The United States is Still a British Colony

Footnote #12
"When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the Senators and Representatives from the 25 northern States voted to deny seats in both Houses of Congress to anyone elected from the 11 southern States. The full complement of Senators from the 36 States of the Union was 72, and the full membership in the House was 240. Since it requires only a majority vote (see Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) to refuse a seat in Congress, only the 50 Senators and 182 Congressmen from the North were seated. All of the 22 Senators and 58 Representatives from the southern States were denied seats."

"Joint Resolution No. 48, proposing the Fourteenth Amendment, was a matter of great concern to the Congress and to the people of the Nation. In order to have this proposed Amendment submitted to the 36 States for ratification, it was necessary that two thirds of each house concur. A count of noses showed that only 33 Senators were favorable to the measure, and 33 was a far cry from two thirds of 72 and lacked one of being two thirds of the 50 seated Senators."

"While it requires only a majority of votes to refuse a seat to a Senator, it requires a two thirds majority to unseat a member once he is seated. (see Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the United States."

"One John P. Stockton was seated on December 5, 1865, as one of the Senators from New Jersey. He was outspoken in his opposition to Joint Resolution No. 48 proposing the Fourteenth Amendment. The leadership in the Senate, not having control of two thirds of the seated Senators, voted to refuse to seat Mr. Stockton upon the ground that he had received only a plurality and not a majority of the votes of the New Jersey legislature. It was the law of New Jersey, and several other States, that a plurality vote was sufficient for election. Besides, the Senator had already been seated. Nevertheless, his seat was refused [Editor's emphasis] and the 33 favorable votes thus became the required two thirds of the 49 members of the Senate."

"In the House of Representatives it would require 122 votes to be two thirds of the 182 members seated. Only 120 voted for the proposed Amendment, but because there were 30 abstentions it was declared to have been passed by a two thirds vote of the House." Dyett v. Turner 439 p2d 266 @ 269, 20 U2d 403

Footnote #13
James Franklin Montgomery
C/O 100 Bridlewood Road
High Point, North Carolina
District Attorney
RANDY LYON
County of Wilkes
State of North Carolina

ACCEPTANCE REFUSED FOR CAUSE, WITHOUT DISHONOR

To whom it may concern,
I, James Franklin Montgomery, do hereby make this ACCEPTANCE REFUSED FOR CAUSE , WITHOUT DISHONOR OF the Traffic Citation, 7587232-1.
CAUSE

1. My Declaration of separation as of January 1, 1993, (part of which is contained in the attached document) was not disputed by the UNITED STATES or any of its political subdivisions et al, when presented to them, thereby denying any STATE of the UNION to use its Mala Prohibita statutes to claim dominion over James Franklin Montgomery. James Franklin Montgomery is not one in contract with the UNITED STATES or any of the STATES united in UNION carrying the misnomer of JAMES FRANKLIN MONTGOMERY, corporate fiction, which would then amount to crimes by all parties in this action of forcible trespass, extortion, peonage, involuntary servitude and other Title 18 and Title 42 crimes. Any actions of any party mentioned above or others is now considered forced peonage and involuntary servitude, which also includes forced driving license, license or registration of any kind of property that subverts a right by changing it into a privilege and charging for it, which subjects those to Title 18 U.S.C. 1581, 1584 and 42 U.S.C. 1994 and other statutes of their own making that they are bound by their oath to their constitutions.

"...What is peonage? It may be defined as a status or condition of compulsory service, based upon the indebtedness of the peon to the master. The basal fact is indebtedness....Peonage is sometimes classified as voluntary or involuntary, but this implies simply a difference in the mode of origin, but none in the character of the servitude. The one exists where the debtor voluntarily contracts to enter the service of his creditor. The other is forced upon the debtor by some provision of law." Clyatt v. United States 197 U.S. Reports @ page 215

2. The First Constitutional Assembly, 7/25/1774, stated sovereignty reverts to the individual people, also stated in the North Carolina Constitution of 1776. James Franklin Montgomery denies waiving this sovereignty as the Treaty signers had no right to sell James Franklin Montgomery into peonage making him a subject of the Crown or citizen of the united States through the 1787 Constitution/ compact/treaty.

In 1776 North Carolina state declared the inhabitants to be freeman and; 12. "That no freeman ought to be taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed or exiled, or in any manner destroyed, or deprived of his life, liberty or property, but by the law of the land." Declaration of Rights1776

44. "That the declaration of rights is hereby declared to be part of the Constitution of this state, and ought never to be violated on any pretence whatsoever." North Carolina Constitution 1776

In the following court case you will see, that in the Paris Treaty of 1783, the King did not cede to the states or the United States government Title for this land, he did grant sovereignty to the states; and left finial determination of the inhabitants up to the states. The King's Treaty of 1783 made the freeman status of the inhabitants retroactive from 1776, declared by the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of Rights of the individual states. In 1787 the states sent representatives to the Constitutional convention to ratify the new treaty between the states, otherwise known as the Constitution of the United States. Unknown to the inhabitants of the states several things took place. The Treaty was an incorporation and created the United States government; and incorporated the states creating the State of....; the Treaty also incorporated the inhabitant. No longer were they freeman, now they became citizens of the United States. (The word of means belonging to, see Blacks Law dictionary.)

"Being dissatisfied with the measures of the British Government, they revolted from it, assumed the government into their own hands, seized and took possession of all the estates of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, appropriated them to their own use, and defended their possessions against the claims of Great Britain, during a long and bloody war, and finally obtained a relinquishment of those claims by the treaty of Paris. But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the King of Great Britain and his subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State was not the original grantor to them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or owe it any allegiance or other duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the lands in this case naturally result back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it never issued, and from tenants who never held under it?....At the time of the revolution, and before the Declaration of Independence, the collective body of the people had neither right to nor possession of the territory of this State; it is true some individuals had a right to, and were in possession of certain portions of it, which they held under grants from the King of Great Britain; but they did not hold, nor did any of his subjects hold, under the collective body of the people, who had no power to grant any part of it. After the Declaration of Independence and the establishment of the Constitution, the people may be said first to have taken possession of this country, at least so much of it as was not previously appropriated to individuals.....Therefore, whether the State took by right of conquest or escheat, all the interest which the UK had previous to the Declaration of Independence still remained with them, on every principle of law and equity, because they are purchasers for a valuable consideration, and being in possession as cestui que trust under the statute for transferring uses into possession; and citizens of this State, at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and at the time of making the declaration of rights, their interest is secured to them beyond the reach of any Act of Assembly; neither can it be affected by any principle arising from the doctrine of escheats, supposing, what I do not admit, that the State took by escheat." MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A. 70

The General Assembly of North Carolina had no authority or standing to change my legal status from sovereign to a corporate fiction. Americans have been defrauded into believing they are free, because they have freedom of movement within obvious legislative boundaries; while unknown to them by their incorporation, they were again made subjects of the King. The below quotes from the 1663 Carolina Charter reveal why the court stated in Marshall v. Loveless that the corporate States and the created corporation, United States did not have Title to this land.

The King retained Title and interest through his original Charters and managed to see that his Title and Grants/Charters were preserved in the 1776 North Carolina Constitution; read the following.

"And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect The titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under The laws heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords Proprietors, or any of them." Section 25, Declaration of Rights 1776, North Carolina Constitution

"SAVING always, the Faith, Allegiance, and Sovereign Dominion due to us, our Heirs and Successors, for the same; and Saving also, the right, title, and interest of all and every our Subjects of the English Nation which are now Planted within the Limits bounds aforesaid, if any be;..." The Carolina Charter, 1663

"KNOW YE, that We, of our further grace, certain knowledge, and mere motion, HAVE thought fit to Erect the same Tract of Ground, Country, and Island into a Province, and, out of the fullness of our Royal power and Prerogative, WE Do, for us, our Heirs and Successors, Erect, Incorporate, and Ordain the same into a province, and do call it the Province of CAROLINA, and so from henceforth will have it called..." The Carolina Charter 1663

The below court cases make it clear your presence in the corporate State of....creates legal residence and obligation to the King.

