This will be, beyond any argument, a blatant breach of the Vienna Convention of 1961, to which the UK is one of the original parties and which encodes the centuries – arguably millennia – of practice which have enabled diplomatic relations to function. The Vienna Convention is the most subscribed single international treaty in the world.
The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the status of diplomatic premises are expressed in deliberately absolute terms. There is no modification or qualification elsewhere in the treaty.
Article 22
1.The premises of the mission shall be inviolable. The agents of the receiving State may not enter them, except with the consent of the head of the mission. 2.The receiving State is under a special duty to take all appropriate steps to protect the premises of the mission against any intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the peace of the mission or impairment of its dignity. 3.The premises of the mission, their furnishings and other property thereon and the means of transport of the mission shall be immune from search, requisition, attachment or execution.
Not even the Chinese government tried to enter the US Embassy to arrest the Chinese dissident Chen Guangchen. Even during the decades of the Cold War, defectors or dissidents were never seized from each other’s embassies. Murder in Samarkand relates in detail my attempts in the British Embassy to help Uzbek dissidents. This terrible breach of international law will result in British Embassies being subject to raids and harassment worldwide.
The government’s calculation is that, unlike Ecuador, Britain is a strong enough power to deter such intrusions. This is yet another symptom of the “might is right” principle in international relations, in the era of the neo-conservative abandonment of the idea of the rule of international law.
The British Government bases its argument on domestic British legislation. But the domestic legislation of a country cannot counter its obligations in international law, unless it chooses to withdraw from them. If the government does not wish to follow the obligations imposed on it by the Vienna Convention, it has the right to resile from it – which would leave British diplomats with no protection worldwide.
I hope to have more information soon on the threats used by the US administration. William Hague had been supporting the move against the concerted advice of his own officials; Ken Clarke has been opposing the move against the advice of his. I gather the decision to act has been taken in Number 10.
There appears to have been no input of any kind from the Liberal Democrats. That opens a wider question – there appears to be no “liberal” impact now in any question of coalition policy. It is amazing how government salaries and privileges and ministerial limousines are worth far more than any belief to these people. I cannot now conceive how I was a member of that party for over thirty years, deluded into a genuine belief that they had principles.
Craig Murray is an author, broadcaster and human rights activist. He was British Ambassador to Uzbekistan from August 2002 to October 2004 and Rector of the University of Dundee from 2007 to 2010.
Personal Biography:
Craig Murray was born in West Runton in October 1958 and educated at Sheringham Primary and Paston Grammar schools.
He graduated from the University of Dundee in 1982 with a MA (Hons) 1st Class in Modern History.
From 1982 to 1984 he was President of Dundee University Students Association and he was a member of Dundee’s tournament winning Granada TV University Challenge team in 1983.
Professional Biography:
In 1984 he joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. As a member of the Diplomatic Service his responsibilities included the following:
1986-9 Second Secretary, Commercial, British High Commission, Lagos
Responsible for promoting British exports to, and business interests in, Nigeria.
1989-92 Head of Maritime Section, FCO, London
Responsible for negotiation of the UK and Dependent Territory continental shelf and fisheries boundaries, for implementation of the Channel Tunnel treaty and for negotiations on the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. From August 1990 to August 1991 he was also head of the FCO Section of the Embargo Surveillance Centre, responsible for intelligence analysis on Iraqi attempts at evading sanctions, particularly in the field of weapons procurement, and with providing information to UK military forces and to other governments to effect physical enforcement of the embargo.
1992-4 Head of Cyprus Section, FCO London
Responsible for UN negotiations on the Cyprus dispute, relations with the government of Cyprus and for the mandate and requirements of the British contingent of the UN force in Cyprus,
1994-7 First Secretary (Political and Economic), British Embassy, Warsaw
Head of the Political and Economic sections of our Embassy in Poland. Responsible for relations with Poland, and assisting Poland’s post-communist transition process with reference to preparation for EU membership.
1997-8 Deputy Head, Africa Department (Equatorial), Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Responsible for British political and commercial relationships with West Africa, including development issues.
1998-2002 Deputy High Commissioner, British High Commission, West Africa Branch
Responsible for British economic, political, commercial and aid relationships with Ghana and Togo. In Autumn 1998 Craig Murray was the UK Representative at the Sierra Leone Peace talks held in Togo, Liberia and Sierra Leone, including direct negotiation with the RUF terrorist leadership.
2002-2004 British Ambassador, Uzbekistan
Responsible for our relationship with Uzbekistan. He found Western support for the dictatorial Karimov regime unconscionable, as detailed in the rest of this website.
At the 2005 UK General Election, Craig Murray takes on Foreign Secretary Jack Straw in Blackburn as an Independent candidate, winning 2,082 votes.
Descoperirea unei substante capabile sa inhibe productia de spermatozoizi ar putea conduce la obtinerea unei pilule contraceptive pentru barbati, cu efecte reversibile, fara a perturba sinteza de hormoni masculini, afirma autorii unui studiu american.
În contextul în care fabricarea unei pilule contraceptive masculine a devenit în ultimii ani o veritabila provocare pentru comunitatea stiintifica internationala, cercetatorii americani au testat cu succes o molecula - JQ1 - pe soareci, se afirma într-un articol publicat în revista medicala Cell.
