Usually weekly I receive e-mails from a friend, which are forwarded to me from a man by the name of Michael Gaddy. I have been receiving these messages for several years. I am very impressed with this man's knowledge of American History. He has apparently spent many hours of research. He calls his work the "Rebel Rant". This one is the first of a series that he will be sending. I believe all who have an interest in the "true" history of America will enjoy this. Everyone please feel free to add your own knowledge and research as this unfolds.
LESSONS FROM THE BEGINNING
Authors note: This will be a multi-part presentation in response to several requests for more information on the founding era of our country, which in many cases is contrary to what we were all taught in history and government/civics classes. It is also beneficial to understand the motives of many at the very beginning of our country. Such motives will provide insight into what our government has morphed into during its existence.
Among us in our country today are those who are strong advocates of an omnipotent, centralized government whose every law must be obeyed and every wish granted without question or discussion, much less dissent. What are the origins of those beliefs? Could it be a desire for a king as one sees in the Scriptures (I Samuel Chapter 8) when the Israelites asked Samuel to “make us a king to judge us like all the nations?” (v 5 SKJV) Was this the first recorded act of people rejecting Natural Law in favor of the laws of man (a king)?
Of particular interest is the use of the word “nations” in the above passage. The definition of a nation is an “aggregate” of people united in one form or another. Today, this is most often interpreted as an aggregate of people united under one leader or form of government that cannot be divided. “I pledge allegiance to the flag…one nation…indivisible.” Was a nation the end results of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 or did the majority of our founders choose to implement a different form of government? To best understand this, one must comprehend what brought those delegates to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787.
To better grasp the events of the convention of 1787 we must be aware of the motives of those who pushed politically for that convention and the type of government they would present to the other delegates. A great place for examining these motives can be found in what was called the “Proceedings of Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government” held on the 11thof September in 1786 in Annapolis, Maryland.
Several among those known as our “founders” were troubled early on about the limitations that had been placed on the powers of government by the Articles of Confederation which had been ratified in 1781. Troubling to anyone whose goal was a nationalist form of government as opposed to a federal one was Article 2.
“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” (Emphasis added. This is a critical phrase of understanding concerning a truly Republican form of government)
Even more troubling to those desiring a more centralized, powerful government was the following phrase of Article XIII.
“…nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.” (This is exactly what the proponents of a national form of government sought to avoid.)
Those who sought to use the government to exercise power and dominion over the people realized that the citizens of the 13 colonies held wide and varying beliefs on the role of government in their lives and obtaining the affirmation of all 13 in the pursuit of national government would be impossible. The first to strike upon a scheme for alteration of the Articles and the very limited government they formed was Alexander Hamilton. In 1782, the New York Assembly, at the urging of Hamilton, asked the Congress to call for a convention of the states to revise the Articles. In 1785 the Massachusetts Legislature seconded the request to Congress. Congress considered the request but could not find a consensus for such an assembly in the other states.
James Madison then moved through the Virginia Assembly in January of 1786 for a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland in September to discuss “commercial problems” alleged to be in the Articles.
Only 12 delegates from 5 states met in Annapolis to discuss these commercial issues. Obviously the assemblies of the other 8 states saw no compelling reason to attend this convention nor were they overly concerned about “defects of the Federal Government.” Illustrative was the fact that even though the convention was held in Annapolis, Maryland, no delegates from Maryland was in attendance.
I believe to understand the importance of who these delegates were and what their individual motives were is critical to understanding this important but overlooked part of our country’s history.
What should be most revealing is the fact John Dickinson of Delaware was unanimously elected Chairman of the proceedings. Why is this important you ask? Well, Dickinson steadfastly opposed American Independence from the beginning and refused to vote on or sign the Declaration of Independence. This alone should cause one to question his motives concerning alteration of the Articles of Confederation.