"Headnote 5. Besides, the treaty of 1783 was declared by an Act of Assembly of this State passed in 1787, to be law in this State, and this State by adopting the Constitution of the United States in 1789, declared the treaty to be the supreme law of the land. The treaty now under consideration was made, on the part of the United States, by a Congress composed of deputies from each state, to whom were delegated by the Articles of Confederation, expressly, "the sole and exclusive right and power of entering into treaties and alliances;" and being ratified and made by them, it became a complete national act, and the act and law of every state....

"By an act of the Legislature of North Carolina, passed in April, 1777, it was, among other things, enacted, "That all persons, being subjects of this State, and now living therein, or who shall hereafter come to live therein, who have traded immediately to Great Britain or Ireland, within ten years last past, in their own right, or acted as factors, storekeepers, or agents here, or in any of the United States of America, for merchants residing in Great Britain or Ireland, shall take an oath of abjuration and allegiance, or depart out of the State." Treaties are the "Law of the Land" HAMILTON v. EATEN, 1 N.C. 641 (1796), HAMILTON v. EATEN. Ä 2 Mart., 1. U.S. Circuit Court. (June Term, 1796.)

"Our Legislature may define and punish crimes committed within the State, whether by citizen or strangers; because the former are supposed to have consented to all laws made by the Legislature, and the latter, whether their residence be temporary or permanent, do impliedly agree to yield obedience to all such laws as long as they remain in the State;" STATE v. KNIGHT, 1 N.C. 143 (1799), 2 S.A. 70

My January 1, 1993 declaration which noticed all relevant parties, including the State of North Carolina, has stood unchallenged from that time, I chose to depart from the corporate State, thereby un-incorporating myself, rather than be apart of a fraudulent system bent on self-destruction, and a system which enslaves the inhabitants by peonage, using the tools of debt, taxation, and contract.. James Franklin Montgomery has never intentionally, knowingly or voluntarily, contracted to create a legal resident/fiction. Blackstone made it perfectly clear in his commentaries how this court procedure takes place under such conditions. This is why the first thing that is done in court is the naming of the person/corporation; read the following.

"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.....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. Blackstone Commentaries Book III, pg 1553

PEONAGE BY FINANCIAL SERVITUDE
BANKRUPTCY
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 amount to about $250 billion, and it is estimated that there is about $50 billion of which there is no record, making in all about $300 billion of public and private debts. The total physical cash value of all the property in the United States is now estimated at about $70 billion. 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 billion with only $70 billiom?" Congressional Record, March 3, 1934

Congressman Traficant said on the House floor, March 17,1993 that:
"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the US government."
On March 10, 1933 President Roosevelt ordered that all Americans had to turn in their Gold, which moved our gold assets to the Bank of England, as part of the bankruptcy and new extension of this Nations credit, through Federal Reserve notes based on the all property of this Nation, and labor of every American.

This was done by Presidential Executive Order, 6073 and the subsequent Executive Orders, 6102, 6111 and 6260 [these documents are still publicly attainable in any federal depository library]
"I want to show you where the people are being imposed upon by reason of the delegation of this tremendous power. I invite your attention to the fact that section 16 of the Federal Reserve Act provides that whenever the Government of the United States issues and delivers money, Federal Reserve Notes, which are based on the credit of the Nation--they represent a mortgage upon your home and my home, and upon all the property of all the people of the Nation, to the Federal Reserve agent, an interest charge shall be collected for the Government." Congressional Record, Congressman Patman March 13, 1933

"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called 'ownership' is only by virtue of government, i.e., law, amounting to a mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." Senate Document No. 43, "Contracts payable in Gold" written in 1933.

The United States government and its sub-corporations, States of.....are operating under color of law, under emergency rule, outside of the United States Constitution, as stated in the following quote from the Senate. See also, Harvard Law Review, insular cases.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property, organize and control the means of production, seize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute martial law, seize and control all transportation and communication, regulate the operation of private enterprise, restrict travel, and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November 19, 1973

The Bankruptcy of 1933 and the taxation which created social obligation for every American is financial servitude, which is in violation of United States law Title 18 U.S.C. 1581, 1584 and 42 U.S.C. 1994. The King has been using the American courts to recover his loses. When in the district courts (admiralty courts) the King is plaintiff, he comes against you in the body of his corporations, State or federal. The money demanded from his incorporated persons/corporations after they are correctly named, is taxation without representation, a collection of the King's debt. Therefore, all parties are not before the court which denies procedural due process and notification of who the true plaintiff is. The Officer is not the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff has not made an affidavit of truth that James Franklin Montgomery has committed a crime or civil cause for the court to gain jurisdiction. Our courts are based on the English courts with few exceptions, the district and tax courts were called courts of Exchequer.

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.

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 (fiscal rights). Black Stone Commentaries Book III, pg 1554

The Department of Motor Vehicles was put under the direction and control of the Revenue Department by the Act of 1933, chapter 214 - S.B 238, thereby the primary concern is that of being revenue collectors.

"AN ACT TO TRANSFER THE STATE HIGHWAY PATROL FROM THE HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE...."

"It is not contrary to justice that . . . America should contribute towards the discharge of the public debt of Great Britain. . . . a government to which several of the colonies of America owe their present charters, and consequently their present Constitution; and to which all the colonies of America owe the liberty, security, and property which they have ever since enjoyed. That public debt has been contracted in the defense, not of Great Britain alone, but of all the different provinces of the empire; the immense debt contracted in the late war in particular, and a great part of that contracted in the war before, were both properly contracted in defense of America. . . The Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith, 1776

Purgatory Oath
"An oath by which a person purges or clears himself from presumptions, charges or suspicions standing against him, or from a contempt." Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th ed.

The Acceptance Refused for Cause, Without Dishonor is to be considered my Purgatory Oath along with my previous January 1, 1993 declaration, which shows my consistent mind set and conviction.

Refusal to dispute the above or silent acquiescence within a ten day period from your receipt of this document will show a fault and the court on its own recognizance will vitiate the traffic citation. Failure to do this will be admissions that the parties and the court is involved in forcible trespass on the Case, extortion, via Highway Robbery and forced peonage and involuntary servitude.

Mark Twain: "...To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags, that is a loyalty of unreason; it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy; was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it. I was from Connecticut, whose Constitution declared "That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit, and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefensible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they think expedient." Under that gospel, the citizen who thinks that the Commonwealth's political clothes are worn out and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate, anyway, and it is the duty of others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does." Congressional Record, April 9, 1934
Year of Our Lord, April Twenty Fifth, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety Seven.
James Franklin Montgomery
C/O 100 Bridlewood Road
High Point, North Carolina
President of the United States,
The Executive Branch,
Congress of the United States,
Senate of the United States
January 1, 1993

Dear Sirs,
A long chain of events in the UNGODLY (federal) United States government's policies, as evidenced by the statutory laws it passes and agreements, treaties entered into with foreign countries has prompted this letter. Evidence of the God this government is subject to is in the laws its representatives promote and pass. The United States government no longer abides by or adheres to God's Laws.1

Thereby changing the original intent of the Forefathers, which was to establish a government that would promote commerce, at the same time protect the inalienable rights of the sovereign Citizens of the several States and bind the hands of government.

While restricting the powers of government with laws based on the English common law, which is based on Biblical Law.

The evidence is overwhelming that our Forefathers intended this country's government to be based on biblical Laws.2....

....It was not the intention of the Forefathers to give Congress the exclusive control of the territories, without being in subjection to the Constitution. The words in the forementioned document have been twisted, obscured and maligned by lawyers, judges, and the special interest of Congress where applicable to the corporation, this is a conflict of interest, which has made it possible for the abuse of power and fraud, past
and present.

Through undue influence and concealment you have created a title of Nobility for the bankrupt corporation and it's Citizens giving you unlimited resources to enforce this fraud, via illiterate and duped citizen subjects who pay for their own enslavement.

As a result of your concealment of information from the American people and through your changing the meaning of the Constitution of the United States, via lawyers, Supreme Court Judges who make substantive decisions based on their special interest and a executive branch controlled by foreign agents (World Bank), you have enslaved the American people.
Citing 17 Am Jur 2d 501 on Contracts:
{151}. Fraud, misrepresentation, or imposition.