The Jesuit-led Vatican is the common denominator of power in Britain, Israel, and the United States. The Vatican is the head of New World Order monster and she has big plans for earthly Jerusalem. To understand how all of the intrigue has come to a head in our time, we must take a closer look at the historical record.
In order to understand that the Vatican has the upper hand on both Britain and America, we need to examine the American Revolution. The United States is Rome’s satellite and has been since the end of the Revolution. The historical record shows that the Jesuits fomented the American Revolution using Freemasonry as a cover. Prior to the American Revolution, 10 out of 13 colonies had put in place strict penal measures against Roman Catholicism and Catholics. Rome couldn’t stand for that so she brought about the Revolution to correct the situation. The Constitution opened the door in the United States for the flourishing of Roman Catholicism and other cults. All of this was part of the Jesuit-led continuing counter-reformation that began in the 1540’s. The U.S. Constitution with its ‘freedom of religion’ gave us a Jesuitical/Freemasonic/universalist government that put Rome in the driver’s seat of the New World Order. The New World Order was launched right here on American soil in 1776. Rome and Britain had been locked in a battle for world dominance and Rome was working desperately to get Britain back under her control since Britain broke off during the Reformation. The Spanish Armada was a failure, so Rome had to resort to covert means.
Catholic Monarch King James II during his reign in England put the forth the Jesuit constructed ‘Declaration of Indulgences’ (1687) in order to lift the restrictions against Catholicism in England. It was written to include tolerance for all religions, but was really a mask to give tolerance to Rome. In 1688, English Protestants refused the Declaration and deposed Catholic King James II from the throne.
“The Liberty James wanted them to proclaim was neither more nor less than indulgence to the Jesuits and the whole Church of Rome. Men knew the hand from which it came and saw the latent intention. Under the specious plea of toleration and liberty, the object of the Declaration was to advance Popery… and give license… to the Church of Rome, and all its schemes for reconquering England.” (John Charles, Ryle, Churchman, Feb. 1880)
Fast forward 100 years and the ‘Declaration of Indulgences’ was re-written as the ‘Declaration of Independence’ and solidified in the U.S. Constitution under the guise of ‘freedom of religion’. The American Revolution was not about tea or taxes. It was a religious war.
With the American Revolution, Rome killed two birds with one stone. (1) Rome separated the American Colonies from Britain and delivered the colonies and all their wealth into Rome’s hand. (2) As part of the continuing Jesuit-led counter-reformation, Rome created the Constitution with ‘freedom of religion’ built into it in order to allow Roman Catholicism to come in and swallow up biblical Christianity that had existed in the colonies.
Remember, Catholicism had been banned in 10 out of 13 colonies. The American Revolution and Constitution made legal (Catholicism) what had been made illegal (Catholicism) in England.
Tupper Saussy wrote in his book Rulers of Evil:
“Before the Constitution was ratified, American Catholics had few civil rights; after ratification, they had them all… the Constitution welcomed agents of Pontifex Maximus, the world’s chief enemy of Protestantism, into the ranks of government. Of the 2,500,000 enumerated inhabitants in 1787 America, the Roman Catholic population consisted of no more than 16,000 in Maryland, 7,000 in Pennsylvania, 1,500 in New York, and 200in Virginia. Once the Constitution was in place, a steady influx of European immigrants transformed Roman Catholicism from America’s smallest to largest religious denomination. By 1850, the higher powers at Rome could view the United States as a viable tributary, if not another papal state.”
The whole American Revolution was a Jesuit scam. Most people wanted to stay loyal to Britain. Freemasons inside the British Parliament pushed laws/taxes on the American colonists to get them angry and rouse them to rebellion. Freemasons on the ground in the colonies fanned the flames of revolution. Washington’s Masonic Lodge at Fredricksburg, Virginia was Catholic/Jacobite infested. Jacobite Hugh Mercer came over to America from Scotland after having fought for the Catholic Jacobite cause in the Army of Bonnie Prince Charlie. Hugh Mercer joined the Masonic Lodge in Fredricksburg, Virginia and eventually became its master. Jacobite Hugh Mercer was also a close friend and adviser to George Washington. The Fredricksburg Masonic Lodge had 8 members who were generals in the American Revolution (Washington, Mercer, George Weedon, William Woodford, Fielding Lewis, Thomas Posey, Gustavus Wallace, and the Marquis de Lafayette). The Fredricksburg Masonic Lodge got its charter from the Mother Kilwinning Lodge of Scotland in 1758.
Prior to the American Revolution, the Jesuits infiltrated Freemasonry in the mid-1700’s, which had evolved from the fugitive Templars during the 14th-16thCenturies. While hiding within the order of Freemasonry, the Jesuits were also operating on the ground out in the open. The British General Haldimand wrote to his superiors in the British Government that the Jesuits were behind the American rebels. In the book Catholics and the American Revolution, Volume 3, (1906) written by Catholic Martin Ignatius Joseph Griffin, Griffin explains that during the American Revolutionary War the British General Haldimand, while he was in Quebec, wrote a letter to British Prime Minister Lord North, which told Lord North that the French Jesuits were supporting the American rebels. Griffin writes:
“The French Jesuits were upholders of the American cause. Hence the English authorities in Canada did not wish such (Jesuits) to enter the country. They desired priests from Savoy or other places. In 1783 Gen. Haldimand wrote to Lord North that he had sent two French priests back to France; that the Bishop desired recruits from the seminaries in France; that he was under Jesuit influence; that he is honorable, but that the Jesuits have sided with the rebels.”
