The Republic of
G e o r g i a
Disclaimer: The purpose of this site is to examine past Georgia history and to promote a new constitution for the Republic of Georgia. It is not the purpose of this site nor the purpose of any Citizens of the Republic of Georgia to use the Republic of Georgia or anyone's status as a Citizen of the Republic of Georgia as a means to escape lawful forms of taxation. (One question is what are lawful forms of taxation? And who gets to decide?) The issue on this site is to study past Georgia history and help steer the political climate in Georgia towards a free and independent Christian Republic.
The unalienable Rights of the People of the Declaration of Independence and their Posterity existed prior to the establishment of the Constitution for the United States of America, and they still exist today.
Does the IRS and the United States or any other taxing 'authority' have the authority and the jurisdiction to forceably collect the tax to begin with?
For more research on this subject, one may wish to consider the information offered by Eric WhoRU, Robert Clarkson and others.
|
Georgia 'Independence' Day - October 19, 1781 - The Battle of Yorktown
If there ever was a day that Georgia became a Sovereign Independent Nation, it was October 19, 1781. But it wasn't to be, because even though it is claimed that we won The Battle of Yorktown, we lost the War for Independence. ALL CRIMES ARE STILL AGAINST THE STATE, not the individual who possesses God-given Rights pursuant to the Declaration of Independence. Here is what happened. The 1781 Yorktown Campaign, in Virginia, was the final major military episode of the American Revolution. Can you believe that Alexander Hamilton is credited with this? "In a furious onslaught against British defenders, patriot troops storm a redoubt (left and below) protecting the British garrison at Yorktown on October 14th, 1781. By bayonet alone, the Americans took the stronghold; their commander, the young Colonel Alexander Hamilton, had ordered his men to charge with their guns unloaded. With a simultaneous French attack, the assault weakened the British lines and hastened Yorktown's surrender five days later." http://www.dell.homestead.com/revwar/files/YORK.HTM What really went down? Did Hamilton foresee that even though our troops had ran out of bullets, that the French would play the deciding part in winning that battle? And so could it be for this reason that he decided to go ahead and send our troops in with their empty guns to strike with bayonets only in the face of incoming fire? Did he realize that what good would it be for the Anti-Federalists under his command to win the war if the leading Anti-Federalists (who could really change the world with new God-given Right Anti-Federalist constitutions) were all dead? Did he know that if it looked like we won the war that he would get credit no matter how many Anti-Federalist war dead there were? Did he know he could severely weaken our forces by sending them into the face of enemy fire without bullets? Did he know that it would look like a valiant super Herculean effort? Did he know that with the French in the battle and the battle won (but the war lost), that he wouldn't be risking a hair on his Federalist head? Did he know that even though with a win at the Battle of Yorktown, we would lose the War for Independence with so many Anti-Federalist dead who were willing to fight for their Anti-Federalist God-given Rights? Were leading Anti-Federalist Constitutionalist scholars among the group that Hamilton sent into battle without bullets? Does anyone really believe we won the war when we ran out of bullets? Cornwallis had his second in command, General Charles O'Hara surrender his nearly 8,000-man force to the 17,000-man Franco-American army on Oct. 19, 1781. (But did Cornwallis himself surrender? Did the crown surrender?) Once Cornwallis decided to have General Charles O'Hara "surrender" "he had no alternative" but to accept Washington's terms. (But wasn't Washington really on the side of the crown?) These terms were, far too generous. The British army was to surrender to the Americans; the navy to the French. Officers were to retain their side arms and private property (Why?); soldiers to be kept in Virginia, Maryland or Pennsylvania; Cornwallis and some other officers permitted to return home on parole. Why? Articles of Capitulation, Yorktown 1781 The ceremony itself was to take place on October 19th. As Cornwallis was not equal to making his surrender in person, his second in command, General Charles O'Hara, officiated; Washington's second in command, General Lincoln, received O'Hara's sword. (So did Cornwallis really surrender, or was it General Charles O'Hara who surrendered?) Georgia, as a Nation, was first established on Oct. 19, 1781, when it was officially declared that it won independence from Britain. But the truth was not yet known. And still is not yet known by the majority of people today. Could this be... The Illuminati Signal to American Masonic Lodge Members?Was this an Illuminati Message in code to Masonic Lodge members to get them to perform victory celebrations to fool the American people into thinking that the conflict for Independence from crown law was over so that they would quit fighting, to get them to let down their guard and to start the process of lulling them back to sleep? Are you a UNITED STATES citizen??? Or a Citizen of your individual Republic? (using http://www.prostar.com/web/amerika/ as a