The Federal Reserve, What I will show you next will shock you.

I made brief mention in part 1, that taxes paid in this country were under treaty to the king of England.

 How about if I told you that the law that created our taxes and this countries tax court go back in history to William the Conqueror. And to further help you understand the below definitions, exchequer is the British branch of the Federal Reserve.

Exchequer: "The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king's debts and duties. It was called exchequer, "scaccharium," from the checked cloth, resembling a chessboard, which covers the table." Ballentine's Law Dictionary

Exchequer: "That department of the English government which has charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury department." Black's Law Dictionary 4th ed.

Exchequer: "In English Law. A department of the government which has the management of the collection of the king's revenue." Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

Court of Exchequer: "56.The court of exchequer is inferior in rank not only to the court of king's bench, but to the common pleas also: but I have chosen to consider it in this order, on account of its double capacity, as a court of law and a court of equity [44] also. It is a very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, through regulated and reduced to its present order by King Edward I; and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king's debts and duties. It is called the exchequer, scaccharium, from the chequed cloth, resembling a chess-board, which covers the table there; and on which, when certain of the king's accounts are made up, the sums are marked and scored with counters. 

It consists of two divisions; the receipt of the exchequer, which manages to royal revenue, and with which these Commentaries have no concern; and the court or judicial part of it, which is again subdivided into a court of equity, and a court of common law."

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

Court of Exchequer: "An English superior court with jurisdiction of matter of law and matters involving government revenue." Ballentine's Law Dictionary

Court of Exchequer: "A court for the correction and prevention of errors of law in the three superior common-law courts of the kingdom.

A court of exchequer chamber was first erected by statute 31 Edw. III. C. 12, to determine causes upon writs of error from the common-law side of the exchequer court. It consisted of the chancellor, treasurer, and the "justices and other sage persons as to them seemeth." The judges were merely assistants. A second court of exchequer chamber was instituted by statute 27 Eliz. C. 8, consisting of the justices of the common pleas and the exchequer, or any six of them, which had jurisdiction in error of cases in the king's bench. In exchequer chamber substituted in their place as an intermediate court of appeal between the three common-law courts and Parliament. It consisted of the judges of the two courts which had not rendered the judgement in the court below. It is now merged in the High Court of Justice."

Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

It gets worse, are you just a little ticked off, or maybe you are starting to question what you have been taught all these years? It's time to wake up America!

If you'll look at the Judiciary Act of 1789 (I know most won't take time to read it), you'll see that all district courts are admiralty courts. This is the king's court of commerce, in which he is the plaintiff, recovering damages done against him, or what belongs to him.

The equity court of the exchequer: "57. The court of equity is held in the exchequer chamber before the lord treasurer, the chancellor of the exchequer, the chief baron, and three puisne' ones. 

These Mr. Selden conjectures to have been anciently made out of such as were barons of the kingdom, or parliamentary barons; and thence to have derived their name: which conjecture receives great strength form Bracton's explanation of magna carta, c.14, which directs that the earls and barons be amerced by their peers; that is, says he, by the barons of the exchequer. The primary and original business of this court is to call the king's debtors to account, by bill filed by the attorney general; and to recover any lands, tenements, or hereitaments, any goods, chattels, or other profits or benefits, belonging to the crown. So that by their original constitution the jurisdiction of the courts of common pleas, king's bench, and exchequer, was entirely separate and distinct; the common pleas being intended to decide all controversies between subject and subject; the king's bench to correct all crimes and misdemeanors that amount to a breach of the peace, the king being then the plaintiff, as such offenses are in open derogation of the jura regalia (regal rights) of his crown; and the exchequer to adjust [45] and recover his revenue, wherein the king also is plaintiff, as the withholding and nonpayment thereof is an injury to his jura fiscalia (fisical rights). But, as by a fiction almost all sorts of civil actions are now allowed to be brought in the king's bench, in like manner by another fiction all kinds of personal suits may be prosecuted in the court of exchequer. For as all the officers and ministers of this court have, like those of other superior courts, the privilege of suing and being sued only in their own court; so exchequer, are privileged to sue and implead all manner of persons in the same court of equity that they themselves are called into. 

They have likewise privilege to sue and implead one another, or any stranger, in the same kind of common-law actions (where the personalty only is concerned) as are prosecuted in the court of common pleas."