Additionally, Griffin wrote two other volumes of his book. From Catholics and the American Revolution, Volume 1, Griffin quotes British General Haldimand directly from a letter that Haldimand wrote to Lord North. In this letter, Haldimand states plainly to Lord North that the Jesuits are supporting the American rebels in the Revolutionary War. Haldimand states:
“The Jesuits are the only order of regular priests who have shown an attachment to the rebels during the course of the war.”
The Jesuit Carroll family played a major role in the American Revolution. They were one of the wealthiest American families of the era. There were three Carroll sons: Daniel, John and their first cousin Charles. All of them were trained in Jesuit warfare at the Jesuit St. Omer’s College in France. John Carroll became a teacher there. Daniel Carroll donated the land on which the U.S. Capitol Building sits. Property records from the 1600’s reveal that this land was called ‘Rome’. Charles Carroll was the War Commissioner during the American Revolution. John Carroll was a close friend of Benjamin Franklin and even lived at Franklin’s home. John Carroll founded the Jesuit powerhouse Georgetown University and would become the first Catholic Bishop of the United States.
In the decades following the American Revolution, the Americans built the U.S. Capitol Building as an exact replica of St. Peter’s Basilica and even put a statue of the queen of heaven/Babylon on top of it. Then they erected an obelisk facing the Capitol Building just like the one in the Vatican courtyard that faces St. Peter’s Basilica. A Vatican painter, Constantino Brumidi, painted the interior of the U.S. Capitol dome with the ‘Apotheosis of George Washington’, which mirrors paintings of the ‘Apotheosis of Ignatius Loyola’ found throughout Jesuit Churches in Rome. Could it be any more obvious who founded this country?
Rome hated the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but she permitted its creation knowing that she would eventually subvert and destroy it, and it didn’t take long. Its creation was only necessary to allow Romanism to flourish where Romanism had been banned. Rome was thinking long-term and her patience and diligence has paid off. As of the present day in the United States, Catholics out number Protestants. We have an intelligence community run by the Knights of Malta, which is subservient to the Jesuit Order. Six out of nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices are Roman Catholic. We have 28 Jesuit colleges and Universities. Please understand that this writing is not an attack on Catholics. There are many good, everyday Catholic people in this country, but we must understand that Catholicism at the highest levels is Babylonian Sun Worship. It is the headquarters for occultism the world over. All of the other cults and ancient mystery schools flow from and feed into it. Rome has either launched or absorbed them all.
During the 19th and 20th Centuries, the counter-reformation continued and the subversion of Protestantism by the Jesuits would intensify in Britain and the United States. In Britain and America, much of the subversion has its roots in the Oxford Tractarian Movement and its Jesuitical futuristic prophetic schemes. These futuristic schemes would be later be attached to Zionism and its variants such as British-Israelism in order to influence the political sphere.
Froom writes of how Jesuitical futurism began to overcome Protestantism in England during the 1800’s:
“Catholic Futurism, initially projected by Jesuit Ribera about 1585, began to obtain a foothold and then gain momentum among Protestants in Britain. Thus the same concept that sought to break the force of the Reformation view of the papal Antichrist, by assuming a future infidel antichrist, was again invoked to weaken the force of the great evangelical advent and prophetic awakening. Protestant expositors, some leaning toward Rome and some prompted by rationalistic concepts, joined hands in the attempt—perhaps unwittingly—to promote the Jesuit position. This, moreover, came to be tied inseparably with the Oxford Tractarian Movement of the Anglican Church, wherein ninety tracts were scattered by the hundreds of thousands to favor Rome and to disprove the Protestant concept of Antichrist” (Leroy Froom, Prophetic Faith Of Our Fathers, Vol. 3, 655, 656).