In regard to contracts made by parties affecting their rights and interests. The general theory of the law is that there must be full and free consent. It is said that if consent is obtained by meditated imposition or that if consent is obtained by meditated imposition or circumvention, it is to be treated as a delusion, and not as a deliberate and free act of the mind. Although the law will not generally inquire into men's acts and contracts to determine whether they are wise and prudent, yet it will not suffer them to be entrapped by the fraudulent contrivances or cunning or deceitful management of those who purposely mislead them. Fraud is material to a contract where the contract would not have been made if the fraud had not been perpetrated...

{152}. Inducing execution of contract by one not knowing its contents.

According to the prevailing view, the general rule that failure to read or have a contract read to a party thereto before signing it precludes him from complaining about its contents does not apply in the case of fraud or misrepresentation, as where he is prevented from reading it or having it read to him by some fraud, trick, artifice, or device by the other party. If a person is ignorant of the contents of a written contract and signs it under a mistaken belief, induced by misrepresentation, that it is an instrument of a different character, without negligence on his part, the agreement is void. This rule may be brought into play by silence, as where it amounts to a misrepresentation of what a person is asked to sign by failing to speak when there is a duty to explain the contents of the instrument. However, the decisions are not entirely in accord in reference to the effect of a contract by which he has been overreached. Thus, the question whether one who signs a contract without reading it is so far concluded that he cannot set up that his signature was induced by a fraudulent misrepresentation as to its contents has received varying answers.

{153}. Duress, coercion, intimidation, or threats.

Freedom of will is essential to the validity of an agreement. Where duress is exerted on one of the parties of such a kind as to overcome his will and compel a formal assent to an undertaking when he does not really agree to it, and so as to make that appear to be his act which is not his, but another's imposed on him through fear which deprives him of self-control, the agreement is not binding unless the other deals with him in good faith, in ignorance of the improper influence and in the belief that the party coerced is not exercising his free will, and the test is not so much the means by which the party is compelled to execute the agreement as the state of mind induced.

Compulsion produced by threats may be sufficient to destroy free agency and prevent the formation of a binding contract. To invalidate an agreement, however, as a general rule a threat must be of such a nature and made under such circumstances as to constitute a reasonable and adequate cause to control the will.

{155}. Generally
...At no time in the history of the common law have agreements in violation of law been allowed to stipulate for iniquity. The law which prohibits the end will not lend its aid in promoting the means designed to carry it into effect. It will not promote in one form that which it declares wrong in another, and hence contracts which bring about results which the law seeks to prevent are unenforceable.... It may, therefore, be said to be a fundamental principle of the law of contracts that a contract must have a lawful purpose or object, and that transactions in violation of law cannot be made the foundation of a valid contract.

The government by becoming a corporator, (See: 22 U.S.C.A. 286e) lays down its sovereignty and takes on that of a private citizen. It can exercise no power which is not derived from the corporate charter. (See: The Bank of the United States vs. Planters Bank of Georgia, 6 L. Ed. (9 Wheat) 244, U.S. vs. Burr, 309 U.S. 242).

Such principles as "Fraud and Justice never dwell together" Wingate's Maxims 680, and "A right of action cannot arise out of fraud." Broom's Maxims 297, 729; 38 Fed. 800.

The present operation of the "de facto" government is under Foreign and Alien Constitutions, Laws, Rules, and Regulations.

Through treaties and agreements (The U.N. Charter and G.A.T.T. and others) the United States has forfeited its Sovereignty and the Sovereignty of the States, making the United States citizen subject to a foreign Power. Since the implementation of these treaties and agreements, entered into as a result of the privilege of borrowing money from the World Bank, to continue the operation of the bankrupt United States government, the United States has been enlisted in collecting the debt for the World Bank. This debt has been drastically increased by the use of fiat money which has no substance, because there is no gold or silver to back the Federal Reserve Notes. This unlawful money has caused thousands of bankruptcies and repossessions, fraudulently perpetrated by the government of the United States and the World Bank. Since 1933 Congress and the other representatives have committed high treason against the people they are sworn to protect. Congress and the Executive branch have sold out the American people for (thirty pieces of silver) the furtherance of the corporation.

Congress and the executive branch have willfully and purposely auctioned off the assets of the American people. The selling off of America's assets was made possible by the President, in Executive Order 12803 of April 30, 1992, entitled Infrastructure Privatization. In the Executive Order you have defined the title of this treasonous act, which has been done as a result of the fraud you the government (representatives) have perpetuated.

In section 1. (a) it says "Privatization" means the disposition or transfer of an infrastructure asset, such as by sale or by long-term lease, from a State or local government to a private party.

In sub-paragraph (b) the Infrastructure Assets are defined. Obviously the usury the World Bank has been receiving from the American people (unconscionable citizen subjects) is not enough, now the World Bank is foreclosing on the United States and wants the land and the assets to pay the national debt.

Here is the definition of sub-paragraph (b)
"Infrastructure asset" means any asset financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government and needed for the functioning of the economy. Examples of such assets include, but are not limited to: roads, tunnels, bridges, electricity supply facilities, mass transit, rail transportation, airports, ports, waterways, water supply facilities, recycling and wastewater treatment facilities, solid waste disposal facilities, housing, schools, prisons, and hospitals."

Through the ignorant volunteered compliance of the American people, as a result of the deceit and fraud of the United States government (representatives) you have enslaved the American people. The corporation created this debt through mismanagement and deceit, the corporation (representatives) should be responsible for this debt and it's actions. Instead it involves the American people through deceit, trickery, duress, withheld information, and coercion so the corporation (United States) can continue it's operation which, defrauds the American people in the most treasonous and treacherous way ever recorded in history.

The Treasury Delegation Order No. 92 states that the I.R.S. is trained under direction of the Division of "Human Resources" (U.N.) and the Commissioner (International), by the "office of personnel Management."

In the 1979 Edition of 22 U.S.C.A. 287, the United Nations, at pg. 248, you will find Executive order No. 10422. The Office of Personnel Management is under direction of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

The I.R.S. is also a member in a one hundred fifty nation pact called the "International Criminal Police Organization," found at 22 U.S.C.A. 263a.

The "Memorandum & Agreement" between the Secretary of Treasury/Corporate Governor of "The Fund" and "The Bank" and the office of the US Attorney General would indicate that the Attorney General and his associates are soliciting and collecting information for Foreign Principals. The offices of Secretary of State, Secretary of Treasury and the Attorney General whereby the whole of the government has been compromised and the trust of the United States citizens violated.

As Robert Bork said "we are governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own."

Because of the bankruptcy of the United States and international contracts and or agreements interred into, the common law was replaced by the Uniform Commercial Code and or admiralty jurisdiction otherwise known as statutory jurisdiction. This treasonous act has taken place for the sake of commerce and in order to do so common law had to be rendered to no effect or at least extremely hard to obtain in Federal Court. The bankruptcy of the United States caused through compelled performance, the following case.

"There is no Federal Common Law, and Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State, whether they be local or general in their nature, be they commercial law or a part of the law or torts." (See: Erie Railroad Co. vs Tomkins, 304 U.S. 64, 82 L.Ed 1188)

The fifty States are now federal states by treaties and covenants (U.N. treaty & G.A.T.T. and other agreements) making the federal states and their citizens (tort feasor's) subject to the World Bank. The people of America are being drained of their wealth via I.M.F and the I.R.S. to repay the Bank's usury.

The following are excerpts from the INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS.102d Congress 2d Session, Exec. Rept. 102-23 January 30,1992

The Covenant states expressly that obligations undertaken by the Parties extend to all parts of federal states "without limitations or exceptions." (See: page six #5 obligations of Federal States I.C.C.P.R. January 30, 1992).

The Constitution of the United States no longer exists as a working document due to the bankrupt de facto corporation, and as a result of treaties and covenants made with foreign entities, as a result of accepted privileges by the United States government
and the States.