reference) (also http://www.prostar.com/web/amerika/citiztoc.htm, a treatise on Citizenship) BEFORE YOU ANSWER, PLEASE READ ON: When General Charles O'Hara ceremoniously surrendered on Oct 17, 1781, did he ceremoniously surrender to THE UNITED STATES? No, he surrendered 13 times, to the regiment leaders of each of the states. In 1783, Benjamin Franklin went to France. There, a treaty was signed by King George's representative, which came to be known as The Treaty of Paris. In it, King George relinquished his sovereignty and passed it to The 13 FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES, THE PEOPLE AND THEIR POSTERITY, FOREVER! Independent from England, and Independent from each other, they were then, and are now technically NATIONS. The Treaty of Paris is still on the United States Congress' web page of international treaties and is STILL recognized by International Law. The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 Article 1: His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.
However, as pointed out by James Montgomery there was some surreptitious underhanded dealings going on that effectively negated the simple wording of the above commonly understood clause of the Paris Peace Treaty. Let's start with some background: "YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the same, the yearly Rent of Twenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at the Feast of All Saints, yearly, forever, The First payment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which shall be in the year of Our Lord One thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of all Gold and Silver Ore which, with the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time, happen to be found." (The Feast of All Saints was celebrated on November 1 each year.) The Carolina Charter, 1663. "And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of them." Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution. I have been declaring this (says James Montgomery) in spite of being slammed by pro-Constitutionalist patriots, who refuse to accept the facts. The king is still head of America Inc., the author of its Charters, and the creator of his cestui que trust. The king continues to be the benefactor along with his heirs and successors of the largest corporation in the history of the world. The Pope as well is co-benefactor with the king, thanks to the king's concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope. Contract Between the King (of France) and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782:- ARTICLE 1 "It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit: 1. 28 February 1778 750,000 2. 19 May do 750,000 3. 3 August do 750,000 4. 1 November do 750,000 Total 3,000,000 5. 10 June 1779 250,000 6. 16 September do 250,000 7. 4 October do 250,000 8. 21 December do 250,000 Total 1,000,000 9. 29 February 1780 750,000 10. 23 May do 750,000 11. 21 June do 750,000 12. 5 October do 750,000 13. 27 November do 1,000,000 Total 4,000,000 14. 15 February 1781 750,000 15. 15 May do 750,000 16. 15 August do 750,000 17. 1 August do 1,000,000 18. 15 November do 750,000 Total 4,000,000 19. 10 April 1782 1,500,000 20. 1 July do 1,500,000 21. 5 of the same month 3,000,000 Total 6,000,000 Amounting in the whole to eighteen millions, viz 18,000,000. By which receipts the said Minister has promised, in the name of Congress and in behalf of the thirteen United States, to cause to be paid and reimbursed to the royal treasury of His Majesty, on the 1st of January, 1788, at the house of his Grand Banker at Paris, the said sum of eighteen millions, money of France, with interest at five per cent per annum." http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/france/fr-1782.htm Source: Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of America. Edited by Hunter Miller Volume 2 Documents 1-40 : 1776-1818 Washington: Government Printing Office, 1931. Notice also folks, this is just one year before the 1783 Treaty of Peace is signed, the king of France (Rothschilds) made sure his debt was protected before he signed on to the con of the millennium. The king of England's Charter on one side, the Rothschild's debt obligations on the other, both vying for a piece of America. The king of England for his trust, the Rothschilds for their corporate take-over and control of the king's trust, the Pope as the main benefactor of both sides. The Pope remains even further in the background than the Rothschilds, however he stands to gain no matter what happens. "The Rothschild's Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the English Parliament, which provided that no colony of England could issue its own money." "Thus, they had to use English money. The colonies were compelled to discard their money and mortgage themselves to the Rothchild's Bank of England to get money." "Then, for the first time in the history of the United States, money began to be based on debt. Benjamin Franklin stated that in one year from that date the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed." "Franklin later claimed that this was the real cause of the War of Independence. He said: "The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England and the Rothschild's Bank took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment, dissatisfaction and debt." William Manley German, in a speech to the House of Commons December 1913, Brigham Young University, web site Http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/uk.html.
