Safety vs Freedom Part I

There was a time when Americans chose Freedom

When was the last time a local Board of Supervisors, or Township committee, or the local or county solicitor made their decisions regarding “legal” zoning, imminent domain, and ordinances based on what is best for the man or woman in the community they serve; and the protection of the property of said man or woman? i had a series of recent conversation with a good friend who is on one of the local planning commission boards. This friend has clarified how he approaches this planning commission and board of supervisors since we have had a number of conversations about history and what words mean. He indicates that the planning commission almost never looks at their decisions based on what truly protects the man or woman who owns property locally. Government is to be established for the protection of the people and their property from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic; and federal government was created to deal with international and territorial commerce.

---

In the last installment, we discussed events leading up to 1774 and the formation of the Continental Congress. The Declarations of Resolves, and A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms both clearly outline the events in history over the preceding years. These documents provide the purpose behind the Continental Congress, and the need to protect the rights of the people from the oppressive British laws and acts.

Before we get too far into the American perspective, we should take a look at the British sympathizers known as Tories. A good place to start is the book by Thomas B. Allen called “Fighting for the King in America’s First Civil War”. There were a minority of colonists who favored British rule and fought along side the British in what we have been taught to call the “Revolutionary War”. One of those sympathizers was Joseph Galloway. He was a member of the 1st Continental Congress. He fled to England and testified to parliament in 1779 with a bias that a large number of people in the Americas wanted to support British rule under King George. However, John Adams observed a very different emotion of the people as being largely against British rule, and a smaller amount (maybe less than one third) wanting no parts of a revolution in any form. An even smaller number expressed direct support for British rule. If using simply the Continental Congress alone as a gauge, the majority supported independence with Joseph Galloway being an exception and not the rule.

~(Charles A. & Mary R. Beard, History of the United States [The MacMillan Company, NY:1921])

The act of the 1st Continental Congress to pass the rule to not allow British importation indicates the true sentiment at the time. By 1774, each state (colony) passed its own legislation after the creation of State Constitutions, to declare an Oath to the United States or be considered a traitor. By basic numbers alone, Tories were exceedingly outnumbered in general population. Tories were high ranking members of society usually with ranks or positions of government or nobility under the king’s rule. Nobility was not looked upon favorably by the colonists. This meant Tories were not the most favorable group in America.

There was even an act of banishment that stipulated the banishment of at least 300 Tories in Massachusetts in 1778. The majority of those banished or driven out as the “First Civil War” (American Revolution) progressed fled to the province of Canada where many were given land grants. Some of the Tories banished fled to the East Indies, and the balance fled back to Britain.

So, the Tories were typically British nobility with old money and land in Britain. They wanted to increase their control and wealth in the Americas. This is an important key to the TON (Titles of Nobility) clause in the Constitution and the more stringent and consequential original 13th Amendment that went missing upon the onset of Lincoln’s War (American Civil War).

Do you think the line of families from some of the oldest money and nobility in the history of Britain and Europe somehow gave up on capitalizing on the potential wealth of America after the Revolutionary War? The first federal bank of the United States is an example of some of the ongoing influence of those families.

For a detailed discussion on the topic visit Badlands Media:

• Badlands Media - Is the Federal Reserve a British Institution?

  An Exploration into the Hidden Legal Origins of the Federal Reserve - Feb 16, 2023

This will be revisited again as the articles progress.

---

On March 23, 1775, the famous phrase, “Give me Liberty, or give me Death!” was proclaimed in a speech given by Patrick Henry to the Virginia legislature. This was a rousing sentiment of those wishing for freedom from British rule. Less than one month later, on April 19, 1775, the opening shots of the American Revolutionary War were fired by the British (not Americans) on the people of Lexington and Concord MA. By July of 1775, the Continental Congress passed a series of resolves entitled “A Declaration by the Representatives of the United Colonies of North-America Setting Forth the Causes and Necessity of Their Taking Up Arms”.