The fifty States are no longer Sovereign individual Jurisdictions subject to God Almighty.10

In 1934 the States became sureties for the bankrupt United States. After the United States joined the United Nations in 1945 the fifty States became federal states belonging to the one world government, it's citizens are slaves and valuable only as long as they can produce labor and products for sale on the world market.

During the negotiation of the Covenant, the "federal state" issue assumed some importance because there were legally justified practices, at the State and local level, which were both manifestly inconsistent with the Covenant and beyond the reach of Federal authority under the law in force at that time; that is no longer the case. (See: page 18 I.C.C.P.R.)

The proposed understanding is similarly intended to signal to our treaty partners that the United States will implement its obligations under the Covenant by appropriate legislative, executive and judicial means, federal or state as appropriate, and that the Federal Government will remove any federal inhibition to the States' abilities to meet their obligations. (See: page 18 I.C.C.P.R.)

Nothing in this Covenant requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States. (See: page 24 I.C.C.P.R.)

You have committed high treason against America's people and thought to elevate yourselves above God Almighty. Through lies and false information, coercion and duress you have enslaved a free people, through despotism and for the love of money you have changed the laws to support your usury and corruption. You have broken the covenant entered into with the American people. You have entered into covenants with foreign agents and governments making you unable through these compromising covenants to protect the American Citizens freedom and property.

I do not wish to be a party to the fraud perpetrated by the United States, so I hereby give notice with accompanying affidavit of the removal of all unqualified signatures and power of attorney. Thereby removing my signature from all papers, instruments and chattels implying oblation to the nation's debt created by the fraud of the United States corporation. The violation of God's Laws and the elimination of the common law, adhered to and established as the law of the land by the Forefathers leaves no right or recourse in the federal courts and or federal state courts. Thereby freeing this informed citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven of any obligation and or torts as a result of tacit admissions implying obligation or responsibility, voluntary or involuntary contracts made with the defunct government of the United States, thereby relieving me from any obligation from said government.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[10] Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said to him, "Get behind Me, Satan! For it is written, 'You shall worship the LORD your God, and Him only you shall serve.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
As practiced by the Senate and Congress of the United States, I, James Franklin Montgomery reserve the right to revise and extend any and all remarks made in this document of declaration.
I, James Franklin Montgomery declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing declaration of status is true and correct.
James Franklin Montgomery Date
Sui Juris, Jure Divino, Jura Sanguinis
Ambassador of the Kingdom of Heaven
CC: Secretary of State
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
Attorney General
Members of the House
Members of the Senate
Secretary of Treasury
Chairman of Banking Committee
Secretary of Commerce

REMOVAL OF UNQUALIFIED SIGNATURES AND POWER OF ATTORNEY
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I, James Franklin Montgomery, with my presence being in Guilford County, North Carolina state, but not of the corporate body politic of either, and being born into the American Republic and not in the District of Columbia or any of its territories. I, hereby remove any unqualified signature and power of attorney on the following documents, but not limited to my birth certificate and my application for a social security number for the following reasons listed below, and any and all documents of incorporation implying 14th Amendment citizenship.
1. Having been made a ward of the State and federal government without my permission, because of my parents being mislead into obtaining a birth certificate for their son.
2. Having been mislead as a teenager by persons of authority, government agencies, public school teachers, government sponsored adds and IRS instructed tax paying businesses, who said adamantly that I had to have a social security number to work. I then obtained a social security number so I could work, without any knowledge of the fact that this made me a contributor of the national debt and equally responsible for its repayment.

Now of my own right and not under any legal disability, or the power of another, or guardianship, I do hereby remove, all unqualified signatures on any instruments and any express or implied power of attorney therewith. In fact or assumption, signed either by me or anyone acting as my agent, or legal guardian, or unsigned, as it pertains to documents implying 14th Amendment citizenship, which were created by the United States government acting in its questionable insular capacity. Due to the use of various elements of fraud and misrepresentation, duress, coercion, mistake, bankruptcy, by said agencies/entities, I hereby cancel, repudiate and refuse to accept any benefit, franchises and or privileges attached to the above mentioned socialist agreements, but not limited to the birth certificate and social security number.

I make void for lack of good faith and notice on the part of the United States government, any and all unqualified signatures implying 14th Amendment citizenship.

I, James Franklin Montgomery, do hereby remove, annul, withdraw, abrogate, recant, negate, delete, nullify, expunge, cancel, repudiate, disavow, renounce, and relinquish all unqualified signatures and powers of attorney, in fact or assumption, with or without my consent and of knowledge, as it pertains to all property, real or personal, obtained in the past, present or future. I am the sole and absolute possessor/owner and possess absolute unqualified full right and allodial title to any and all such property. I have no effectively connected business within the United States government, nor do I practice interstate commerce between the United States government and any federal state including the State of North Carolina "Body Politic" corporation.

This instrument replaces, cancels, repudiates the prior instruments that are filed with the United States Government and any and all other governmental entities anywhere which may execute on said prior instrument(s), and this document shall become a permanent part of the records of the United States government and the State of North Carolina principles.

As practiced by the Senate and Congress of the United States, I, James Franklin Montgomery, reserve the right to revise and extend any and all remarks made in this document of Removal of unqualified signatures and power of attorney.

I, James Franklin Montgomery, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that theforegoing document is true and correct.

James Franklin Montgomery
Jure Divino, Jura Sanguinis,
Sui Juris
The parties below are noticed by Carbon Copy, notice to the agent is notice to the principle:
CC: Nicholas Lyell, Atty. Gen, Great Britain
Governor/Council of State, Jim Hunt
State Patrol/Revenue, Officer Speas
Clerk of Court, County of Wilkes

Footnote #13b
James Franklin Montgomery
C/O 100 Bridlewood Road
High Point, North Carolina
District Attorney

NOTICE OF DEFAULT
RANDY LYON
AND
County of Wilkes
TACIT PROCURATION
State of North Carolina
District Attorney-Randy Lyon,
You were given 10 days and a additional 10 days grace to answer my claims and to challenge my understanding of the law. Your inaction constitutes a legal default and is fatal error. The ticket was an enticement by the officer for me to appear and demur to the fraud. James Franklin Montgomery cannot be faulted for not appearing on an unsworn complaint by a revenue agent who is not the real party in interest, proven by your default?

