|
of the United States of America 
Americans are brought up wholly under the influence of the republic,
so we are not inclined to appreciate the subtle nuances of American
law and custom. American schools portray the country as having
overthrown the monarchy of the colonies through the Revolution.
But, in fact, the Revolution was an illegal conspiracy that had
illegal aims - the overthrow of the constitutional government
- which in law could accomplish only one feat: the deposition
of the reigning king, but not the repeal of the ancient constitution
of the native kingdom.
Americans are raised steeped in the mythology of the republic:
that it gave the American people "freedom." The truth,
however, is that the American people already possessed freedom,
because in fact, due to the existence and operation of the ancient
constitution, Americans are BORN free, and the very notion
that the right to freedom was "inalienable"
indicated that this birthright could never be removed from them.
The Kingdom of the United States of America is the original, traditional
form of the American Nation, which the American people inherited
from the Mother Country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain,
and its unwritten constitution. The very act of writing a "constitution"
as a charter for the new republic was intended for the purpose
of narrowing the birthright of the people, not
enhancing it. In the Constitution of 1787 the Founding Fathers
never mention the rights of the American people; but they very
explicitly enumerated the powers that would be vested in the three
branches of government, which they invented.
The most striking evidence of the intentions of the Founding Fathers
can be found in the inaugural oath of the President of the republic,
who is sworn to protect and defend NOT the American
people, but the clauses of the Constitution of 1787, from all
enemies "foreign and domestic." In contrast, the ancient
coronation oath of Anglo-American kings bound the king by his
sacred oath to "govern the people (of the kingdom)…
according to the statutes of parliament… and the laws and
customs (of the land)," and to use his power to "cause
law and justice in mercy to be executed" in all his judgments.
The difference here is that the President has a duty to protect
the republic from its enemies, including American
nationals, where a lawful king is duty bound to observe the ancestral
rights of all the people of the nation ("the laws and customs"
of the nation).
What is not comprehended by modern Americans is the centrality
of slavery to the Founding Fathers' motivations in their subversion
of the lawful government. Far from being a trivial reality of
Revolutionary times, slavery was a central factor in causing the
Revolution. The perpetuation of slavery, especially upon the
establishment of the republic, involved the institution of a police
state, a fact which is completely neglected in the education of
American youth.
The preservation of slavery involved the constant
attention of slaveowners, who were pressed to be on guard against
conspiracies among the slaves around the clock,
and who were able to call on the local government to provide back-up
police power for the enforcement of laws that protected slaveowners.
Ironically, the republic that now claims to bestow freedom upon
the American people, once refused to grant a slave his freedom
on the grounds that it would deprive his slavemaster of his rights
to due process!
Slavery involved the actual repression of an entire people, not
by mere threats of punishment, but by constant armed patrols roaming
the countryside on the look-out for runaway slaves, constant oversight
by managers, and the carrying out of demonstrations of the violence
slavemasters were WILLING to engage in to suppress the slaves,
by making disobedient or reluctant slaves into examples through
beatings, whippings and even murder, all of which are classic
examples of rule by terrorism.
The controversy over slavery in the United States is also limited
by the idea that slavery was largely restricted to "the South."
The notion of "the South" is a post-Civil War construct,
which does not accurately reflect the fact that at the time of
the Revolution, slavery was a legal institution through-out America.
(In fact, at the time of the Civil War there were over a thousand
slaves in the North.) Looking at any map of the original thirteen
colonies, the division into north and south places Washington,
D.C. in "the South," which also put about two-thirds
of the country in "the South."
This grim reality is deliberately played down by American schools,
where the historic record is falsified by claims that the intent
of the slavemasters who founded the republic was not to preserve
their privileges, but to create a "free society." Nothing
could be further from the truth. The Founding Fathers were, in
fact, firmly and openly opposed to all notions of equality or
democracy, which can be found in abundance in their actual writings
and diaries. What Americans learn in school are not the real
facts of the Revolutionary era, but the interpretations
of those facts by modern "scholars," who have a vested
interest in perpetuating the institutions of the republic on a
bed of lies, because those very institutions give them prestige.
The litany of the republic is that the American people are "free"
due to it; that their civil rights are a gift from the Founding
Fathers, due to the so-called "Bill of Rights." This
is an outright declaration that the rights of Americans are not
inalienable as a birthright, but are the product of the politics
of the republic. The notion that the American people are free
due to the Constitution of 1787 is an outright fraud. The freedom
of the people devolves from a thousand years of case law, whereby
magistrates and parliaments of the nation recognized in precedent
after precedent that the people are born with their
rights as a result of the ancient principles of the folkright.
The ancient constitution of the kingdom is not the source of
the civil rights of the people of the nation, but is instead a
consequence of the pre-existence of those rights in the people.
The folkright was originally the product of the settlement of
England by various Germanic tribes, each of which had its own
laws and customs. The idea that the king would govern by folkright
derived from the evolution of a single king of all Englishmen,
who was duty bound to govern each people according to its own
laws and customs. Thus the Kentishmen were governed by the laws
of Kent, and the people of Wessex would be governed by the laws
of Wessex, until the Norman Conquest forcefully unified the whole
country, leading to the evolution of common law. Common law absorbed
the local customs and laws of the folk, and the idea of the folkright
came to represent the rights the whole English people inherited
from ancestral tradition. Unlike normal inheritance where a descendant
inherits a tangible property of an ancestor, by folkright the
whole people, as individuals, inherit the right
to be governed by their own laws and customs which devolved from
their ancestors as a nation.
