The e-mail response concerning question regarding the case of Dixon v United States (1811).
This is a straight up admiralty case where no common law can intervene.
Why they talk about common law is to bolster the myth. Read assignment - Blacks 4th page 153 and breach on page 235. It gets too complicated from here on out if one does not know admiralty, to explain.
I had a hard time following the beginning as it’s not clear who made the contract with the United States because a license was involved that muddies the waters. Looks like the United States reneged its obligations? I have no clue as the courts were not yet set up, as they are now until 1813 so you could get more detail. “Between 1789 and 1812, it may be said that the growth of American law was largely due to lawyers and Judges who molded it” Charles Warren, History of the American Bar. This is why details do not appear in court writings as they do today. You have to second guess at most everything.
The first case before the Supreme court was 1791 and never heard. Here in Dixon it was a Norfolk Va. Circuit Court, not titled the Supreme court hearing the case with Justice Marshall hearing the case in circuit court only. Ever wonder why? There is not one mention of this case in Warrens Bar book as he wrote every one of importance. Read embargo in Black’s 4th, page 614. Usually it’s during war.
A bond issued then between what parties is not clear as I read it. I got lost after the third page but that’s how they operated courts back then. So my take, with next to no information, is there was an embargo by the US and the bond was meaningless. But the common law was the English Common law, that all despised. Read Warren on the History of the American Bar. Man, they are mixing and matching whenever they can to confuse the issue. This is confusing just trying to explain to people that have no legal background whatsoever. The court constantly says “it Seems” with no law to back up the “it seems”. It’s a total boondoggle and mostly all Dicta. I don’t see conclusions of law anywhere, but for the US was in a war. Sure was because the British troops never left till after the war of 1812.
Ok, so I looked at page 180 the fifth page as you said. Sure the United States was a corporation of the big three as it was just the Virginia Company with a new name called the United States. As the court stated the United States is a fiction, a figment of the mind that physically does not exist except in men’s minds as written on a piece of paper just as Lysander Spooner said. Being no common man’s signature appeared on the corporation charter is where the Big three screwed up and the court was clueless with a lot of “it seems”. I see how, when the big three created the United States out of the Virginia company there were lost as to particulars just as they were to the presidents holding office when they constitutionally did not and could not meet the parameters of the requirements for the President all the way to Tyler who was the first president to meet the requirements. That’s in the book also to the “T”.
That’s why the court of the Pope is all screwed up when they said the people created the corporation when it was nonsense. It was the King, the Pope and the Bank, period that created the corporation known as the United States from the corporation already existing called the Virginia Company.
This was so new a venture to them that they were all messed up as to what to do while plying the myth they had to concoct that the common man somehow created this and hide the fact THEY did it. Hummm, war going on in 1811? Yup and the people thought they won the war? It was just ramping up for the war of 1812. You just don’t start a war overnight as it takes planning and that’s why an embargo was implemented just before the war of 1812. This case was predicated and ruled on a lot of “it seems”.
Can you now see how screwed up they were in arguing the Dixon case? They could not keep their story straight in a court case. That’s why the Treaty of Peace was made in 1783 right? So who was the United States Corporation at war with? I don’t know, maybe the men from Mars? As I say there is a ton of errors you can catch in this one, when you know who owns the United States belonging to America the country. They do use the word “OF” between States and America don’t they? And “OF” means belonging to, correct? So the corporation, United States, belongs IN the country of America. That’s all it means. So there is this fiction rummaging around in a country called America that finally settled in a place called Washington, D.C., another fiction that they bought up in 1824. A figment of men’s mind that’s all. Now to prove this the Informer put two cases in his book proving that the fiction can write corporate law, still yet another fiction, and are restrained from allowing the United States (The Pope, King and Bank) to be sued in any statute unless the big three agree. But they sure can put the screws to the common man. Those cases were 1873 and 1999 that explicitly states it. The Informer has argued for 20 years the United States was a corporation way before 1871 like a lot of ignorant patriots claim and they still claim it was created in 1871. Not so. The Informer has the actual documents showing the United States, a corporation that absorbed the bankruptcy of Georgetown, Alexandria, Washington, corporations by buying them out and owning them also. Now where did 76 men, Congress, come up with that money when they didn’t have enough to repay war debts as history reads? They were all incorporated as the Virginia Company by the King in 1609. So the Pope, King, Bank, A.K.A. United States, bought up the corporations that went bankrupt. The Patriot is a very ignorant lot, for the want of a better word, imbeciles while some are morons. Congress are idiots. Hey, tell it as tell is, don’t go pussy-footing around to make them look good. Shoe fits, wear it I say. The pecking order is from Source PEDIATRICS Vol. 10 No. 2 August 1952, pp. 223-230
Statement to the email by another researcher:
Have been thinking about what you brought up here. Yes, Tyler would be the first President of the United States but there is a key in the Constitution. Yes, the Constitution did not and could not exist, nor could the States ratify but to put the Constitution in proper perspective I think it should be called a position paper as it shows the Pope as the Principle. The Constitution mentions the President of the United States a number of times, the more important ones being dealings with the Senate, oath of office, Commander in Chief, etc.
But it does mention the President of the United States of America only once in the capacity of executive power, this being the Presidents position as the principle agent of the Pope over the land and as the head of the Pope’s ecclesiastical courts. So we have two Presidents, one under the Pope and one as President of the counsel of the Virginia Co. – Congress.
When you look at monetary awards for tax cases its all I.R.personel and those involved with prosecution except for the President. Makes no sense until one understands its all under him.
Its a very very clever paper, very east to get of point. In Article VII it states the Independence of the United States of America. Independent under the Pope, key word being and, also Independence being capitalized.
As you see here I have had a change of mind. United States of America v. whoever. I had thought United States of America was Congress, then I went with “The City” I.E. the Counsel in London. I believe it’s the President directly as the Pope’s Principle agent, yes it the Bank of England – Fed. Reserve Treasury etc., but it has to go through the President, this way the Pope stays in charge as it all goes back to the land, no land, no Virginia Co., no United States, no Congress, no States & so on, a good way to present it to someone who can’t quite get it.