"Default a failure to discharge a duty, to one's own
disadvantage; anything wrongful--some omission to do
that which ought to have been done by one of the
parties." 90 N.Y.S. 589, 590.
"The term is most often used to describe the
occurrence of an event which cuts short the rights or
remedies of one of the parties to an agreement or a
legal dispute." Barrons's Law Dictionary, third
edition.
Your silence is tacit admission to the fraud exposed in my notarized refusal to the Traffic Citation, 7587232-1.
"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a
legal and moral duty to speak or when and inquiry left
unanswered would be intentionally misleading." United
States v. Tweel 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1947) TACIT PROCURATIONQ. 1. Does the flag that hangs in the court room with the yellow fringe bordering three sides represent a Constitutional Title 4 flag?
A. No.
Q. 2. Does the un-Constitutional flag with its yellow fringe represent Admiralty law having come on land through commerce and the collection of revenue for the king of England, via his cestui que trust?
A. Yes.
Q. 3. Will Admiralty law be applied since there is no injured party and the fine is the collection of revenue, since the Department of Motor Vehicles was put under the Revenue Department by the Act of 1933, Chapter 214 - S.B 238?
A. Yes.
Q.4 Are the district courts Admiralty courts as declared by the Judiciary Act of 1789?
A. Yes.
Q. 5. Can the State produce the contract which shows I have joined your Admiralty proceeding, thereby waiving with knowledge and forethought my freeman status granted to me by the North Carolina state in 1776, under the Declaration of Rights?
A. No.
Q. 6. Were the American people ever notified of the bankruptcy of the United States, and by the continuation of the government's fraud that the government of the United States became a de facto government?
A. No.
Q. 7. Do the fines/taxes attached with violating Chapter 20 of the Motor Vehicle Code constitute peonage, in violation of Title 18 U.S.C. 1581, 1584 and 42 U.S.C. 1994, absent a contract?
A. Yes.
Q. 8. Does your involvement in placing me under peonage violate your sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the laws thereof?
A. Yes.
Q. 9. Do you understand your action makes you liable with set penalties under Title 18 U.S.C. 1581, 1584 and 42 U.S.C. 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. 10. Do you understand that your knowledge of the courts admiralty jurisdiction and your refusal to inform me of this jurisdiction and its rules, constitutes fraud and a breach of your fiduciary trust that you have under Oath and Bond?
A. Yes
Q. 11. Is the State of North Carolina obligated to inform those that live in North Carolina state and the State of North Carolina, that the King of England never sold/transferred his
Title to the State of North Carolina or any of the States in Union and that the King of England's ownership still stands, making us tenants on his land?A. Yes.
Q. 12. Is the State of North Carolina obligated to inform those that live in North Carolina state and the State of North Carolina that by the incorporation of North Carolina and the United States, the inhabitants of North Carolina were made subjects/citizens forever subject to the King's taxes by his early charter/s and treaties since made?
A. Yes.
Q. 13. Did the general Assembly of 1787 violate the 1776 Declaration of Rights and the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, by ratifying the treaty between the states making its inhabitants incorporated legal residents, taxable subjects of the King/citizens of the United States?
A. Yes.
Q. 14. Do I have the right to face my accuser, the true plaintiff, the King not the cestui que trust, of which you and all government representatives are fiduciaries of this trust,
making you not the true plaintiff?
A. Yes.
Q. 15. Are you obligated to inform me that by your naming the corporate fiction, the Nom de Querre (WAR NAME) and corporate fiction, JAMES F. MONTGOMERY in open court, and by affirmative answer confirms the corporate fiction, the legal presumption of incorporation can then no longer be challenged?
A. Yes.
Q. 16. Is the United States government and the State of North Carolina obligated to tell the American people that the Constitution for the United States as a restrictive document on the corporation it created, has been suspended by the declaration
of war of March 9, 1933, 48 statute 1, declared on the American people?
A. Yes.
Q. 17. Is the United States government and the State of North Carolina obligated to tell the American people that the Fourteenth Amendment substantially changed the Constitution of the United States, declaring its citizens could no longer challenge the public debt, which is forced peonage in violation of Title 18 USC 1581, 1584 and 42 USC 1994?
A. Yes.
Q. 18. Is the United States government and the State of North Carolina obligated to tell the American people that under the Fourteenth Amendment sec. 3, judges could not grant relief to those declared enemies under a declared War?
A. Yes.
Q. 19. Are you aware that since the declared War on the American people, as enemies they are required to obtain a license for any government created benefit they may profit from, so they can be taxed, even though this is fraud because of the bankruptcy and the unlawful fiat money that creates perpetual debt, which again is peonage?
A. Yes.
Q. 20. Has the real party in interest filed a sworn statement under penalties of perjury, showing a damage caused by James Franklin Montgomery that has been filed as a complaint before a competent tribunal can claim venue and jurisdiction over the
perceived subject matter?
A. No.
Q. 21. Do you now understand from the above questions and documentation provided that to continue the action against James Franklin Montgomery is a continuation of the fraud of the United States and the State of North Carolina by forced peonage, and
that because of your fiduciary status and that of the judge, you have no Judaical immunity?
A. Yes.

James Franklin Montgomery

Jure Divino, Jura Sanguinis,

Sui JurisThe parties below are noticed by Carbon Copy, notice to the agent is notice to the principle:
CC: Nicholas Lyell, Atty. Gen, Great Britain
Governor/Council of State, Jim Hunt
State Patrol/Revenue, Officer Speas
Clerk of Court, County of Wilkes

Footnote #13c
James Franklin Montgomery
C\O 100 Bridlewood Road
High Point, North Carolina
August 4, 1997
Dear Judge Michael E. Helms,
I have made attempts (en# 1, 1a) to notice the court as to my status, meaning, a lack of voluntary contractual nexus between James Franklin Montgomery and the state of North Carolina. I have attempted to discover, by posing questions to the court, in regards to status and contract; to find if an involuntary nexus does in fact exist between James Franklin Montgomery and the state of North Carolina.

I am not raising these issues in order to defeat a fine. I have been doing this research since 1988.

I find myself in a difficult position. As a former US Marine, I swore an oath to support and defend my country and its Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. I have discovered a foreign enemy has waged a silent war from within our borders. Because of my oath and moral obligation as a Christian, I am obligated to inform the American people, which I have done.

Listed below are the source materials I have written which speak to the issues covered in this letter. These papers were written in the following order. "The History Of Lawful Gold And Silver," "A Country Defeated In Victory" Parts 1 + 2, these papers are located on BBS's around the country, including my BBS called Knowledge Is Freedom, 1-910-869-1945, and they are also located on the internet. The latest research paper is called "The United States Is Still A British Colony" Parts 1 + 2, It can also be found on BBS's around the country, it can also be found at, http://users.aol.com/dritus/apn.htm.

I am going to cover a few issues that are responsible for my stance, and God forbid, what appears to be my self-destruction in order to honor my oath and moral obligation as a Christian. I leave it to the American people after they know the facts, to vote me down as stated by Mark Twain.

Mark Twain: "You see, my kind of loyalty was loyalty to one's country, not to institutions or its officeholders. The country is the real thing; it is the thing to watch over and care for and be loyal to; institutions extraneous, they are its mere clothing, and clothing can wear out, become ragged, cease to be comfortable, cease to protect the body from winter, disease, and death. To be loyal to rags, to shout for rags, to worship rags, to die for rags--that is a loyalty of unreason; it is pure animal; it belongs to monarchy; was invented by monarchy; let monarchy keep it. I was from Connecticut, whose constitution declared "That all political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit, and that they have at all times an undeniable and indefensible right to alter their form of government in such a manner as they think expedient." Under that gospel, the citizen who thinks that the Commonwealth's political clothes are worn out and yet holds his peace and does not agitate for a new suit, is disloyal; he is a traitor. That he may be the only one who thinks he sees this decay does not excuse him; it is his duty to agitate, anyway, and it is the duty of others to vote him down if they do not see the matter as he does." Congressional Record, April 9, 1934

The first issue is, Thomas Jefferson did not want the United States Bank with foreign ownership to be allowed to incorporate in this country, because it would violate the law of Mortmain (en# 2). Meaning our land would be placed in dead hands. This is the case today. Because of Thomas Jefferson's claim to the law of Mortmain, he understood himself to be a freeman and sovereign, equal to the King of England, who made the law of mortmain for himself, a sovereign. Thomas Jefferson believed his sovereignty came from the Declaration of Independence. However, in the court decision Trustees, Davidson College v. Chambers' Executors, 56 N.C. 253 (1857), the court says:
"I have hereinbefore referred to the opinion of Chancellor KENT, that none of these statutes of Mortmain had been adopted in any State of the Union except Pennsylvania. I think I may safely assert that not one of them has ever been in force in North Carolina. I do not find in our reports any existence here."

Question #1: Was Thomas Jefferson right, saying the incorporation of the United States Bank was against the law of Mortmain, thereby declaring Americans had right to use the law of Mortmain to stop the Banks incorporation, and since we had the power to use the law of Mortmain we as freeman were equal to the King in sovereignty?

Question #2: If you answer no, does that mean that Thomas Jefferson, the greatest legal mind of our young country, who spoke five languages and learned the Nordic language so he could better understand the origin of our laws, was confused or ignorant of our law and the issues of sovereignty?
In 1845 Congress passed the Act of 1845 allowing admiralty law to come on land in violation of hundreds of years of stare decisis and the Magna Charta and also early American law. This began what is known as the Insular cases: See: Langdell, 'The Status of our New Territories', 12 Harv.L.Rev. 365, 371; see also Thayer, 'Our New Possessions', 12 Harv.L.Rev. 464; Thayer, 'The Insular Tariff Cases in the Supreme Court', 15 Harv.L.Rev. 164; Littlefield, 'The Insular Cases', 15 Harv.L.Rev. 169, 281.

The dissenting opinion in Downes v. Bidwell leaves no doubt that the United States Constitution was being abandoned to promote the King's commerce.