So, what is the significance of this last declaration? It declares the republican nature of the colonies and claims right of self-defense for each colony (farm family assembly) due to the increasing transgressions and atrocities by the crown of England. As touched on in the closing of the last article, this declaration found the colonies claiming their air (global), soil and land (national), and sea (international) jurisdictions by natural right in the same way that individual people have the right to self-defense.

Below is an overview of the documents and declarations, and the subsequent documents that helped create the Lawful government in America as a result of the stand for freedom:

Until 1777, there was no outline of a formal federal government. There was only people, local jural assemblies, State assemblies with the start of Constitutions, a Continental Congress to aid in the international issues, and an ongoing struggle to formalize the independence of the new fledgling country. It is time to take a step back, think about the reality of the time and give it perspective. Everything started with the people. The people made up local and State’s (colony) representation long before there was any federal imposition (other than attempted imposition by British Parliament and the king). Individual freedom and land ownership is what people were trying to protect. If you recall from the early 1600’s, people were enticed to settle in the colonies due to the ability to obtain land through grants and patents, and thus receive allodial title.

Black’s Law Dictionary – 4th Edition

ALLODIAL. Free; not holden of any lord or superior; owned without obligation of vassalage or fealty; the opposite of feudal. Barker v. Dayton, 28 Wis. 384; Wallace v. Harmstad, 44 Pa. 499.

Looking at this from the local level, the people decided they wanted local representatives to speak on their behalf, and to voice and protect their interests of freedom and property. This is the basis of Common Law even as it was in the English Isles going back before the Norman Conquest and the Hundreds. It was the Law common to the people and the protection of the people and their property. The tithings and shires were first representations of this “local first” order of things. Kings came out of brute force and control. If anyone knows their biblical history in the Old Testament, the Creator clearly instructed the Israelites they did not need a king other than the Creator. They were to be self governing by ethics and morals starting with Natural Law and revealed law (Laws expressed in the Torah). As with many instructions from the Creator in the history of the Israelites, they consistently strayed from the instruction from the Creator with consequences. One of these deviations was when the Israelites started to believe kings were necessary to negotiate with other lands.

In the case of the Hundred in England, land ownership was lost by allowing local sheriffs and then “nobility” to gain access to the king’s court and start negotiating law and justice on behalf of the people (plus brute force seizure). Then those representatives slowly became compromised with “benefits and privileges” and lined their pockets, the king gave them titles and prestige. Nobility became easy to control, and the kings after the Norman Conquest took the land and “gave back” title to land in fiefdoms. All the previously free mankind slowly lost their freedoms. A level of freedom was regained with the Magna Carta iterations, but nobility and coercion through “benefits and privileges” created a separation of class and power.

Class, religion, and oppression was heavy in the minds and hearts of families who came to the New World seeking land ownership and religious freedom. Much of this desire for freedom was sparked by the Protestant Revolution and the access of the masses to read the Biblical writings in their own tongue as they relearned about the stories of creation and Israel without institutional church/religious filtering. Doctrine and dogma was put on its head with the Puritan movement and the subsequent introduction of the 1611 King James Bible almost 150 years later. The basic premise is man must be self-governing by Natural Law and then positive or revealed laws. A great example of the application of revealed law and Natural Law came with the Puritans and the Mayflower crew (who were not Puritans), when they signed the Mayflower Compact. Class and religious differences were reduced and Law (revealed, Natural and Common) was elevated. When times got real tough and death was on the door, the only thing that mattered was working together to survive and respect each other with a unified guidance of the Creator.

Mayflower Compact excerpt

In the name of God, Amen…

Having undertaken for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God and one of another, Covenant and Combine ourselves together in a Civil Body Politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid; …

Relative to kings, there is debate about the Biblical instructions to the Israelites and the lack of need for a king except for the Creator. Upon coming out of Exodus, there were initially 12 judges and no kings. This was a type of jury of peers. Those judges were those who were wise and just in applying the law. It is a longer and deeper dive into the timing and foreshadowing by the Creator in texts from the Torah to unwrap hints at the potential for a future king of Israel. However, the basic concept was man, following the Creator as king and His expectations, could self govern and be his own king. There was foreshadowing for future kings by the Creator in the book of Deuteronomy, and later in the book of Samuel. But there were stipulations to the possible selection of a king. A good study of the references can be found here.