Jesuit Futurism would influence Irving and Darby in England, and later Scofield in America:
“Far too many evangelicals today do not realize who was behind the work of Maitland, Todd, Burgh, and the whole Oxford Tractarian Movement. The reason that futurism made its way to Irving and Darby—and latter Scofield—is because it flourished in the Anglican Church, and the reason futurism flourished in Anglicanism is for the simple reason that the Jesuits were personally behind this work…The fact of the matter is clear: The whole Oxford movement with its birth of modern day dispensational futurism was, from its inception, a movement going back to Rome.” (D.S. Farris, Futurism: The Counterfeit Prophecy, Chp. 8)
After having been injected into the body of Christ, the concepts of Dispensational Futurism would later be leveraged to benefit political Zionism:
“the Jesuits were very successful at implementing Dispensational Futurism into the policies of Great Britain, and Britain indeed became the champion for Zionism. The Balfour Declaration was a letter dated November 2, 1917, from the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, to Lord Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation, a private Zionist organization. The letter stated the position, agreed at a British Cabinet meeting on October 31, 1917, that the British government supported Zionist plans for a Jewish “national home” in Palestine, with the condition that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of existing communities there. The Jesuit Illuminati was very successful in conditioning (through the Jesuit Counter Reformation) Great Britain to nurture the ideology of Zionism among European Jews. The second task of the Jesuits was to create events that would trigger the relocation of the Jews to Palestine. Part two of the Jesuit Illuminati’s geopolitical strategy was to create Fascism inevitably to create the State of Israel in Palestine.” (D.S. Farris, The Two-Horned Beast: Part Two – The New World Order, Chp. 11)
The roots of British-Israelism are obscure, but it appears to be a movement created for political purposes as opposed to something that Christians genuinely (and erroneously) believed in. In the early days of the Zionist movement, there were some British politicians who embraced British-Israelism and supported relocating the racial Jews to Palestine because they thought it would fulfill ‘prophecy’ faster and hasten the second coming of Christ. Most telling is that British-Israelism arose out of British Freemasonry; therefore, we can assume British-Israelism originated with the Jesuits considering the Jesuits control Freemasonry and the country of Britain. Barry Chamish wrote in an article titled ‘British Freemasonry Covets Israel’:
“Without British Freemasonry there would be no modern state of Israel. In the 1860s, the British-Israelite movement was initiated from within Freemasonry.”
Anton Chaitkin adds:
“The British monarchy and its prime ministers and Foreign Office fabricated British Israelism in the nineteenth century, from earlier versions of the story. They claimed that Queen Victoria was descended from the Biblical King David, and was thus a descendant of the Davidic family tree that produced Jesus. They taught that the tribes of Israel wandered into northern Europe; that by this supposed genealogy, the British are the real Chosen People, and the British Empire is thus God’s empire. The modern Jews, by this British account, are not the historical Hebrews of Old Testament Israel, but rather, the British are. But, says the British Israel myth, in a leap of logic, the Jews need to be put into Palestine, to fulfill prophecy, get slaughtered in a war with the Muslims, and bring about the End Times. To provide fuel for this mythology, the royal family asked the British Grand Lodge of Freemasonry to establish the Palestine Exploration Fund.”
What Anton Chaitkin is describing in British-Israelism is just another variation of Zionism, which ends up in the same place as regular Zionism – the racial Jews relocated to Palestine. However, Chaitkin misses the fact that the Jesuits created the false futuristic prophetic schemes that support Zionism. It wasn’t the British Royals who concocted the Oxford Tractarian Movement and its false future prophetic structures. Seemingly, British-Israelism is just another angle from which the Jesuits can cause people to focus on the flesh and earthly Jerusalem. The Jesuits are the great Zionists. Likely, the British Royals are working hand-in-hand with them and British-Israelism is a decoy to take our eyes off of the real plot of relocating the pope’s chair to Jerusalem.
History shows that the Vatican/Jesuits brought the Nazi regime into power in order to turn Europe into a nightmare for the Jews in hopes of relocating them to Palestine. To get the Christians on board with this program of a national homeland for the Jews in Palestine, Jesuit dispensationalism was pumped into American churches through the Scofield Reference Bible, which has caused Christians to support Israel with bloodthirsty, unwavering support.
According to some researchers such as Chamish, the Vatican was given control of all the ‘holy’ sites in east Jerusalem when Jesuit-trained Shimon Peres had the sites handed over to Vatican control through the Oslo Accords in 1993. The Vatican is apparently closing in on Jerusalem trying to regain what she lost to the Muslims during the crusades of the Middle Ages.
The only problem is that the Muslims still control the Dome of the Rock which supposedly sits on top of the remnant of Solomon’s Temple. The Vatican would like to rebuild Solomon’s Temple but needs to get the Dome of the Rock out of the way. Potential solutions in eyes of Vatican:
1) Foment World War III between the Muslims and the “Jews” in Israel and just take the Dome of the Rock from the Muslims.
2) Create peace and unity between Muslims, Jews, and Christians through ecumenism and just unite everybody on common religious ground, thus avoiding war, and make Jerusalem an international city.
Most likely, the idea that British Royals are going to make New Jerusalem in Britain or in the Middle East is just a Jesuit diversion. The British Royals aren’t pulling the strings of everything – the Jesuits and Rome are hiding behind them. The British government, like the U.S. government, is also infested with Freemasonry and the Knights of Malta among many other occult orders that feed into the Vatican. The real endgame is putting the pope’s chair in Jerusalem. After all, he is the ‘vicar’ of Christ and ‘God’ on earth, according to the papacy.
1.2 Billion “Christians” already bow down to him. The British Royals certainly don’t have that kind of devotion from the world’s people. The dumbed-down Protestants will support the pope in the name of unity if the right political conditions can be fabricated. Many Protestants already welcome the pope with open arms. The whole world is probably going to end up bowing down to him if and when he moves into Jerusalem, but God’s remnant will not. We’ve got our eyes on Jerusalem above. Praise God.
A spokesman for the Northeast Frontier Railway Nripen Bhattacharya said in Guwahati that three special trains had left for Bangalore yesterday taking back in a phased manner those who had fled from the capital of Karnataka fearing attacks on them sparked by rumours in the wake of violence in Assam The official, however, could not give the exact number of people returning to Bangalore.