"The idea prevails with some; indeed, it found _expression in arguments at the bar that we have in this country substantially or practically two national governments; one to be maintained under the Constitution, with all its restrictions; the other to be maintained by Congress outside and independently of that instrument, by exercising such powers as other nations of the earth are accustomed to exercise."

"I take leave to say that if the principles thus announced should ever receive the sanction of a majority of this court, a radical and mischievous change in our system of government will be the result. We will, in that event, pass from the era of constitutional liberty guarded and protected by a written constitution into an era of legislative absolutism."

"It will be an evil day for American liberty if the theory of a government outside of the supreme law of the land finds lodgment in our constitutional jurisprudence. No higher duty rests upon this court than to exert its full authority to prevent all violation of the principles of the constitution." Downes vs Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901)

Question #3: What obligation do judges have to obey their oath to support and defend the US Constitution, and was your oath to the 1787 U.S. de jure Constitution or the 1870 US de facto Constitution, post Civil War and Fourteenth Amendment?

The Civil War brought about the conquest of the south and also the US de jure government. Under International law which was codified by Lincoln (en# 2), the occupying army can change the existing laws of the de jure government, and replace all or part of them with the occupying armies laws by establishing a de facto government. See: Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913, Fleming v. Page, 50 U.S. 603 1850, The Diamond Rings, 183 U.S. 176 1901, Dooley v. U.S., 182 U.S. 222 1901, 294 U.S. 330 1935,

General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.

If you will remember your history, the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and imposed by force on the southern states. The de facto government's occupation of America as a result of conquest and the imposition of this Amendment has not changed since that time. The government became de facto because President Lincoln declared war and ruled the government by executive order and without a lawful Congress for six months. The military occupation was confirmed by their imposing the Fourteenth Amendment on the southern states, and its adoption by the northern states out of ignorance.

The Fourteenth Amendment created citizenship into the de facto government. It disallows its citizens to question the national debt in section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which is financial servitude, it also makes the citizen a legal resident.

The conquered southern states became territories of the United States, until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified by the states, however, the war powers were never ended.

".....This order of a military officer, asserting, in effect, his right to annul such of our laws as he may deem unwise, is suspended by order of the President. This arbitrary step is scarcely arrested, when a measure is proposed by Congress, looking to the sanction of this military supremacy over our laws.

In the midst of the progress of these events we are astounded by a proposition, originated by North Carolinians, and brought before Congress under auspices calculated to alarm us, that North Carolina, one of the original thirteen, is no longer a State, but a territory of the United States." Inaugural Address, Governor of North Carolina, William Woods Holden 1868

Sec. 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment makes it against the law for a judge or legislator to give aid to the enemy.
Question #4: Is this why when faced with a de jure Constitutional argument a judge will threaten the party bringing it with contempt, because it would violate the public policy under the courts admiralty powers granted by the de facto government?

The military occupation and declared emergency are still in effect, all Americans have been declared enemies of the de facto government, in order to exact taxes from them to pay the debt created by Congress. This fact cannot be challenged, denied or rebuffed by you or Congress; it is a fact.

"Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens."

"A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency." Senate Report, 93rd Congress, November19, 1973

When a permanent state of national emergency exists the Constitution is suspended and I put to you a dead letter as to its purpose for creation, which was to restrict the de jure government from doing just what I am informing you of now. By military occupation all Americans have been declared enemies. You will see in the following quote you do not have to have the military visible in the streets for military occupation or military martial law to exist.

'But there is another description of government, called also by publicists a government de facto, but which might, perhaps, be more aptly denominated a government of paramount force. Its distinguishing characteristics are (1) that its existence is maintained by active military power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2) that while it exists it must necessarily be [229 U.S. 416, 429] obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience rendered in submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not warranted by the laws of the rightful government. Actual governments of this sort are established over districts differing greatly in extent and conditions. They are usually administered directly by military authority, but they may be administered, also, by civil authority, supported more or less directly by military force.' Thornington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 1, 9, 19 L. ed. 361, 363. Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913

Question #5: In light of this information, by enforcing by compelled performance involuntary contracts which cause involuntary servitude on unaware Americans, why are you not in violation of your oath of office to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic?

Also in the above case private citizens cannot be held as wrong doers for obeying the de facto governments laws and then made tort feasors. I am not responsible for the use of fiat money and the obligation of the debt created by the bankruptcy of the United States and the national emergency declared as a result. I object to the use of fiat military script and my being held as a tort feasor for obtaining a social security number under duress and coercion at the age of 12. I was not informed that a legal contribution made you a joint tort feasor, see Blacks Law Dictionary, nor was I old enough to enter into a contract of any kind, much less one which enforces admiralty compelled performance.

Question #6: Is the de facto government in violation of international law and treaties, by coercing those declared to be enemies, to enslave themselves by requiring them to obtain a Social Security number, making them under legal definition a tort feasor?

Question #7: Is the de facto government in violation of international law, by creating a national debt, and making it unlawful to challenge the debt created by Congress, which is forced peonage, financial slavery?

On March 9, 1933 President Roosevelt declared a national emergency with his authority being the War Powers Act of October 6, 1917, as amended by his hand to include all Americans.

"In Title 1, Section 1 it says: The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4,1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."

"Section 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows: emergency declared by the President, the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, BY ANY PERSON WITHIN THE UNITED STATES OR ANY PLACE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF."

Question #8: I hold my sincere held beliefs because of history and the governments own documents, can you challenge them and show me that I am incorrect?

At the same time, Constitutional money was suspended and fiat money was put in place as legal tender. This is military script and comes under International Law, along with the taxes that have been collected to pay your salary and the State patrolman's salary.

"While it is held to be the right of a conqueror to levy contributions upon the enemy in their seaports, towns, or provinces which may be in his military possession by conquest, and to apply the proceeds to defray the expenses of the war, this right is to be exercised within such limitations that it may not savor of confiscation. As the result of military occupation, the taxes and duties payable by the inhabitants to the former government become payable to the military occupant, unless he sees fit to substitute for them other rates or modes of contributions to the expenses of the government. The moneys so collected are to be used for the purpose of paying the expenses of government under the military occupation, such as the salaries of the judges and the police, and for the payment of the expenses of the army.'" Macleod v. U.S, 229 U.S. 416 1913

Art. 10. "Martial Law affects chiefly the police and collection of public revenue and taxes, whether imposed by the expelled government or by the invader, and refers mainly to the support and efficiency of the army, its safety, and the safety of its operations." Gen. Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863

Art. 39. "The salaries of civil officers of the hostile government who remain in the invaded territory, and continue the work of their office, and can continue it according to the circumstances arising out of the war - such as judges, administrative or police officers, officers of city or communal governments, are paid from the public revenue of the invaded territory, until the military government has reason wholly or partially to discontinue it. Salaries or incomes connected with purely honorary titles are always stopped." Gen. Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863

Question #9: Since you are the trier of fact and you rely on the imposition of fines for your salary, why is this not a conflict of interest and create bias and prejudice by the court?

I now come to the final issue. The flag in every court room has a yellow fringe boarding three sides. This flag is in strict violation of Title 4 sec. 1. U.S.C, which is a flag of peace.

"The flag of the United States shall be thirteen horizontal stripes, alternate red and white; and the union of the flag shall be forty-eight stars, white in a blue field."

A foot note was added on page 1113 of the same section which says: "Placing of fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag, and arrangement of the stars are matters of detail not controlled by statute, but within the discretion of the President as commander-in-chief of the army and navy." 1925, 34 Op.Atty.Gen. 483.
"Executive Order No. 10834, August 21, 1959, 24 F.R. 6865, a military flag is a flag that resembles the regular flag of the United States, except that it has a yellow fringe, boarder on three sides. The President of the United States designated this deviation from the regular flag, by executive order, and in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces."
The president as military commander can add a yellow fringe to our flag. When would this be done? During time of war. Why? A flag with a fringe is an ensign, a military flag. This fringe also means if flying in a court room that it is a admiralty (commerce) court, and will render decisions on the type of case brought before it, common law, equity law, or admiralty which are cases based on revenue and commerce. The fringe is proof of military jurisdiction.( en#4.)
Question #10: Are you as judge responsible for the decorum of the court room, and by this flag of war flying does this not violate your oath of office?
Question #11: Since Americans that come before you and enter the bar, bringing themselves under admiralty law which is kept secret from them, why are you not violating their 4th, 5th, and especially 6th Amendment rights that the de facto government claims they have?