The fundamental belief in the American founding and protection of freedom, is that we would no longer need a king and the trappings that come with this form of governance. Governance would be by the People, for the people. Any time this strayed from the protection of the people and their respective property, it was the duty of the people to dissolve said governance and start anew.

So, ask yourself… if the settlers and founders fight for freedom was based on personal freedom through guidance of the Creator and Natural Law first and placing local governance by Common Law, and not big government, monarchs, or the body politic; how did we get to the current condition where federal government thinks it can dictate to the People of the States and the people within in the states with rules, codes, acts and statutes before Natural or Common Law? How did we get to a federal government that believes it is their prerogative to tell us what to do with our land, our bodies, our property (anything exclusive to i from all others in society)? This has come to pass by the infiltration of Roman and canon law by the legal presumption of voluntary acceptance when one does not rebuke the presumption openly. It is also due to the diminishment of a man or woman to a legal person.

In order to provide a better understanding of the basis of Law that guided the desire for freedom, one must look to the earlier definitions used by the founders at that time in history. It should NOT be based on modern interpretations, as this is what we are tricked into by the hi-jacked local courts, words, and presumptions; or convenient changes in definitions to suit the narrative. (Can you say vaccine?)

Blacks Law Dictionary - 2nd Edition

NATURAL LAW. A rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings, established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept. Webster. The foundation of this law is placed by the best writers in the will of God, discovered by right reason, and aided by divine revelation ; and its principles, when applicable, apply with equal obligation to Individuals and to nations. 1 Kent, Comm. 2, note; Id. 4, note. See Jus Natukaix.

The rule and dictate of right reason, showing the moral deformity or moral necessity there Is in any act, according to its suitableness or unsuitableness to a reasonable nature. Tayl. Civil Law, 99.

We understand all laws to be either human or divine, according as they have man or God for their author; and divine laws are of two kinds, that is to say: (1) Natural laws; 2) positive or revealed laws. A natural law is denied by Burlamaqui to be "a rule which so necessarily agrees with the nature and state of man that, without observing its maxims, the peace and happiness of society can never be preserved." And he says that, these are called "natural laws" because a knowledge of them may be attained merely by the light of reason, from the fact of their essential agreeableness with the constitution of human nature; while, on the contrary, positive or revealed laws are not founded upon the general constitution of human nature, but only upon the will of God ; though in other respects such law is established upon very good reason, and procures the advantage of those to whom it is sent. The ceremonial or political laws of the Jews are of this latter class. Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 527, 44 Am. Dec. 217.

COMMON LAW. 1. As distinguished from the Roman law, the modern civil law, the canon law, and other systems, the common law Is that body of law and juristic theory which was originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England, and has obtained among most of the states and peoples of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674.

2. As distinguished from law created by the enactment of legislatures, the common law comprises the body of those principles and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of Immemorial antiquity, or from the Judgments and decrees of the courts recognizing, affirming, and enforcing such usages and customs; and, in this sense, particularly the ancient unwritten law of England. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U. S. 92, 21 Sup. Ct. 561, 45 L. Ed. 765; State v. Buchannn, 5 Har. & J. (Md.) 365, 9 Am. Dec. 534; Lux v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255, 10 Pac. 674; Barry v. Port Jervis, 64 App. Div. 268, 72 N. Y. Supp. 104.

3. As distinguished from equity law, it is a body of rules and principles, written or unwritten, which are of fixed and Immutable authority, and which must be applied to controversies rigorously and in their entirety, and cannot be modified to suit the peculiarities of a specific case, or colored by any judicial discretion, and which rests confessedly upon custom or statute, as distinguished from any claim to ethical superiority. Klerer v. Seawall, 65 Fed. 395, 12 C. C. A. 661.