Interesting also is the fact the other 11 delegates to the Annapolis Convention were politicians and/or lawyers. Possibly the only attendee who believed in a limited form of government was St. George Tucker from Virginia. It should be noted that Alexander Hamilton, one of the delegates from New York, had founded the Bank of New York in 1784 which was referred to as a “global financial services” company.
Ironically, Hamilton in September of 1789, acting as our first Secretary of the Treasury, would initiate a loan from the bank he helped found to the new United States Government. Surely we can all agree on how helpful and supportive global financial interests have been toward limited republican government over the course of our country’s history.
But, James Madison, the Father of our Constitution was instrumental in promoting the Annapolis Convention and was in fact a delegate you exclaim! True. But, I do believe Madison was a nationalist and fostered an agenda contrary to a federal/republican form of government. This became most apparent with his authoring of the Virginia Plan in April of 1787, a couple of months before the convention. A plan in which Madison believed the “states should be reduced to corporations.” An idea later supported by both Abraham Lincoln and Adolf Hitler.
The background and agendas of some of the other delegates to the Annapolis Convention deserve some investigation. One such delegate was Tench Coxe from Pennsylvania. After the British Army occupied Philadelphia during the Revolution, Coxe continued to carry on a thriving business with both Loyalists and the British Army. When the Patriots took over Philadelphia, Coxe left only to return when the British Army retook Philadelphia under British General Howe in 1777. Several Patriots accused Coxe of having “British sympathies” and he was also accused of briefly serving in the British Army.
Important was the fact delegates from only 5 states, certainly not a majority, fully admitted in their report to exceeding the “strict bounds of their appointment(s)” as delegates to the Annapolis Convention. It is important to note this fact for it will continue.
“If in expressing this wish, or in intimating any other sentiment, your Commissioners should seem to exceed the strict bounds of their appointment, they entertain a full confidence, that a conduct, dictated by an anxiety for the welfare, of the United States, will not fail to receive an indulgent construction.”
Again, it is important to note that “the anxiety for the welfare of the United States” was never shown to be present in a majority of the states, indicated by the lack of attendance at this convention, but was present only in this select few whose motives would, because of their past actions, be at best, suspect.
At the convention in Annapolis, which led directly to the call for delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 we have the following:
1. A chairman (Dickinson) elected unanimously who had refused to sign the Declaration of Independence and had opposed American independence and separation from the Crown.
2. An influential member of the delegation (Hamilton) who had been the first to call for this convention and had recently formed a bank with at the time professed global financial interests. Were those interests connected to the Bank of England perchance and is it simply coincidence Hamilton would become our first Secretary of the Treasury and would then call for a United States Bank which Thomas Jefferson called “unconstitutional?”
3. Another member of this delegation (Coxe) was known to give aid and comfort to the British during the revolution while profiting from the act and is alleged to have possibly served briefly in the military of the British.
4. Then of course there was James Madison who, months before the Convention of 1787 wrote a new plan for government that was nationalist and not federal and who throughout his political career would change his political views to comport with the exigencies of the moment. Ample evidence of this fact can be found in his vacillations concerning States Rights.
Conspicuously absent from this convention was any support or mention of the motives and principles of the Articles of Confederation which led to our country’s independence or the values of Liberty expressed by patriots such as Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams. Would it be of interest to know why these two patriots were not selected as delegates?
There can be little doubt that the Annapolis Convention led to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and a departure from several key principles of the Articles of Confederation; arguably, some good---some bad.
Should we the people be alarmed that the proponents and leaders of the Annapolis Convention were perhaps still loyal to England and perhaps even the Bank of England and desirous of either a return to a monarchy in which they would be the leaders, or at the very least a government of a national character not at all unlike the despotic government we have today?
There are no doubt those delegates from the Annapolis Convention sought to bring about change outside of the dictates of the Articles of Confederation (Art. 13) and the Congress of the United States. Why? I believe the answer to that question will be revealed as we continue with our study of the founding era of America.