No one can reasonably argue that a republic does not exist in
North America: the slavemasters who imposed it upon the United
States saw to it that their dominion over their slaves, tenants,
women and children would remain secure. But as a matter of fact
the ancient kingdom could not be entirely swept away, despite
a bloody, violent war, which polarized the American people, the
effects of which have survived to this day. The principles of
the common law have been so entrenched in America that every attempt
to deprive the people of their rights by the republic has met
with strong popular resistance. The reason the rhetoric of the
Revolution and the republic focused on the "rights of the
people," was to confuse the people, so as to head off popular
resistance before it could get up a full head of steam. Behind
the rhetoric, of course, was the armed force of General Washington,
who never shrunk from using that force against his fellow Americans.
In contrast to the constitution of the republic, which was enacted
on a single day by an assembly of politicians, the ancient unwritten
constitution of the native kingdom is an accumulation of judgments
of courts, customs, precedents, statutes, treaties, conventions,
and even the writings and scholarship of statesmen. While the
republic was instituted due to a single enactment, the kingdom
existed due to the operation of common law, which could not be
repealed. The common law governed the daily practices of the
multitude, even after the inauguration of the republic formally
set out an unconstitutional methodology for making law by the
Congress and the President. The republic defined law as the enactments
of legislatures, instead of as a product of the community through
the operation of custom. This effectively stripped people of
their inalienable rights which devolve by folkright, instead vesting
the law-making power - improperly and illegally
- in assemblies of politicians. While Americans labor under the
idea that they possess ancestral rights, the courts, legislatures,
presidents, governors, mayors, and especially the police of the
republic, disregard the original birthright of the people, in
favor of the statutes enacted by the institutions of the republic.
The only problem for the advocates of the republic is that they
- like all good citizens - are not entitled to pick and
choose what laws they shall obey. And the republic, regardless
of protests to the contrary, was originated due to the selective
choices of its founders, who imagined themselves to be above the
law. The founders set aside the institutions of law they did
not like, such as the institution of the kingship, rigidly bound
by the rule of law, in favor of a system of corporations they
invented, so that government would thereafter serve as their puppet.
No matter how hard advocates of the republic argue, it remains
a fact that law is not a product of the arbitrary actions of a
few powerful tycoons, but of the consensus of the human community
by a process of trial and error. Presidents are little more than
dictators, policemen with the window-dressing of majesty, which
they can never possess because their office was born from a breach
of the law.
The principles of law which survived the usurpation of the Founding
Fathers, state forthrightly that the fruits of crime cannot be
regarded as lawful. Thus by the terms of its own law, the republic
can NEVER be anything other than the product of an illegal conspiracy
to accomplish an illegal end, namely: the overthrow of the constituted
and established government of the American king. Thus the kingdom
remains, even if it has had to live on without a king. In the
phraseology of the law when a kingdom is without a king, the people
of the nation are compelled to endure an "interregnum."
This takes place in the form of a "constructive trust."
A constructive trust is created not by the specific action of
individuals, but as a consequence of the operation of law, as
a "construction" due to events.
In the case of the creation of the republic, the constituted and
established traditional government of the American king - which,
contrary to the version of history taught in U.S. schools, had
been widely accepted in North America - had to be overthrown,
which is an illegal purpose. The consequence of
this, regardless of the conspiracies of individuals to substitute
their own rules for the rule of law, was to place the Crown and
the native kingdom in abeyance, which means a condition of an
estate when there is no person in whom it is vested. As a result,
the Crown of the American people was placed by operation of law
in a constructive trust, until that time that a claimant to it
fulfilled the prerequisites of the law, by which the Crown would
be restored. As to what that prerequisite consists of, according
to long-established principles the right to succeed to the throne
can be determined by a lawfully convened parliament representing
all the people of the nation.
To be valid a parliament must be summoned by the writ of the king;
however, in 1660 the throne was restored after an interregnum,
setting a precedent that a convention parliament may settle the
royal title upon a claimant, who thereupon may summon a regular
parliament, which can validate the restoration statutes of the
convention parliament. Due to the Glorious Revolution of 1688
and the enactment of the true Bill of Rights of
1689, the parliament of the nation became the sole repository
of the right to settle the succession to the Crown, and was acknowledged
as possessing the power to depose a king who violates his coronation
oath. Furthermore, the claimant to the throne may summon a lawful
parliament, which by an Act of Parliament may settle the succession
on the claimant, a precedent which occurred in the succession
of King William and Queen Mary.
The Kingdom of the United States of America still remains as the
aboriginal form of the American Nation. The republic is but a
thin veneer, sitting atop the foundation of the ancient constitution
of the Kingdom, which can never be repealed by any process of
law. The difference between the republic and the native, ancestral
kingdom of common law, is that the republic is a police state
which has its existence in the halls of Congress, the White House,
Governors Mansions, State Capitols, County Courthouses, and police
stations of the republic, whereas the native kingdom of the American
Nation lives on in the hearts of the American people. The republic
could no more abolish the ancient native kingdom, than death could
abolish the love of a child for a mother or a father. No matter
how much violence is visited upon the American people by the republic
and its police and prisons, it can never separate the people from
their sentiments for their God-given common law rights to freedom,
justice and mercy in their native land.
The once and forever kingdom. 
|
|