http://www.cyberclass.net/sullivan.htm "Why should everything done by the banks be covered with secrecy?" William Manley German, House of Commons, December 1913, (Hansard.) My great grandfather, William Manley German and his fellow parliamentarian, The Honourable H. R. Emmerson was among the few courageous opponents to the changes to our banking system. Emmerson said in the House, regarding banking and the powers granted to great corporations: "I start out with this proposition: That the Bank Act, as it has been on the statute book for the past decade, has resulted in the creation of the most powerful monopoly that exists in Canada today. Not only is it powerful, but there is no greater or more tyrannical combine. Tyranny is breathed in every paragraph of the bank bill under consideration (renewal of charters). The Canadian Bankers' Association is not as most other associations. They have powers that no other body in this country has in matters of bank trade within their jurisdiction. They have powers which are autocratic in themselves and in their exercise." Scarcity is alien to the creation and it is ungodly. God's providence is such that the creation is fruitful beyond any human calculation. Yet, now, scarcity reigns throughout the world. Canada and the United States were once unencumbered and bountiful to the point of massive savings and surpluses, but, now, the pricing systems have us as 'dummied down' as the rest of the world. These pricing systems result from central or cartel banking systems. The actions of The Bank of Canada, and The Federal Reserve Board have, as we shall see, proven to be the first cause in the death of our economies. The rest of the cause is the cartelization of the remainder of the bank and credit system. The stop-and-go monetary policy created by these institutions makes business conditions unpredictable and thus inhibits investment and productivity. They have also been proven susceptible to political pressure for cheaper credit. When governments control a money supply, even indirectly, they have always throughout history abused that power. Inflationary creation of base money serves to enlarge the governments' command over real resources in a way hidden from the people. The redistribution of wealth using the power of monetary injections make its' use suitable as a vote-buying tool. It should be obvious that existing monetary authorities can only cause the monetary disorders of nations, especially in the absence of any real competition. Competition is the only force keeping commercial action honest. The assumption that government has an inherent role in money and banking is as preposterous as believing they have a place in any private business. In history, when banking was most stable, it was closest to a pure laissez-faire operation. Whenever a nation is growing well, is creative, inventive, and productive you will find a banking system very close to free-enterprise competitive banking. Having politicians and bureaucrats in charge of' the money, supply is like having Dracula in charge of a blood bank. The banking systems in the West are the complete and only cause of recessions, inflation, and I 'stagflation.' depression, panics and runs. The current monetary system is radically defective, even absurd. It places the dangerous power to create monetary imbalance in the hands of political authorities or unidentified nominees. The essential reform lies in the direction of laissez-faire. Barriers against competitive payments systems should be dismantled immediately. Only free enterprise banking offers the escape from this eternal trap. During Scotland's free banking era they experienced remarkable economic growth with no instability and the banking system experienced no panics, no inflation, no runs, no depressions, no recession's etc. In reference to Canada's bank acts, Mr. White, in the House Of Commons, December 17, 1912, states, " I believe the plan outlined follows the English system, a system applied to the great banks of England. This is in response to a question from The Honourable William Manley German. (He meant they were creating an 'English system' which is to say a Rothschild style cartel.) The following statements by Benjamin Franklin in reference to the cause of the American Revolution are illuminating. Around 1763, Benjamin Franklin made a visit to England. While there he was asked to explain the prosperity of the colonies while simultaneously England was suffering a bust, he replied: "That is simple. It is only because in the colonies we issue our own money. It is called 'Colonial Scrip' and it is issued in the proper proportions to the demands of trade and industry. Senator Robert L. Owen states: "It was not very long until this information was brought to the Rothschild's Bank, and they saw that here was a nation ready to be exploited. Here was a nation setting up an example that they could issue their own money instead of the money coming through the banks." The Rothschild's Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the English Parliament, which provided that no colony of England could issue its own money. Senator Owen continues, "Thus, they had to use English money. The colonies were compelled to