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

The common-law court of the exchequer: "58. This gives original to the common-law part of their jurisdiction, which was established merely for the benefit of the king's accountants, and is exercised by the barons only of the exchequer, and not the treasurer or chancellor. The writ upon which the plaintiff suggests that he is the king's farmer or debtor, and that the defendant hath done him the injury or damage complained of; quo minus sufficient exist, by which he is the less able, to pay the king his debt or rent. And these suits are expressly directed, by what is called the statute of Rutland, to be confined to such matters only as specially concern the king or his ministers of the exchequer.

 And by the articuli super cartas it is enacted that no common pleas be thenceforth holden in the exchequer, contrary to the form of the great charter. But not, by the suggestion of privilege, any person may be admitted to sue in the exchequer as well as the king's accountant. The surmise of being debtor to the king is therefore become matter of form and mere words of course, and the court is open to allthe nation equally. The same holds with regard to the equity side of the court: for there any person may file [46] a bill against another upon a bare suggestion that he is the king's accountant; but whether he is so or not is never controverted. In this court, on the nonpayment of titles; in which case the surmise of being the king's debtor is no fiction, they being bound to pay him their first-fruits, and annual tenths. But the chancery has of late years obtained a large share in this business."

Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1555

Definition of a legal fiction: For a discussion of fictions in law, see chapter II of Maine's Ancient Law, and Pollock's note D in his edition of the Ancient Law. Blackstone gives illustrations of legal fictions on pages 43, 45, 153, 203 of this book. Mr Justice Curtis (Jurisdiction of United States Courts, 2d ed., 148) gives the following instance of a fiction in our practice:

"A suit by or against a corporation in its corporate name may be presumed to be a suit by or against citizens of the state which created the corporate body, and no averment or denial to the contrary is admissible for the purpose of withdrawing the suit from the jurisdiction of a court of the United States.

There is the Roman fiction: The court first decides the law, presumes all the members are citizens of the state which created the corporation, and then says, `you shall not traverse that presumption'; and that is the law now. (Authors note-by your residence you are incorporated) Under it, the courts of the United States constantly entertain suits by or against corporations. (Muller v. Dows, 94 U. S. 444, 24 L. Ed. 207.) It has been so frequently settled, that there is not the slightest reason to suppose that it will ever be departed from by the court. 

It has been repeated over and over again in subsequent decisions; and the supreme court seem entirely satisfied that it is the right ground to stand upon; and, as I am now going to state to you, they have applied it in some cases which go beyond, much beyond, these decisions to which I have referred.

So that when a suit is to be brought in a court of the United States by or against a corporation, by reason of the character of the parties, you have only to say that this corporation (after naming it correctly) was created by a law of the state; and that is exactly the same in its consequences as if you could allege, and did allege, that the corporation was a citizen of that state. According to the present decisions, it is not necessary you should say that the members of that corporation are citizens of Massachusetts. 

They have passed beyond that. You have only to say that the corporation was created by a law of the state of Massachusetts, and has its principal place of business in that state; and that makes it, for the purposes of jurisdiction, the same as if it were a citizen of that state" See Pound, Readings in Roman Law, 95n. Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553

Combine this with what I said earlier concerning power of the treaty and it's creation of the corporate State, and you now know why you are not allowed to challenge residence or subjection in the State Courts. And because of the treaty, residence in the State is synonymous with residence in the district. I know this puts a sour taste in your mouth, because it does mine, but that is the condition we find ourselves in. The only way I see to change it, is to change the treaty and reinforce the original Declaration of Independence, but this would meet severe objection on the part of the international Bankers, and or course the king's heirs in England. And most Americans, even if they were aware of this information, would have no stomach for the turmoil this would cause.

Still a little fuzzy on what has taken place, the word Exchequer is still used today? In Britain the Exchequer is the Federal Reserve, the same as our Federal Reserve. They just changed the name here as they have done many things to cloud what is taking place, hoping no one would catch on. Who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and put it in place in this country? Bankers from the Bank of England with their counter part in New York!

Congressman McFadden: "I hope that is the case, but I may say to the gentleman that during the sessions of this Economic Conference in London there is another meeting taking place in London. We were advised by reports from London last Sunday of the arrival of George L.Harrison, Governor of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and we were advised that accompanying him was Mr. Crane, the Deputy Governor, and James P. Warburg, of the Kuhn-Loeb banking family, of New York and Hamburg, Germany, and also Mr. O. M. W. Sprague, recently in the pay of Great Britain as chief economic and financial adviser of Mr. Norman, Governor of the Bank Of England, and now supposed to represent our Treasury. 