4. As distinguished from ecclesiastical law, It is the system of Jurisprudence administered by the purely secular tribunals.

5. As concerns its force and authority In the United States, the phrase designates that portion of the common law of England (including such acts of parliament as were applicable) which had been adopted and was in force here at the time of the Revolution. This, so far as It has not since been expressly abrogated, is recognized as an organic part of the Jurisprudence of most of the United States. Browning v. Browning, 3 N. M. 371, 9 Pac. 677; Guardians of Poor v. Greene, 5 Bin. (Pa.) 557; U. S. v. New Bedford Bridge, 27 Fed. Cas. 107.

6. In a wider sense than any of the foregoing, the "common law" may designate all that part of the positive law, Juristic theory, and ancient custom of any state or nation which is of general and universal application, thus marking off special or local rules or customs.

At this stage in the timeline, we have only made it to July 1775. The Declaration of Independence has not been created. The Constitutions are not created, or on the minds of the people. The revolutionary war (First Civil War) between Britain, British sympathizers, the general population, and other weaving parties leveraging alliances are battling it out on the American soil. By 1776, it was clear an even harder line needed to be drawn by the People of the States. Per the National Archives, the following is the account of the creation of the Declaration of Independence.

June 7, 1776: Lee Resolution

Richard Henry Lee, a delegate from Virginia, read a resolution before the Continental Congress "that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."

June 11, 1776: Committee of Five Appointed

Consideration of the Lee Resolution was postponed—the "Committee of Five" was appointed to draft a statement presenting to the world the colonies’ case for independence.

June 11–July 1, 1776: Declaration of Independence Drafted

On June 11, Congress recessed for three weeks. During this period the "Committee of Five" (John Adams, Roger Sherman, Benjamin Franklin, Robert Livingston, and Thomas Jefferson) drafted the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson drafted it, Adams and Franklin made changes to it. Congress reconvened on July 1, 1776.

July 2, 1776: Lee Resolution Adopted & Consideration of Declaration

On July 2, the Lee resolution was adopted by 12 of the 13 colonies (New York did not vote). Immediately afterward, Congress began to consider the Declaration. Congress made some alterations and deletions to it on July 2, 3, and the morning of the 4th

July 4, 1776: Declaration of Independence Adopted & Printed

Late in the morning of July 4, the Declaration was officially adopted, and the "Committee of Five" took the manuscript copy of the document to John Dunlap, official printer to the Congress.

July 5, 1776: Copies of the Declaration Dispatched

On the morning of the July 5, copies printed by John Dunlap were dispatched by members of Congress to various committees, assemblies, and to the commanders of the Continental troops. (On July 9, the action of Congress was officially approved by the NY Convention.)

July 19, 1776: Congress Orders the Declaration Engrossed on Parchment

Congress ordered that the Declaration be "fairly engrossed on parchment, with the title and stile {sic} of ‘The unanimous declaration of the thirteen United States of America’ and that the same, when engrossed, be signed by every member of Congress."

August 2, 1776: Declaration Signed

The document was signed by most of the members on August 2. George Wythe signed on August 27. On September 4, Richard Henry Lee, Elbridge Gerry, and Oliver Wilcott signed. Matthew Thornton signed on November 19, and Thomas McKean signed in 1781.

Here is a recap summary of the document timeline up to the Northwest Ordinance.

This is the point where much of our history and government purpose is lost. We are taught about the Declaration of Independence and we skim over the Constitution (and are NOT taught about the different Constitutions). This is because we are not taught why we needed these incremental government structures. For those who are in business, a way to understand the government creation is to take a look at a multi-business owner who has a parent company. This multi-company owner uses the parent company to delegate duties and responsibilities to sub-companies and sister-companies to facilitate different functions or areas of commerce and business activities.