Government officials said it would take two to three days before all of them returned to Bangalore and other cities like Pune and Chennai from where thousands of fear-stricken Northeasterners had fled. After four days of panic-driven exodus of Northeasterners, the situation eased today with police and railway officials saying it has stopped in Karnataka and reduced to a trickle in Tamil Nadu.
In contrast to the exodus of people from the northeast, it was a normal situation in Bangalore which was turned into a virtual fortress amid tight security. Upto 30,000 people had fled the country's IT capital since late last week which abated yesterday after the government went overdrive to instil confidence in the people from northeast. Over 18,000 police personnel, bolstered by Rapid Action Force (RAF) and Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), kept a hawk-like vigil in Bangalore with Ramzan also being celebrated.
"The situation is absolutely peaceful and normal ... People from the northeast are going about their chores without any disturbance and the exodus has completely stopped", additional commissioner of police (law and order) Suneel Kumar told PTI. Bangalore Police commissioner Jyothi Prakash Mirji said they have held several peace committee meetings with community leaders and police also intensified night patrolling. Railways, which ran additional trains to Guwahati after the sudden rush of fleeing northeasterners, did not operate any special services for the second consecutive day.
Sheeple (a portmanteau of "sheep" and "people") is a term of disparagement in which people are likened to sheep, a herd animal. The term is used to describe those who voluntarily acquiesce to a suggestion without critical analysis or research. By doing so, they undermine their own individuality and may willingly give up their rights. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple)
"There is scope for further action by the Federal Reserve to ease financial conditions and strengthen the recovery," Bernanke wrote to the committee's chairman, Representative Darrell Issa, in a letter obtained by Reuters on Friday.
Bernanke at the end of next week will give a closely watched speech at an annual symposium in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, which will be closely watched for clues into the prospect of further bond-buying from the Fed.
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke answers questions during a news conference at the Federal Reserve in Washington June 20, 2012. Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst
Asked if it was too soon to consider new monetary easing steps when the Fed's Operation Twist program aimed at lowering long-term bond yields was still in effect, Bernanke said policymakers must invariably look beyond the immediate term.
"Because monetary policy actions operate with a lag, the stance of policy must necessarily be set in light of a forecast of future performance of the economy," Bernanke said.
Fed officials sharply revised down their forecasts for U.S. economic growth in June, and another potential round of downward revisions could come at its September meeting.
U.S. gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 1.5 percent in the second quarter, a level seen too weak to lead to a sustained decline in unemployment, which rose to 8.3 percent in July.
In response to the financial crisis and recession of 2008-2009, the Fed cut rates to effectively zero and bought some $2.3 trillion in mortgage and Treasury bonds to put downward pressure on long-term borrowing costs.
Source: reuters.com - Reporting By Pedro Nicolaci da Costa; Editing by Neil Stempleman
The United States and the Union of several States party to theConstitution of the United Statesare constitutional republics. The United States, by way of the Congress of the United States, has certain powers delegated to it by the Constitution. So far as the several States party to the Constitution are concerned, the United States may not exercise power not delegated by the Constitution. All power not delegated to the United States by the Constitution is reserved to the several States within their respective territorial borders, or to the people.
However, Congress is solely responsible for governing territory belonging to the United States. This authority is conferred at Article I, Section 8, clause 17 (Art. I § 8.17) and Art. IV § 3.2 of the Constitution. The responsibility for governing territory belonging to the United States is vested solely in Congress, it is not shared by the other two branches of federal government. Congress has absolute or what is described as plenary power—municipal power, police power, etc.
So far as its role as government for the several States party to the Constitution is concerned, the United States is an abstraction—it exists on paper only. It takes on physical reality after Congress positively activates constitutionally delegated powers through statutes enacted in accordance with Art. I § 7 of the Constitution. When statutes are in place authoring administrative or judicial activity, the “power” of the United States becomes manifest through people carrying out duties prescribed by law Congress has enacted.
The second physical aspect of the United States is constitutionally delegated authority to own land and other property. The only specific mention and direct estate is at Art. I § 8.17 of the Constitution, which specifies that the Congress may acquire land for the seat of government, and for forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings. States in which these land purchases are made must cede jurisdiction over the lands in order for the United States to extend federal laws and judicial authority over them.
When the United States acquires land, and secures jurisdiction over it, the United States becomes a geographical entity. In other words, after Congress [acquired] the present District of Columbia from Virginia and Maryland, and the two state governments ceded jurisdiction, the United States became a geographical entity. The geographical United States within the framework of Art. 1 § 8.17 of the Constitution includes the District of Columbia, and all forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings within the several States.
There is a second class of territory belonging to the United States that existed when government of the United States convened under the Constitution in 1789. This was territory claimed by the several States by way of the treaty of peace with Great Britain following the American Revolution. The land ceded by King George extended from the Great Lakes on the north to the Atlantic on the south, except for Florida—approximately everything from Illinois to Mississippi and Alabama. States of the Union ceded lands beyond their respective original borders to the United States in order to generate revenue to pay debts accumulated by the Revolution, with the condition that as they were settled and developed, the territories would become states of the Union.