These men landed in England and rushed to the Bank of England for a private conference, taking their luggage with them, before even going to their hotel. We know this conference has been taking place for the past 3 days behind closed doors in the Bank of England with these gentlemen meeting with heads of the Bank of England and the Bank for International Settlements, of Basel, Switzerland, and the head of the Bank France, Mr. Maret. They are discussing war debts; they are discussing stabilization of exchanges and the Federal Reserve System,I may say to the Members of the House.

The Federal reserve System, headed by George L. Harrison, is our premier, who is dealing with debts behind the closed doors of the Bank of England; and the United States Treasury is there, represented by O. M. W. Sprague, who until the last 10 days was the representative of the Bank of England, and by Mr. James P. Warburg, who is the son of the principal author of the Federal Reserve Act. Many things are being settled behind the closed doors of the Bank of England by this group.

 No doubt this group were pleased to hear that yesterday the Congress passed amendments to the Federal Reserve Act and that the President signed the bill which turns over to the Federal Reserve System the complete total financial resources of money and credit in the United States. Apparently the domination and control of the international banking group is being trengthened.... Congressional Record, June 14, 1934

What else does the Exchequer do? The government(Congress) puts up bonds (bills of credit) on the international market, that the Federal Reserve (Exchequer) prints fiat money, for which the government (Congress) is the guarantor for, read the following quote:

Exchequer Bills: Bills of credit issued by authority of parliament.

They constitute the medium of transaction of business between the bank of England and the government. The exchequer bills contain a guarantee from government which secures the holders against loss by fluctuation. Bouvier's Law Dictionary 1914 ed.

Also re-read "A Country Defeated In Victory". Who do you think the national debt is owed to? If that's not bad enough the bond indebtedness allowed the king to foreclose on his colony when it was time for the one World government, the king/bankers caused us to reorganize under bankruptcy. The Bank of England allowed the United States to use you and I (our labor)for collateral and all the property in America, read the following quote:

Congressman Lemke: "....This nation is bankrupt; every State in this Union is bankrupt; the people of the United States, as a whole, are bankrupt. 

The public and private debts of this Nation, which are evidenced by bonds, mortgages, notes, or other written instruments about to about $250,000,000,000, and it is estimated that there is about $50,000,000,000 of which there is no record, making in all about $300,000,000,000 of public and private debts. The total physical cash value of all the property in the United States is now estimated at about $70,000,000,000. That is more than it would bring if sold at public auction. In this we do not include debts or the evidence of debts, such as bonds, mortgages, and so fourth. 

These are not physical property. They will have to be paid out of the physical property. How are we going to pay $300,000,000,000 with only $70,000,000,000?" Congressional Record, March 3, 1934, footnote #10

This debt was more than could be paid as of 1934, this caused the declared bankruptcy by President Roosevelt. Now the national debt is over 12,000,000,000,000. The government only tells you about 5,000,000,000,000, they don't tell you about the corporate debt, which America is also guarantor for. Add to that the personal debt; you know credit cards and home loans, and it approaches 20,000,000,000,000, that's trillion for those of you that miss read the number of zero's. Mix this with a super inflated stock market and a huge trade deficit, and that is what brings you to understand my subtitle for this paper.

 BEND OVER AMERICA.

 What could possibly be the purpose of the international bankers allowing our nation to over extend so badly and not cut us off? When back in 1934 they could have legally seized the whole country. We are being used for the purpose of the international bankers which is loaning money to third world countries, to enslave them as we are, to colonize the world for Britain, and to use our military machine to control unruly countries and to collect the king's debt. 

There will soon be a United Nations personal income tax for the whole world. The end purpose of the international bankers, is a one world government, with England as the center of government and the international bankers calling the shots.

I am going to share a dream I had, July 1992, at the risk of being ridiculed. I told my friend who is mentioned in the dream, the next day. At that time neither of us understood the dream, about a month later I started to understand when I began learning about admiralty law and where our admiralty law came from. 

As time has passed I have come to understand the dream, because of further information coming to light, such as the information contained in part 1, and part 2, which you are now reading. I new when I woke up that the dream was not the normal nonsense you can sometimes experience in a dream. And I might add I dream very seldom, after having this dream I was given the desire to write down and pass along the information that has been brought my way, via. the Holy Spirit. The information has defined the dream not the other way around.