Until these questions are answered I cannot in good conscience or morally take part in fraud, or not resist a government that refuses to answer legitimate questions, which confirms it is a de facto tyrannical government; and by my sworn oath to support and defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic, I must resist in any peaceful means available to me, even to the point of my imprisonment or death. I must receive an answer to these questions no later than August 12, 1997.

Psalms chapter 2 verses 10-12
Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, O judges of the earth, Worship the Lord with reverence, And rejoice with trembling. Do homage to the Son, lest He become angry, and you perish in the way, For His wrath may soon be kindled.

ENDNOTES

Endnote #1
4/28/97
ACCEPTANCE REFUSED FOR CAUSE, WITHOUT DISHONOR
To whom it may concern,
I, James Franklin Montgomery, do hereby make this ACCEPTANCE REFUSED FOR CAUSE , WITHOUT DISHONOR OF the Traffic Citation, 7587232-1.

Endnote #1a
5/27/97
District Attorney
NOTICE OF DEFAULT
RANDY LYON
AND
County of Wilkes
TACIT PROCURATION
State of North Carolina

Endnote #2
"If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied."
(Thomas Jefferson)

"On February 15, 1791 Jefferson wrote Washington to tell him his objections of the establishment of a National Bank.

The bill for establishing a National Bank undertakes among other things:
1. To form the subscribers into a corporation.
2. To enable them in their corporate capacities to receive grants of land; and so far is against the laws of mortmain.

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground; That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people."......

.....To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress, is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible
of any definition.

The incorporation of a bank, and the powers assumed by this bill, have not, in my opinion, been delegated to the United States, by the Constitution.

Can it be thought that the Constitution intended that for a shade or two of convenience, more or less, Congress should be authorized to break down the most ancient and fundamental laws of the several States; such as those against mortmain, the laws of alienage, the rules of descent, the acts of distribution, the laws of escheat and forfeiture, the laws of monopoly?"

Endnote #3
INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD
Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.

Endnote # 4
"...The agency of the master is devolved upon him by the law of the flag. The same law that confers his authority ascertains its limits, and the flag at the mast-head is notice to all the world of the extent of such power to bind the owners or freighters by his act. The foreigner who deals with this agent has notice of that law, and, if he be bound by it, there is not injustice. His notice is the national flag which is hoisted on every sea and under which the master sails into every port, and every circumstance that connects him with the vessel isolates that vessel in the eyes of the world, and demonstrates his relation to the owners and freighters as their agent for a specific purpose and with power well defined under the national maritime law." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.

"Pursuant to the "Law of the Flag", a military flag does result in jurisdictional implication when flown. The Plaintiff cites the following: "Under what is called international law, the law of the flag, a shipowner who sends his vessel into a foreign port gives notice by his flag to all who enter into contracts with the shipmaster that he intends the law of the flag to regulate those contracts with the shipmaster that he either submit to its operation or not contract with him or his agent at all." Ruhstrat v. People, 57 N.E. 41, 45, 185 ILL. 133, 49 LRA181, 76 AM.

James Franklin Montgomery
Jure Divino, Jura Sanguinis,
Sui Juris

Footnote #14
ADDENDUM

I have just discovered the following two endnotes. They completely confirm in a very finial way my research in British Colony parts 1, 2 and 3, and the Informer's research and book "The New History Of America." If you will study the following papers, the Magna Carta and our Bill of Rights, and come to an understanding of their similarities. Then re-read the Charters included in British Colony parts 1 and 2, keeping in mind the issues I raised, then read the following commentary.

"The two main issues as I see them in British Colony are; one, the financial obligations of the 1213 Charter En #1, are still in effect, along with the Charters establishing America.

Two, the last sentence of the 1689 Bill of Rights En #2, proves the following:"

"That the Charters of the Colonies could never be overturned by a Declaration of Independence, or the 1787 treaty, otherwise known as the Constitution, I'm talking about the real subject matter, financial obligation. Title for the land was transferred to the states and then ceded by Charter to the federal government under Cestui que trust, but the contracted debt and obligation of the Colonial Charters, and the 1213 Charter could not be negated. Rights could be granted to the citizens, subjects or combatants, whichever the case may be, but the financial obligation cannot, nor could not be affected, because it involves parties not yet born. This is why King Charles I said, the 1689 Bill of Rights would not free the kingdom from the obligation of the 1213 Charter. This is why the United States Bank was given right of Charter in America. George Washington had no choice but to succumb to the Rothchilds point man, Hamilton. Talk about deja vu, I mean does this not sound familiar. Our Bill of Rights was given to us, to give us the illusion of freedom. The tax obligation of the Charters above marched along unimpeded and unseen by Americans and Britons alike. Read the Magna Carta again; they wanted the Pope's blessing for the 1215 Charter, this same Pope is the Pope in the 1213 Charter where England and Ireland were given to him. He could not just give back his land, because of other parties not yet born. The Pope let the barons presume they were free and gave his blessing to the 1215 Magna Carta, knowing to do so would in no way lawfully overturn the grant made to him in the 1213 Charter. Also, it is apparent, it was recognized as law that you could not even create a Charter, wherein you declared a previous grant or Charter null in void unless the relevant parties agreed. How can a Charter be made void if parties to the Charter will never cease to be born, an heir can always be found. To prove this, again what did the new King Charles I do, even though the previous monarchy had come to an end, its obligations did not, this is why he had to include paragraph III, a clause to protect the other parties of an earlier Charter."
James Franklin Montgomery, Sui Juris servant of Jesus Christ

Endnote #1

Britannia: Sources of British History (1213)
KING JOHN's Concession of England and Ireland to the Pope
In the matter of the election and installation of Stephen Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, King John, in the words of Pope Innocent III, had by "impious persecution," tried to "enslave" the entire English Church. As a result, the pope laid on England an interdict (1208-14), a sort of religious "strike," wherein no religious service be performed for anyone, guilty or innocent. When this didn't work, the King, himself, was excommunicated. Caving-in under that pressure, John wrote a letter of concession to the pope, hoping to have the interdict and the excommunication lifted (1213). John's concession which, in effect, made England a fiefdom of Rome, worked like a charm. The satisfied pope lifted the yoke he had hung on the people of England and their King.

John, by the grace of God, King of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to all the faithful of Christ who shall look upon this present charter, greeting.

We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our own sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope, we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his Catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign, moreover, of this our own, we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession we will establish that from the proper and special revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms, for all the service and customs which we ought to render for them, saving in all things the penny of St. Peter, the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling, namely at the feast of St. Michael five hundred marks, and at Easter five hundred marks, seven hundred, namely, for the kingdom of England, and three hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.