The fact that the United States government IS a corporation, as far as I can tell, this relinquishes their sovereignty and they are no different than walmart. In other words, in order for them to have any authority over anyone, there MUST be a lawful contract willingly and knowingly signed by both parties. This is why they had to have the 14th Amendment. It makes everyone a "citizen" of this Federal Corporation known as the United States and you are therefore "subject" to their jurisdiction. This why I say that you do not want to be a U.S. citizen or a 14th Amendment citizen.
"Governments descend to the Level of a mere private corporation,
and take on the characteristics of a mere private citizen...where
private corporate commercial paper [Federal Reserve Notes] and
securities [checks] is concerned. ... For purposes of suit,
such corporations and individuals are regarded as entities
entirely separate from government." -
Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States 318 U.S. 363-371 (1942)
What the Clearfield Doctrine is saying is that when private
commercial paper is used by corporate government, then
Government loses its sovereignty status and becomes no
different than a mere private corporation.
As such, government then becomes bound by the rules and
laws that govern private corporations which means that if they
intend to compel an individual to some specific performance
based upon its corporate statutes or corporation rules, then
the government, like any private corporation, must be the holder-
in-due-course of a contract or other commercial agreement
between it and the one upon whom demands for specific
performance are made.
And further, the government must be willing to enter the contract
or commercial agreement into evidence before trying to get to
the court to enforce its demands, called statutes.
This case is very important because it is a 1942 case after the
Erie RR v. Tomkins 304 U.S. 64, (1938) case in which the
Legislatures and Judiciary changed from legislating under
"Public Law", which was in consonance with the CONstitution,
to legislating under "Public Policy" according to the wishes
of the "Creditors of the US Corporation".
Thank you Michael. If enough people are educated in this matter and begin asserting their rights as "Preamble Citizens" aka de jure Citizens, aka state Citizens of the Republic, and removing themselves from the jurisdiction of the Federal Corporate United States, then this could be the answer for restoring our Republic in a peaceful manner. As of now, the status of Preamble Citizen is being honored by the PTB at least in my area. It is my understanding that the powers that be are required to honor this status. As long as that continues, I feel that this will be the answer to restoring America.
As far as I know at this point, the best way to correct your status officially is by properly filling out the application for a U.S. passport. i know of a couple of others in my area including myself who have done this. I received a message from one them a few days ago and he said that he was doing 70 mph in a 55 zone when he met a city cop, the cop turned around with the lights on and apparently after running his tags the cop turned the lights off and turned off on another road.
I want to be clear though. This new freedom should never be used as an excuse to flaunt the law. If you do something bad they will probably arrest you and charge you, but they will have to try you in an Article III court. Our true freedoms are a gift from God and we should all act as good stewards and set good examples. The best thing about being of a free status is that ...........
You can carry a gun without a license, you can exercise ALL of your Constitutional rights.
Again, so long as THEY will honor your status you should be in good shape UNLESS you really screw up. Also, I live in Arkansas and cannot say for sure if all jurisdictions will honor it the same, ie New York, Chicago etc.
If someone wants the info on how to properly fill out the passport application (very important that it is filled out properly) you can provide an email addy or I will try to put the doc in a format so that I can post the file here.
I have had my passport for about 6 months. I am not comfortable wearing a seat belt so I do not wear one. I have paid 4 seat belt tickets over the last 4-5 years. I have passed by several cops since I have had my passport and have not yet been pulled over. That does mean that they are honoring my status, it could be that the cop was not interested in writing a ticket for such a petty offence at that time.