Prior to these lands being admitted to the Union, they were territories of the United States. Under provisions of Art. IV § 3.2 of the Constitution, Congress is charged with responsibility for making all needful rules and regulations for territories belonging to the United States. Therefore, Congress has historically established territorial governments, providing for law enforcement, courts, and everything else necessary for a territory to operate in an orderly fashion.
The first venture in this enterprise was framed by the Ordinance of 1787, providing for government of the Northwest territories. The United States was at that time operating under the Articles of Confederation. In 1789, when government of the United States convened under the Constitution, the Ordinance of 1787 was adopted as an existing covenant obligation, and was subsequently extended to Kentucky, and as applicable, to southern territories—Alabama and Mississippi included. The Louisiana Purchase from France, and subsequently acquisition of Florida from Spain, included treaty agreements to incorporate the land and people under the constitutional scheme, so the Ordinance of 1787 was applied as the development guide in acquired territories as well.
This pattern held until after the Spanish-American War. Islands ceded by Spain in 1898 were not incorporated in the constitutional scheme. In 1901, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that while Puerto Rico and other islands ceded by Spain belonged to the United States, they were for certain purposes foreign to the several States and incorporated territories of the United States.
From the beginning, there were certain distinctions between the Union of States party to the Constitution and territories of the United States. For the most part, outlying territories were reasonably primitive, so many were first secured under military authority, then went through an evolution that progressed to representative government to development sufficient for self-rule. At that point, most territories established their respective constitutions and were admitted to the Union on equal standing with other States party to the Constitution.
Texas and California were two exceptions. Texas became an independent republic following the war of independence from Mexico, then joined the Union by way of treaty. Some time after Mexico ceded California, California became a state of the Union without formally going through territorial status. However, this has not been the case for islands ceded by Spain following the Spanish-American War and other island acquisitions other than Hawaii. With admittance of Hawaii and Alaska in 1959, the last of the incorporated territories of the United States became states of the Union, leaving only unincorporated territories, called insular possessions, under Congress’ Article IV plenary power.
In 1946, the Philippines became an independent commonwealth, exiting the family of United States insular possessions. In 1953, Puerto Rico became a commonwealth for purposes of local government, something on the order of states of the Union, but remained an insular possession of the United States subject to Congress’ Article IV authority.
There are a total of five larger United States insular possessions with viable local governments, four of which have courts of the United States: Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, and American Samoa. The latter doesn’t have a federal court. Smaller insular possessions are for the most part uninhabited, or at best, sparsely populated, or small enough that populations aren’t truly viable small islands, reefs, etc. None are incorporated in the constitutional scheme, although Puerto Rico in particular has addressed the possibility of becoming a state of the Union.
After about 1870, Congress began reserving land for the United States within borders of new states admitted to the Union. This land fell within two classes: Unappropriated public lands, most of which was designated as national parks, forests, etc.; Yellowstone National Park was the first, and lands secured in trust for Native American Indians, most of which was used to establish reservations.
The current geographical United States includes the District of Columbia and federal enclaves where jurisdiction over forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards and other needful buildings has been ceded by the several States respectively; lands retained in States admitted to the Union since approximately 1870; and insular possessions, along with territorial waters (12-mile limit, established under international law).
The geographical division determines Congress’ power: Congress may exercise constitutionally delegated power, primarily under Art. I § 8 of the Constitution, throughout the “American empire.” This is Congress’ “general power.”
Congress exercises the combined power of state, national, and even local government in territory belonging to the United States—in the “geographical” United States. This is Congress’ special or limited jurisdiction.
Within the Union of several States, Congress may exercise only constitutionally delegated authority; within the “geographical” United States, Congress may exercise all power not explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the Constitution. Congress’ general powers delegated by the Constitution are restricted to those specifically enumerated in the Constitution; Congress’ special plenary power is permissive, limited only by implicit and explicit constitutional prohibitions, but may be exercised only in territory belonging to the United States.
Congress’ authority in and over the geographical United States is somewhat on the order of a European government where what we understand as national government in the American system is also a state government. Where existing insular possessions are concerned, there is also the distinction that the Constitution applies to them only as Congress chooses to extend it. Governing principles are more under international than constitutional law.
This notion was first judicially framed by Chief Justice Marshall in an 1828 decision involving an incident in Florida while Florida was yet a territory of the United States.
The Constitution extends authority for Congress to declare war and make treaties. It also delegates authority for Congress to establish new states.
Although the Constitution is silent with respect to acquisition of new territory beyond borders of existing States, and implicitly bringing territories ceded by original States into the Union, these powers were construed to extend territorial acquisition authority, and vest Congress with authority to govern and determine disposition of acquired territory. Following the Louisiana Purchase, Thomas Jefferson drafted proposed amendments that would authorize incorporating Louisiana and other future states included in the Purchase into the constitutional scheme, but Congress elected to proceed without an amendment. Chief Justice Marshall, writing for the Supreme Court in 1828, was put in a position of having to rationalize a quarter century of territorial development. In the Article IV framework, he stepped from strict constitutional construction into the forum of international law. Thus, federal government found a capacity beyond strict constitutional restrictions. There was a whole separate world to be explored, and subdued, beyond constitutional bounds.
