, a new Constitution, meaning the old one was done away with, I have said this many many times. Was I right about the state governments being done away with, and provisional governments put in their place? Yes. I have said this affected all states, the government says this condition of Conquest was for a short time and did not affect all of the states. Wrong. Why was the emergency declared? Because the southern states refused to ratify the 14th Amendment. Let me ask you this, is the 14th Amendment regional or national? Does it not affect the whole country? Is it not still in force? Ask yourself, what would happen if the states removed the 14th Amendment? The Military would again take to the streets, the state governments would again become provisional, until the necessary changes were made to appease the Conquering government.

Read on.

"The 6th section provides, "That until the people of said rebel States shall be by law admitted to representation in the Congress of the United States, any civil governments which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same; and in all elections to any office under such provisional governments all persons shall be entitled to vote, and none others, who are entitled to vote under the provisions of the 5th section of this act; and no person shall be eligible to any office under any such provisional governments who would not be disqualified from holding office under the provisions of the third article of said constitutional amendment." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"We see clearly enough that this act contemplates two distinct governments in each of these ten States: the one military, the other civil. The civil government is recognized as existing at the date of the act. The military government is created by the act." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"Both are provisional, and both are to continue until the new State constitution is framed and the State is admitted to representation in Congress. When that event takes place, both these provisional governments are to cease. In contemplation of this act, this military authority and this civil authority are to be carried on together. The people in these States are made subject to both, and must obey both, in their respective jurisdictions." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867.

"It had all the characteristics and powers of a State government -- legislative, judicial, and executive -- and was in the full and lawful exercise of all these powers, except only that it was not entitled to representation as a State of the Union." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

Excuse me Roger Rabbit, where in the 1787 Constitution was Congress given the authority to deny any state government representation in Congress? Add to this the southern states were admitted Republican forms of government, not to mention this Military occupation and Conquest that took place during a time of admitted peace? Come on America, WAKE UP, cut your television's off, it is late in the day, start studying, time is short.

"Congress was not satisfied with the organic law or constitution under which this civil government was established. That constitution was to be changed in only one particular to make it acceptable to Congress, and that was in the matter of the elective franchise. The purpose, the sole object of this act, is to effect that change, and to effect it by the agency of the people of the State, or such of them as are made voters by means of elections provided for in the act, and in the meantime to preserve order and to punish offenders, if found necessary, by military commissions." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"Whatever power is not given to the military remains with the civil government." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

Wow, did you hear that America? What did they do? Now instead of our co-equal reservation of rights under the 10th Amendment we have only what the Conquering government allows us to have, in case you have forgotten what the 10th Amendment is, I'll use a quote from Jefferson here, and I quote:

"I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." "To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition." February 15, 1791 Thomas Jefferson

"We see, first of all, that each of these States is "made subject to the military authority of the United States" -- not to the military authority altogether, but with this express limitation -- "as hereinafter prescribed." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"It appears that some of the military commanders have understood this grant of power as all comprehensive, conferring on them the power to remove the executive and judicial officers of the State, and to appoint other officers in their places; to suspend the legislative power of the State; to take under their control, by officers appointed by themselves, the collection and disbursement of the revenues of the State; to prohibit the execution of the laws in matters affecting purely civil and private rights; to suspend or enjoin the execution of the judgments and decrees of the established State courts; to interfere in the ordinary administration of justice in the State courts, by prescribing new qualifications for jurors, and to change, upon the ground of expedience, the existing relations of the parties to contracts, giving protection to one party by violating the rights of the other party." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"There can be no doubt as to the rule of construction according to which we must interpret this grant of power. It is a grant of power to military authority, over civil rights and citizens, in time of peace. It is a new jurisdiction, never granted before, by which, in certain particulars and for certain purposes, the established principle that the military shall be subordinate to the civil authority is reversed." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"The concluding paragraph of this order, No. 10, is in these words, "Any law or ordinance heretofore in force in North Carolina or South Carolina, inconsistent with the provisions of this general order, are hereby suspended and declared inoperative." Thus announcing, not only a power to suspend the laws, but to declare them generally inoperative, and assuming full powers of legislative by the military authority." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"The ground upon which these extraordinary powers are based is thus set forth in military order, No. 1, issued in this district: "The civil government now existing in North Carolina and South Carolina is provisional only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United [*196] States, at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the same." Thus far the provisions of the act of Congress are well recited. What follows is in these words: "Local laws and municipal regulations, not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or the proclamations of the President, or with such regulations as are or may be prescribed in the orders of the commanding general, are hereby declared to be in force; and, in conformity therewith, civil officers are hereby authorized to continue the exercise of their proper functions, and will be respected and obeyed by the inhabitants." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"This construction of his powers, under the act of Congress, places the military commander on the same footing as the Congress of the United States. It assumes that "the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede," is vested in him as fully as it is reserved to Congress. He deems himself a representative of that paramount authority. He puts himself upon an equality with the law-making power of the Union; the only paramount authority in our government, so far, at least, as the enactment of laws is concerned." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

"He places himself on higher ground than the President, who is simply an executive officers. He assumes, directly or indirectly, all authority of the State, legislative, executive, and judicial, and in effect declares, "I am the State." Attorney General's Office, June 12, 1867

The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination Of The National Emergency United States Senate. They were going to terminate all emergency powers, but they found out they did not have the power to do this so guess which one stayed in, the Emergency Act of 1933, the Trading with the Enemy Act October 6, 1917 as amended in March 9, 1933.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency . . . Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens." "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency . . . from, at least, the CIVIL WAR in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

I'll let this soak in. king37.htm

James Montgomery

Associated Files: The Law of Office Found     A King's Charter that Refuses to Die
History of Lawful Gold and Silver Legal Tender and the Debt Brought on by unlawful Fiat Paper MoneyUnites States of Friends, Enemies and the die-hard Doubters    How Long can a Corporation Live?
The United States is Still a British Colony     A Country Defeated in Victory - Part I     Part II    Part III