discard their money and mortgage themselves to the Rothschild's Bank of England to get money." "Then, for the first time in the history of The United States, money began to be based on debt." Benjamin Franklin stated that in one year from that date the streets of the colonies were filled with the unemployed. Franklin later claimed that this was the real cause of The War of Independence. He said, "The colonies would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it not been that England and the Rothschild's Bank took away from the colonies their money which created unemployment, dissatisfaction and debt." Throughout history, these systems have been so convoluted that even Saint John The Divine could only refer to them as 'a whore who sits upon the many waters.' The ownership of the largest blocks of bank stocks is in nominee accounts, numbered accounts or trust accounts. No names are divulged, so you are in the dark. What is being hidden? Why is it being hidden? Most Canadian are too uninformed to know that upon the Rothschild's purchase of the exploitation rights to 50,000 square miles of Canada, Joseph Smallwood, Premier of Newfoundland called the purchase "the biggest real estate deal on this continent in this century." Winston Churchill, appreciative of the 'scale' of the deal, termed it "a grand imperial concept." This boast is in the Rothchild's biography, written by their friend and confidante Frederic Morton. This is just one tiny example of what the interest enforcers do with our purchasing power. They buy back our assets and equity. As it continues they own more and more and our children less and less. Lord Philip Jevson, told me as much some years ago. Paul Angus Sullivan Also Read: How America created its own money in 1750 by clicking here. 'History of Colonial Money' by clicking here. 'Secrets of the Bank of Rome' by clicking here. 'An Abbreviated Monetary History of the USA' by clicking here. 'The Assembly and Paper Money, 1723-1756' by clicking here.
Before I (James Montgomery) go any further lets look at the facts that prove the king never lost his Corporations created by his Charters, or lands held by his Corporations, by and through the supposed loss of the Revolutionary War, or the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Peace, or the 1794 Jay Treaty. "The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the sixth article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783, in the same manner as those of natural persons; and their title, thus protected, it confirmed by the ninth article of the Treaty of 1794, so that is could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding for the defect of alienage." The Society for Propagating the Gospel, &c v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. (Footnote-annotated, Definitive Treaty of Peace). The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 Article 6: That there shall be no future confiscations made nor any prosecutions commenced against any person or persons for, or by reason of, the part which he or they may have taken in the present war, and that no person shall on that account suffer any future loss or damage, either in his person, liberty, or property; and that those who may be in confinement on such charges at the time of the ratification of the treaty in America shall be immediately set at liberty, and the prosecutions so commenced be discontinued. "The capacity of private individuals (British subjects), or of corporations, created by the crown, in this country, or in Great Britain, to hold lands or other property in this country, WAS NOT affected by the revolution. The proper courts in this country will interfere to prevent an abuse of the trusts confided to British corporations holding lands here to charitable uses, and will aid in enforcing the due execution of the trusts; but neither those courts, nor the local legislature where the lands lie, can adjudge a forfeiture of the franchises of the foreign corporation, or of its property. The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the 6th article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783 in the same manner as those of natural persona; and their title, thus protected, is confirmed by the 9th article of the Treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding, for the defect of alienage. The termination of a treaty, by war, DOES NOT divest rights of property already vested under it. Nor do treaties, in general, become extinguished, ipso facto, by war between the two governments. Those stipulating for a permanent arrangement of territorial, and other national rights, are, at most, suspended during the war, and revive at the peace, unless they are waived by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made." The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. Do the king and the Pope have proper claims to their land holdings? No. The king's claim would not exist except for his barristers (lawyers), his backers, the bankers, the Pope, via his churches' land holdings and financial backing of the early banking families. The reason I also say no, is fraud and deception are involved. How did the king come by his claim? By the Conquest of Britain by