We need to start looking at the origination of the government structure in America from the actual perspective of why it was created. As a new country, America was comprised of independent Nation-States. Within those Nation-States, there were local jurisdictions. Local jurisdictions (towns and counties) were comprised of people that did own property, but did not have the bandwidth to deal with the State-to-State interactions or the territorial requirements. As a declared independent set of nation-states, there is the added responsibility of handling international treaties and trade activities; and there is a bunch of duties and responsibilities to handle for a new country trying to stand on its own footing. As such, the people created a government with the people being first and the top dog.

If we look at the government creation as a series of instrumentalities or businesses, we start to understand how the American government was formed. At the top of a business is always a man or woman who owns the company, or a board, or set of people who own the other businesses. To clarify the timeline around these documents, the listing below gives a little insight.

• The union doing business as the united Colonies (States) (July 2nd 1776) and the Federation of States (September 1776 - The United States of America) both predate the Confederation by almost five (5) years; per the Declaration of Independence, Richard Henry Lee wrote, “Resolved, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states.”

• These two entities (United States and The United States of America) were BEFORE the articles of Confederation (May 1781), and the Confederation was AFTER the articles were ratified - originally the word “The” was lower case “the” and “United” was “united” to clarify an action (federating) and not a name

• Both the Union doing business as the United States and the Federation of States doing business as The United States of America were continuing to do daily international and territorial business as the Confederation (Republic) was being created

• It must be understood that the United States was first, and then the next instrumentality of The United States of America, and then the Confederation instrumentality created by the Articles of Confederation

There is one fundamental difference between the current method of corporate business versus the actual founding businesses… our founding entities for the American government were unincorporated. To clarify the importance of this distinction, let’s go through some definitions:

• Unincorporated – lacking corporate status : not formed into a legal corporation

• Incorporated – formed into a legal corporation

• Corporation – a body formed and authorized by law to act as a single person although constituted by one or more persons and legally endowed with various rights and duties including the capacity of succession

• National – of, relating to, or characteristic of a nation, nationality – maintained by the government of a nation (states)

• International – of, relating to, or involving two or more nations extending across or transcending national borders/boundaries. Between or among nations. Participated by 2 or more nations, or affecting same (between states)

• Federation – the act of federating, especially the joining together of states into league or federal union. Formed by federating, especially a government or political body established through federal union by covenant (contract)

• Confederation – the act of forming into or becoming part of a confederacy; group of confederates (states or nations) united for a common purpose; a league

  Republic - form of government in which a state is ruled by representatives of the citizen body

• Federal Government– of, or consisting a form of government in which power is distributed between a central authority and a number of constituent territorial units (1787 Constitution)

• Territorial Government - The Constitution empowers Congress to govern the territory of the United States and to admit new states into the Union (The United States) (1789 Constitution)

• Municipal Government – the government of a municipality – in our government Washington DC – 1790 Constitution

These are all important definitions. The words show the progression of government by use of the words alone and the resultant intentions, duties and responsibilities of each step in the government formation process.

It is also important to note that we have allowed a blurring of the lines between each definition as it relates to our Lawful government. We will also see in subsequent articles how we have unknowingly given in to being bound to something other than a Lawful Man or Woman. The question becomes how to be unbound…

Black’s Law Dictionary 2nd Edition:

Naturale est quidlibet dissolvi eo modo quo ligatur. It is natural for a thing to be unbound in the same way in which it was bound. Jenk. Cent. 66; Broom, Max. 877.

---

In the Part II of this article, we will cover the second Treaty of Paris in 1783 and the move into the federal government. There will be a discussion on the definitions of jurisdictions as well as clarifying that a state is sovereign and the federal government is not sovereign. We will revisit the articles of Confederation its role in international relations between states.

We will then dig into the actual Constitutions. Changes were made between 1787 and 1790 that took a bit of digging and investigating to understand. These changes were based on how the new confederated country would do business and the limitations around government. We will delve into the fact that the Constitution does NOT need to be interpreted; as the words are plain. The ambiguity of “interpreting the Constitution” seems to be introduced later, and has the indications that this “interpretation” is by design.

---