To the point of the Spanish-American War, there was an amount of solace for incorporated territories of the United States, as well as the Union of several States: Once the Constitution has been extended to a territory, it cannot be retracted. The Ordinance of 1787 provided an amount of protection as it specifies that people of the territories were assured of common law and due process in the course of the common law, along with most other rights secured in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. But unincorporated territories did not enjoy these assurances.
Insular possessions have gained an amount of ground by way of compacts and agreements, but remain outside the constitutional scheme. Virtually all of them are subjected to “due process in the course of the civil law” (admiralty/maritime), and remain within Coast Guard jurisdiction.
With the history of United States territorial acquisition and development in place, Congress’ distinct roles, and distinction between the Union of several States and the geographical United States, are reasonably clear. With this in mind, the reason precious little federal law applies to the Union of several States and people of the several States will be easier to grasp.
The underlying theme—“Follow the money!”
Article I § 8.5 of the Constitution provides that Congress shall have power “to coin Money, regulate the Value thereof...” and at Article I § 10.1, stipulates that, “No State shall ... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts ...” At Article I §8.6, Congress is granted power, “To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting and Securities and current Coin of the United States...”
There has been no constitutional amendment to alter these provisions. They remain as firmly in place today as they were in 1789. Yet there is precious little gold and silver coin in the United States or the Union of States—none in general circulation.
An old story has it that a woman once found her husband with another woman, but rather than panic, the man calmly got out of the bed, slipped on his clothes, straightened himself up, then asked his wife, “Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?”
Does the Constitution mandate gold and silver coin as the national currency? Monetary theories and rationalization are irrelevant. Either the several States are prohibited from making any thing but gold and silver coin a payment for debt or they aren’t. Authority to “coin” money and prescribe punishment for counterfeiting “current coin” of the United States pretty well locks the matter down. Either the several States are prohibited from making any thing but gold and silver coin a payment for debt or they aren’t. If this prohibition lies against the States, it follows that American founders intended for Congress to provide gold and silver coin as a uniform monetary system. In fact, George Washington and others threatened not to attend the Constitutional Convention if the notion of a federal paper currency was going to be considered. The fact that minting gold and silver coin of the United States was immediately implemented speaks to the matter—the first Congress, so far as possible, carried out constitutional intent.
There was, however, an early glitch. Congress chartered a national bank. Money powers were waiting at the gate from the beginning. That experience soured, so the charter for the first national bank was terminated shortly after the turn of the century. Then a second was chartered. Andrew Jackson put an end to the second in 1836 when he vetoed the bill that would have renewed the charter. Jackson’s reasoning was simple: The Constitution does not delegate authority for Congress to establish a national bank. Jackson’s rationale has never been seriously challenged, and the Constitution has never been amended to authorize Congress to establish a national bank. Nor, for that matter, does the Constitution delegate authority for the United States to establish corporations, particularly private corporations.
Development in these areas came primarily during and after the Civil War. National banks were established in territories of the United States, but no central or national bank was established. Many of the nation’s railroads were also chartered and incorporated in territories, so were and are United States corporations. The underlying rationale is simple: Where territory of the United States is concerned, Congress has permissive rather than restrictive power—Congress can do anything not explicitly or implicitly prohibited by the Constitution.
One of the things entrenched powers wanted was authority to print paper money, and by way of paper, to create credit. The Supreme Court held out on this matter as late as 1880, but in 1884, the court almost completely reversed with the Julliard decision—the Constitution does not expressly prohibit Congress from printing paper money.
It does, however, prohibit the several States from making any thing but gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt, and the court generally upheld this prohibition through the balance of the nineteenth century when states such as Washington demanded payment of taxes in gold and silver coin.
Generally speaking, United States paper money was accepted and honored as it was backed 100% by gold. It was more convenient with respect to weight and bulk, and it had other advantages, particularly as silver coin became less plentiful.
In 1913, Congress chartered the Federal Reserve System as a national bank of sorts. Federal Reserve banks provided several advantages, not the least of which was giving United States government access to ready credit created out of thin air. With authority to create credit, Federal Reserve banks could effectively manufacture money—or what appeared as money. From 1914 to 1933, United States paper money issued in conjunction with Federal Reserve banks went from 100% backed by gold, to 40% backed by gold and the other 60% backed by obligations of the United States. Dilution of the currency dramatically increased money in circulation, which resulted in inflation, and partially fueled the speculative period producing the 1929 equities collapse.
The three basic mechanisms the Federal Reserve uses to control credit and money supply, with all “money” generated through credit issue, are as follows: The percentage of reserve required on deposit by member banks; open window discount rates (interest charged to member banks, mostly Federal Reserve Banks); and the basic discount or interest rate. Through these mechanisms, the Federal Reserve maintains “hard money” or “soft money” policy, either shrinking or expanding credit and money supply and thereby regulating the overall economy. Through these mechanisms the Federal Reserve can single-handedly collapse the nation’s credit and monetary systems, or if there is perceived benefit, such as an election year might be, nurse a sick economy along. This is hardly the regulation of value the Constitution delegates to Congress.