William the Conqueror in 1066, and thanks to the Pope's partnership with England, as trustee for Rome, working inside of Britain with her Jesuit priests. Conquest does not change land held in trust. So the lands held by the Brits and trusts (wills of testament), and traditions of the father's land going to the sons, could not be overturned by the Conquest of William the Conqueror. But even further than that, God Almighty granted to Adam and his descendants the entire earth, it was given away to Satan, but later reclaimed by Jesus Christ as the second Adam. It's a big con. Only God Almighty owns the land, by grant and charter, also trust, the land is reserved for us and our use. How can you take that which does not belong to you? It is a shame we could not have learned from the American Indian, that no man owns the land. Just as the king held on to his possessions after the Revolutionary War for his heirs and successors, and just as conquest does not change ownership of lands and possessions held in trust. The fraud is, the king is taxing us for a trust he created, based on an earlier conquest. "....His lordship observes that that was a case in which the old government existed under the King's charter, and a revolution took place, though the new government was acknowledged by this country. Yet it was held, that the property, which belonged to a corporation existing under the King's charter, was not transferred to a body which did not exist under his authority, and, therefore, the fund in this country was considered to be bona vacantia belonging to the crown...." The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. "....The treaty of 1783 forbids all forfeitures on either side. That of 1794 provides that the citizens and subjects of both nations, holding lands (thereby strongly implying that there were no forfeitures by the revolution), shall continue to hold, according to the tenure of their estates; that they may sell and devise them; and shall not, so far as respects these lands and the legal remedies to obtain them, be considered as aliens. In the case Kelly v. Harrison, 2 Johns. cas 29., Mr. Chief Justice Kent says:" I admit the doctrine to be sound (Calvin's case, 7 Co. 27 b.; Kirby's Rep. 413), that the division of an empire works no forfeiture of a right previously acquired. The revolution left the demandant where she was before...." The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. The Treaty of Paris Exposed
John Mitchell's Map The Treaty of Paris, 1782-83 The Articles of Confederation had been written and approved in June of 1776, One month before Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence. It starts out like this: THE UNANIMOUS DECLARATION of the thirteen united STATES OF AMERICA We were FREE AND INDEPENDENT States, ONLY LOOSELY united. "The capital and leading object of the Constitution was to leave with the States all authorities which respected their citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States, to make us several as to ourselves, but one as to all others" Thomas Jefferson (The Greatest Federalist Propagandist that ever lived.) Letter to Judge William Johnson June 12, 1823 The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783 permitted the crown to maintain its holdings on American soil. After the supposed but sadly mistaken American victory in the War for Independence, with enough agents, land holdings and riches and Masonic Lodges of the crown in place on American soil, with enough of the American Revolutionaries dead after the battle of Yorktown, and enough of the remaining American populace lulled back to sleep with the Masonic and other agents of the crown's control of the printing presses, their next object was to attack the Articles of Confederation in a Constitutional Convention that met behind closed doors in violation of the Articles of Confederation themselves. The nature of the government was such that ALL CRIME IS AGAINST THE STATE, the very definition of crown law, with the U.S. CONstitution purporting to be the Supreme Law of the Land taking supremacy and Sovereignty over the State governments and the very people themselves, purportedly to prevent 'anarchy' but in reality to destroy self-government, keep the people in perpetual debt, destroy the FREE MARKET and regulate commerce by granting Congress among other things the following powers: U.S. CONstitution, Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/article01/37.html FISCAL AND MONETARY POWERS OF CONGRESS Coinage, Weights, and Measures The power ''to coin money'' and ''regulate the value thereof'' has been broadly construed to authorize regulation of every phase of the subject of currency. Congress may charter banks and endow them with the right to issue circulating notes, 1281 and it may restrain the circulation of notes not issued under its own authority. 1282 To this end it may impose a prohibitive tax upon the circulation of the notes of state banks 1283 or of municipal corporations. 1284 It may require the surrender of gold coin and of gold certificates in exchange for other currency not redeemable in gold. A plaintiff who sought payment for the gold coin and certificates thus surrendered in an amount measured by the higher market value of gold was denied recovery on the ground that he had not proved that he would suffer any actual loss by being compelled to accept an equivalent amount of other currency. 