Endnote #2

Britannia: Sources of British History
BILL of RIGHTS, 1689
An Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject and Settling the Succession of the Crown
Whereas the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster, lawfully, fully and freely representing all the estates of the people of this realm, did upon the thirteenth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-eight [old style date] present unto their Majesties, then called and known by the names and style of William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, being present in their proper persons, a certain declaration in writing made by the said Lords and Commons in the words following,

Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
By assuming and exercising a power of dispensing with and suspending of laws and the execution of laws without consent of Parliament;
By committing and prosecuting divers worthy prelates for humbly petitioning to be excused from concurring to the said assumed power;
By issuing and causing to be executed a commission under the great seal for erecting a court called the Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes;
By levying money for and to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative for other time and in other manner than the same was granted by Parliament;
By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
By violating the freedom of election of members to serve in Parliament;
By prosecutions in the Court of King's Bench for matters and causes cognizable only in Parliament, and by divers other arbitrary and illegal courses;

And whereas of late years partial corrupt and unqualified persons have been returned and served on juries in trials, and particularly divers jurors in trials for high treason which were not freeholders;

And excessive bail hath been required of persons committed in criminal cases to elude the benefit of the laws made for the liberty of the subjects;

And excessive fines have been imposed; And illegal and cruel punishments inflicted; And several grants and promises made of fines and forfeitures before any conviction or judgment against the persons upon whom the same were to be levied;

All which are utterly and directly contrary to the known laws and statutes and freedom of this realm;

And whereas the said late King James the Second having abdicated the government and the throne being thereby vacant, his Highness the prince of Orange (whom it hath pleased Almighty God to make the glorious instrument of delivering this kingdom from popery and arbitrary power) did (by the advice of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and divers principal persons of the Commons) cause letters to be written to the Lords Spiritual and Temporal being Protestants, and other letters to the several counties, cities, universities, boroughs and cinque ports, for the choosing of such persons to represent them as were of right to be sent to Parliament, to meet and sit at Westminster upon the two and twentieth day of January in this year one thousand six hundred eighty and eight, in order to such an establishment as that their religion, laws and liberties might not again be in danger of being subverted, upon which letters elections having been accordingly made;

And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare:

That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of laws by regal authority without consent of Parliament is illegal;
That the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws by regal authority, as it hath been assumed and exercised of late, is illegal;
That the commission for erecting the late Court of Commissioners for Ecclesiastical Causes, and all other commissions and courts of like nature, are illegal and pernicious;
That levying money for or to the use of the Crown by pretence of prerogative, without grant of Parliament, for longer time, or in other manner than the same is or shall be granted, is illegal;
That it is the right of the subjects to petition the King, and all commitments and prosecutions for such petitioning are illegal;
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
That election of members of Parliament ought to be free;
That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament;
That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted;
That jurors ought to be duly impanelled and returned, and jurors which pass upon men in trials for high treason ought to be freeholders;
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;

And that for redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving of the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently.

And they do claim, demand and insist upon all and singular the premises as their undoubted rights and liberties, and that no declarations, judgments, doings or proceedings to the prejudice of the people in any of the said premises ought in any wise to be drawn hereafter into consequence or example; to which demand of their rights they are particularly encouraged by the declaration of his Highness the prince of Orange as being the only means for obtaining a full redress and remedy therein.Having, therefore, an entire confidence that his said Highness the prince of Orange will perfect the deliverance so far advanced by him, and will still preserve them from the violation of their rights which they have here asserted, and from all other attempts upon their religion, rights and liberties, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster do resolve that William and Mary, prince and princess of Orange, be and be declared King and Queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, to hold the crown and royal dignity of the said kingdoms and dominions to them, the said prince and princess, during their lives and the life of the survivor to them, and that the sole and full exercise of the regal power be only in and executed by the said prince of Orange in the names of the said prince and princess during their joint lives, and after their deceases the said crown and royal dignity of the same kingdoms and dominions to be to the heirs of the body of the said princess, and for default of such issue to the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of her body, and for default of such issue to the heirs of the body of the said prince of Orange. And the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do pray the said prince and princess to accept the same accordingly.

And that the oaths hereafter mentioned be taken by all persons of whom the oaths have allegiance and supremacy might be required by law, instead of them; and that the said oaths of allegiance and supremacy be abrogated.

I, A.B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.

I, A.B., do swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest and abjure as impious and heretical this damnable doctrine and position, that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever. And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.

Upon which their said Majesties did accept the crown and royal dignity of the kingdoms of England, France, and Ireland, and the dominions thereunto belonging, according to the resolution and desire of the said Lords and Commons contained in the said declaration. And thereupon their Majesties were pleased that the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, being the two Houses of Parliament, should continue to sit, and with their Majesties' royal concurrence make effectual provision for the settlement of the religion, laws and liberties of this kingdom, so that the same for the future might not be in danger again of being subverted, to which the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons did agree, and proceed to act accordingly.

Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come.

And the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, seriously considering how it hath pleased Almighty God in his marvellous providence and merciful goodness to this nation to provide and preserve their said Majesties' royal persons most happily to reign over us upon the throne of their ancestors, for which they render unto him from the bottom of their hearts their humblest thanks and praises, do truly, firmly, assuredly and in the sincerity of their hearts think, and do hereby recognize, acknowledge and declare, that King James the Second having abdicated the government, and their Majesties having accepted the crown and royal dignity as aforesaid, their said Majesties did become, were, are and of right ought to be by the laws of this realm our sovereign liege lord and lady, King and Queen of England, France and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging, in and to whose princely persons the royal state, crown and dignity of the said realms with all honours, styles, titles, regalities, prerogatives, powers, jurisdictions and authorities to the same belonging and appertaining are most fully, rightfully, and entirely invested and incorporated, united, and annexed.

And for preventing all questions and divisions in this realm by reason of any pretended titles to the crown, and for preserving a certainty in the succession thereof, in and upon which the unity, peace, tranquility, and safety of this nation doth under God wholly consist and depend, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do beseech their Majesties that it may be enacted, established and declared, that the crown and regal government of the said kingdoms and dominions, with all and singular the premises thereunto belonging and appertaining, shall be and continue to their said Majesties and the survivor of them during their lives and the life of the survivor of them, and that the entire, perfect and full exercise of the regal power and government be only in and executed by his Majesty in the names of both their Majesties during their joint lives; and after their deceases the said crown and premises shall be and remain to the heirs of the body of her Majesty, and for default of such issue to her Royal Highness the Princess Anne of Denmark and the heirs of the body of his said Majesty; and thereunto the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do in the name of all the people aforesaid most humbly and faithfully submit themselves, their heirs and posterities for ever, and do faithfully promise that they will stand to, maintain and defend their said majesties, and also the limitation and succession of the crown herein specified and contained, to the utmost of their powers with their lives and estates against all persons whatsoever that shall attempt anything to the contrary.

And whereas it hath been found by experience that it is inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom to be governed by a popish prince, or by any King or Queen marrying a papist, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do further pray that it may be enacted, that all and every person and persons that is, are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold communion with the see or Church of Rome, or shall profess the popish religion, or shall marry a papist, shall be excluded and be forever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the crown and government of this realm and Ireland and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part of the same, or to have, use or exercise any regal power, authority or jurisdiction within the same; and in all and every such case or cases the people of these realms shall be and are hereby absolved of their allegiance; and the said crown and government shall from time to time descend to and be enjoyed by such person or persons being Protestants as should have inherited and enjoyed the same in case the said person or persons so reconciled, holding communion or professing or marrying as aforesaid were naturally dead; and that every King and Queen of this realm who at any time hereafter shall come to and succeed in the imperial crown of this kingdom shall on the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament next after his or her coming to the crown, sitting in his or her throne in the House of Peers in the presence of the Lords and Commons therein assembled, or at his or her coronation before such person or persons who shall administer the coronation oath to him or her at the time of his or her taking the said oath (which shall first happen), make, subscribe and audibly repeat the declaration mentioned in the statute made in the thirtieth year of the reign of King Charles the Second entitled, "An Act for the more effectual preserving the King's person and government by disabling papists from sitting in either House of Parliament."

But if it shall happen that such King or Queen upon his or her succession to the crown of this realm shall be under the age of twelve years, then every such King or Queen shall make, subscribe and audibly repeat the same declaration at his or her coronation or the first day of the meeting of the first Parliament as aforesaid which shall first happen after such King or Queen shall have attained the said age of twelve years. All which their Majesties are contented and pleased shall be declared, enacted and established by authority of this present Parliament, and shall stand, remain and be the law of this realm for ever; and the same are by their said Majesties, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same, declared, enacted and established accordingly.
II. And be it further declared and enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from and after this present session of Parliament no dispensation by "non obstante" of or to any statute or any part thereof shall be allowed, but that the same shall be held void and of no effect, except a dispensation be allowed of in such statute, and except in such cases as shall be specially provided for by one or more bill or bills to be passed during this present session of Parliament.
III. Provided that no charter or grant or pardon granted before the three and twentieth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand six hundred eighty-nine shall be any ways impeached or invalidated by this Act, but that the same shall be and remain of the same force and effect in law and no other than as if this Act had never been made.