We, myself and a few others, have been searching for the remedy for a long time. It seems that once a remedy is discovered it works for a while until too many start using it and then THEY stop honoring it. After all of the extensive research myself and others have done, the passport (correction of Citizenship status) must be the silver bullet. I really is as simple as this.......When you remove yourself from their jurisdiction you are no longer "subject" to them, unless you commit a serious offence where others have been harmed in some way or there is property damaged. When you realize that this entire government system is nothing more than a scam and a fraud upon the American people, you realize that unless you are voluntarily a part of their scheme by accepting citizenship in THEIR statutory corporation, then they have no lawful right to compel you perform. We have a choice, and they must honor it. We finally figured out that it is all about your "status". Then we had to figure out how to gain that status. When the passport application is filled out properly you have completely removed yourself from a subject, to a sovereign. As is stated in many supreme court decisions, We the People are sovereign, but because THEY have been masters of deception they have brainwashed everyone into thinking that being a United States citizen is a good thing. If they will not honor this, they will not honor anything. This is the last straw. Give me liberty or give me death. I can no longer tolerate the oppression and deprivation of my rights.
Hello Michael. I have never been one who goes looking for trouble or one who becomes arrogant because of I feel that I have accomplished something, but there are times when you know that you must take a stand, but do it with caution. In other words, I do not purposely rattle their cages to see how they will react.
I do still have a CDL drivers license because most of my working life has involved driving a commercial vehicle and employers will not hire you unless you have a valid license. All license's and permits are nothing more than buying permission from the government to perform an act that is already a Constitutional and God given right. This includes ALL license's. Marriage, business, concealed carry, etc. I let my concealed carry expire about three years ago and have had no problems, but I usually do not carry concealed. I always carry in my automobile but it is out in the open, not concealed. I have been stopped for seat belt with the pistol laying in the seat and so far nothing has been said. Here in Arkansas it is legal to open carry in your vehicle if you are on a journey. A journey has been defined to mean entering another county.
I have to admit that at first I did not have a lot of faith in the passport, but in the last month or so I have become convinced that it is the remedy. However, I could still be wrong. The change in status accomplishes so many things it is hard to explain it all.
The Income tax is what supports this evil, corrupt, oppressive, tyrannical system of government, and is a completely unlawful tax on numerous accounts. When it finally dawned on me one day that I was supporting the very entity that was hell bent on depriving me of my birthright, my freedoms, my liberties, my pursuit of happiness, and on and on, I stopped filing both State and Federal Income taxes over 5 years ago. Up until about 4 months ago it has been a constant battle. The State has not bothered me for over a year, but the IRS continued until a few months ago. I have to believe that it was the passport that got the IRS off my back, as only U.S. citizens are required to pay the Income tax. I need to add also that I am considered small potatoes as far as the amount of wages I receive. Nevertheless, If you are not a U.S. citizen, you are not required to pay, besides the fact that the Income tax is unlawful on so many points to begin with.
To be clear, I am not and cannot make any promises here. I have only had my passport for a short time and like I said earlier, I am not going to go out and see what I can get by with. I have always tried to get along and abide with THEIR laws as much as I am comfortable with. Everyone has to make their own decisions on how far they are willing to go. The steps that I have taken were not done without some fear. Here is what has amazed me. Early on in my quest to be free, there were times when I became afraid because of their terroristic threats. I would hold my Bible and pray for Almighty God to lead me to page # in His Holy Book. Almost every time He would lead me to scripture that said, "Do not fear". I have been blown away several times because the scripture exactly dealt with the problem I was praying about. That was not a coincidence, it was an answered prayer. When it finally dawned on me that no matter what happened, I had nothing to fear, because I was doing nothing wrong. I took a stand, and because it was right, God was with me. It is not wrong to refuse to support an entity so evil and are using MY money that THEY extorted from me by terroristic threats in order to support those who kill babies, kill those in other countries who have not attacked America or our allies, promote the destruction of God and Jesus Christ in our society, etc. I will never pay another cent in income tax to support these hate mongers, come hell or high water.
In closing Michael all I can say is, time will tell. I will keep you posted on anything that I experience personally or others that I know who have obtained the passport. I must say though, for $240.00, it is a small price to pay for the possibility of being free.
The PDF on the post does not exist. You will have to re-post the PDF as a link or as Text. I would like to review the Passport Ending Treason document.
Clois did the other file work?