1285 Inasmuch as ''every contract for the payment of money, simply, is necessarily subject to the constitutional power of the government over the currency, whatever that power may be, and the obligation of the parties is, therefore, assumed with reference to that power,'' 1286 the Supreme Court sustained the power of Congress to make Treasury notes legal tender in satisfaction of antecedent debts, 1287 and, many years later, to abrogate the clauses in private contracts calling for payment in gold coin, even though such contracts were executed before the legislation was passed. 1288 The power to coin money also imports authority to maintain such coinage as a medium of exchange at home, and to forbid its diversion to other uses by defacement, melting or exportation. 1289 U.S. CONstitution, Article 1, Section. 10: Clause 1: 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. Clause 2: No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress. Clause 3: No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay. So, if you've read the link above on, 'How America created its own money in 1750', you've read that Franklin told his acquaintenances in London who asked Franklin how the American Colonies managed to overcome the plague of unemployment and pauperism. Franklin said that America was prospering thanks to debt-free money issued by the colonial governments: "In the Colonies, we issue our own paper money. It's called 'Colonial Scrip.' We issue it to pay the government's approved expenses and charities. We make sure it's issued in proper proportion to make the goods pass easily from the producers to the consumers. In other words, we make sure there is always adequate money in circulation for the needs of the economy. In this manner, by creating ourselves our own paper money, we control its purchasing power, and we have no interest to pay, to anyone. You see, a legitimate government can both spend and lend money into circulation, while banks can only lend significant amounts of their promissory bank notes, for they can neither give away nor spend but a tiny fraction of the money the people need. Thus, when your bankers here in England place money in circulation, there is always a debt principal to be returned and usury to be paid. The result is that you have always too little credit in circulation to give the workers full employment. You do not have too many workers, you have too little money in circulation, and that which circulates, all bears the endless burden of unpayable debt and usury." So if Franklin knew this, why was he a hypocrit by taking part in the drafting of a Constitution that took away the powers of the states coin Money or emit Bills of Credit? If the states aren't permitted to coin Money, doesn't that make them powerless to 'make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts'? Who is fooling who here? Agents of the crown of England are fooling the believers in the U.S. CONstitution. It is very evident that the U.S. CONstitution destroyed the FREE and Independent States clause of the Declaration of Independence and puts them at the mercy of the International Banking Establishment. Also, there was another power granted to the congress, having to do with the seat of government. So it was written, that a ten mile square area of land be the seat of government, which is what we call today, the District of Columbia. Congress was granted EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY over this area. This meant that, for the District of Columbia, congress was kind of like a city government. It could pass laws, speed limits or what have you, but these laws were not binding on ordinary Americans outside the District. And then once again something SINISTER happened.. In 1884 there had been a case dealing with citizenship. The Fourteenth amendment had been ratified, and said, in part: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. The case was called ELK v WILKINS 112 US 94. The court said: "The persons declared to be citizens are ALL PERSONS BORN OR NATURALIZED IN THE UNITED STATES AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF. The evident meaning of these last words is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but COMPLETELY SUBJECT.." Got that? COMPLETELY SUBJECT! The nail in the coffin... In 1901 there was a case that came up in front of the Supreme Court. It is called DOWNES v BIDWELL 182 US 244. It was a case about exports from Puerto Rico, which was a territory, and part of the area congress had exclusive legislative authority over. The Court said: "CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS [Bill of Rights] WERE NOT APPLICABLE to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories, and possessions over which Congress had EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION". This was confirmed by another case called HOOVEN v EVATT, 324 US 674. SO, IF YOU LIVE IN THE "UNITED STATES", OR ARE A "citizen" OF THE "UNITED STATES", THE BILL OF RIGHTS DO NOT APPLY TO YOU! You don't believe it? Then how did Congress and the Senate get by with passing the so-called 'Patriot Act' which violates every important clause of the so-called 'Bill of rights'? Combine all this with the 'Patriot Act' and you have: Once again, pure unlawful Tyrannical occupation by a foreign government. Stabbed in the back by the likes of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and other Federalists, The United States has unlawfully occupied Georgia since January 2, 1788 with the so-called ratification of the U.S. CONstitution, by Freemasons and lawyers (agents of the crown of England) calling themselves 'the Delegates of the People of the State of Georgia'. The U.S. CONstitution was not ratified by the people of Georgia themselves. The U.S. CONstitution was a new and foreign constitution drafted up and written in secret, behind closed doors by Freemasons and lawyers, such as Alexander Hamilton, (agents of the crown of England), in violation of the Articles of Confederation. "Nearly 80 per cent of the white population lived in parishes and counties which sent Antifederal delegates. Burke's statement that four-fifths of the people detested the Constitution appears to have been accurate." The Anti-Federalists, by Jackson Turner Main, page 219. "..taking into consideration all of these facts, and estimating the number of eligible voters from a study of the tax records for the various counties, the guess may be hazarded that the Antifederalists included at least 60 percent and possibly more of the eligible voters." The Anti-Federalists, by Jackson Turner Main, page 286. "What kind of government have you given us Dear Benjamin?" "Why a 'republic', if you can keep her!" said Franklin. [Anti-Federalist interpretation: "If you can keep her! If you can keep her you foolish Citizen! Subject! Slave! Knave! Resident! Subjugated downtrodden fool! I've made a mockery of your rights, the New World Order is here! If you don't believe me, check out my flashy Masonic Membership Card!"] "In this world," he wrote a friend in 1789, "nothing can be said to be more certain, except death and taxes." Want more proof that this man was sinister? How about this famous Ben Franklin quote, "No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session." With friends like Franklin, who needs enemies? Why do so many 'patriots' today look up to this man? Pure brainwashing.
"As the company passed through other towns en route to Texas other recruits were
added. At Knoxville, in Crawford County, Miss Joanna E. Troutman, afterwards Mrs.
Vinson, a daughter of Hiram B. Troutman, made and sent a beautiful banner of white
silk, with a blue lone star upon it, to Lieutenant McLeod to present it to the
Company at Columbus."
...
A Georgia Girl Made the Texas Flag - A beautiful incident of that war for the
freedom of Texas was the presentation of a Lone Star silk flag to the State of Texas
through Colonel William Ward by Miss Joanna E. Troutman, of Crawford County,
Georgia, as the five companies of Georgians recruited at Macon and Columbus started
for Texas under the leadership of Colonel Ward.
A telegram from Dallas, Texas, to the Atlanta Constitution, March 7, 1936, said:
"Due homage is to be paid at the Texas Centennial to be held here this year to a
Georgia girl Miss Joanna E. Troutman, who made a lone star flag in 1835, which
emblem was afterward adopted as the official flag of the state of Texas.
"The State of Georgia was one of the first to respond when Stephen F. Austin,
commander-in-chief of the armies of Texas, went in 1835 as envoy to the United
States to appeal for aid in the approaching break with Mexico. Under Colonel
William Ward, five companies made up a band of Georgia volunteers recruited at
Macon and Columbus. An inspired young speaker was Lieutenant McLeod, just home
from West Point.
"It was to the young lieutenant that Joanna E. Troutman sent the flag, the lone blue
star on one face of the white field underscored with the three words, "Liberty or
Death," on the reverse side the Latin motto, "Ubi Libertas Habitat, ibi nostra
patria est" (Where liberty dwells, there is our country).
Liberty dwells in the Republic of Georgia. In that same spirit that touched off
Texas Independence, Georgia hereby reclaims her flag and reclaims her spirit.
Republic of Georgia flags are now available in
The Republic of Georgia Embassy Supply Store.
|
|
Republic of Georgia Defense Forces
|
Is Georgia On Your Mind?
Join the Republic of Georgia!
Simply Subscribe to the Georgia Republic Libertarians egroup and you are a Citizen!
You can still retain your citizenship in another country.
Optional: Submit a completed Republic of Georgia Citizenship Application
to obtain your Passport!
Optional Step 1. Sign the Petition and Declaration of Dependence on God
Optional Step 3. Promote the Plans and Powers of the Provisional Government of the
Republic of Georgia, an essential step towards a fully operational de jure Republic
Optional Step 4. If you agree, Sign Your Copy of Georgia Constitution 2000 !
Optional Step 5. Promote Georgia Constitution 2000 !
Georgia History Timeline
identity, and U.S. citizenship or proof that they are lawfully residing in the U.S.
Many Thanks Goes Out for Guidance From:
WHERE TO?