If the Constitution hasn’t been amended, United States paper money (Federal Reserve [bank] Notes), and the Federal Reserve System, must be creatures of Congress’ Article IV authority in the geographical United States.
The Constitution says what is says—it hasn’t been amended either to authorize the several States to make anything other than gold and silver coin a tender for payment of debt, or authorizing Congress to take absolute control of the nation’s economic activity. Consequently, there can be but one conclusion: The Federal Reserve System and the Federal Reserve [bank] Note are legitimate, or have legitimate authority for use, only in the geographical United States subject to Congress’ Article IV § 3.2 legislative jurisdiction –they are creatures within the scope of Congress’ special rather than general authority.
There is far more to the credit and monetary scams than will be treated here since the purpose at hand is to demonstrate proper application of federal law rather than to address any given subject. It should be obvious, however, that once fraudulent credit and monetary systems predicated on Congress’ Article IV § 3.2 legislative authority were in place, it was necessary to move all or nearly all of United States government under the same authority. Where the federal tax system is concerned, that was done via the revenue act of November 23, 1921—virtually all taxes promulgated under Congress’ Article I and Sixteenth Amendment authority were repealed. When they were reenacted, they came back in under Congress’ Article IV § 3.2 legislative jurisdiction. No taxing statute in the current Internal Revenue Code (Internal Revenue Code of 1954 (Vol. 68A of the Statutes at Large), as amended in 1986 and since, evidenced in title 26 of the United States Code) reaches the several States and the population at large. The taxes apply in three general categories: Income tax, Social Security tax, and the like apply only to agencies and employees of the United States; most other taxes, including inheritance, gambling, alcohol, tobacco, etc., are applicable only in the geographical United States; and some taxes cross over to customs duties.
One of the ways to determine geographical application of any given statute or act is by way of definitions contained in the act. For example, the Buck Act, which allegedly extended authority of “States” to tax on federal territory within a “State”, is a classical red herring. The Buck Act is reproduced in sections 105-111 of Title 4 of the United States Code. The term “State” is defined at 4 USC § 111(d), as follows:
(d) The term “State” includes any Territory or possession of the United States.
Compare the above definition to the one in the act that authorized the several States, and eventually federal territories and the like, to enter cooperative agreements relating to crime. The original act was promulgated in June 1934, then the basis for the current form was reenacted in May 1949. It has been amended several times since, but no major revision since Alaska and Hawaii were admitted to the Union. The definition is at 4 USC § 112(b):
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term “State” means the several States and Alaska, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia.
There are several different principles of law that govern interpretation of the two definitions of “State” set out above, but probably the more concise is “Inclusio unius est exclusion alterius”, defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, as follows:
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius. The inclusion of one is the exclusion of another. The certain designation of one person is an absolute exclusion of all others.Burgin v. Forbes, 293 Ky. 456, 169 S.W.2d, 321, 325. This doctrine decrees that where law expressly describes particular situation to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
Kevin McC v. Mary A, 123 Misc.2d 148 N.Y.S.2d, 116, 118.
The definition of “State” at 4 USC § 111(d) clearly applies only within the geographical United States subject to Congress’ Article IV § 3.2 legislative jurisdiction—Congress’ “special” or limited jurisdiction. Therefore, the Buck Act does not apply to the Union of several States party to the Constitution as they are not territories or possessions of the United States. All examples in the definition are of federal territories. When the definition employs the term “includes”, it can be expanded only to the class, not anything outside the class demonstrated by example. Since 4 USC § 111(d) does not mention the several States, and does not name any of the several States as a class example, “[they were] intended to be omitted or excluded.”
On the other hand, 4 USC § 112(d) specifically includes the several States along with the District of Columbia, incorporated territories and insular possessions of the United States. This particular statute is the underlying authority for uniform laws relating to extradition, detainers, etc. Congress has legitimate constitutional authority to make these kinds of uniform rules, and this is one of the few acts classified in the United States Code that appears to issue under Congress’ general legislative power.
Now consider corresponding applications found in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Per authority of the Supreme Court to promulgate rules, delegated at 28 USC § 2072, any statute in conflict with the rules is automatically repealed, so the following applications govern Title 18 of the United States Code, which is entitled, “Crimes and Criminal Procedure”:
“State” includes District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, territory and insular possession.
“Act of Congress” includes any act of Congress locally applicable to and in force in the District of Columbia, in Puerto Rico, in a territory or in an insular possession.
Given the Latin principle above, it is clear that these applications do not extend to the Union of several States party to the Constitution. They address only real estate under Congress’ Article IV § 3.2 municipal authority. Therefore, little or nothing in title 18 of the United States Code applies to the Union of several States and the population at large. Since all other penalty statutes in the United States Code fall back on Title 18 for procedure, the conclusion can be made that few if any criminal statutes classified in the United States Code are applicable to or within the several States except in federal enclaves such as military installations and national parks.
At 18 USC § 5, the “United States” is defined as follows:
§5. United States defined
The term “United States”, as used in this title in a territorial sense, includes all places and waters, continental and insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, except the Canal Zone.
There we find the word “territorial” - the territorial or geographical United States. The territorial United States is subject to Congress’ Article IV § 3.2 plenary power—the combined power of state and national, and in some instances, local government. The United States definition above, which is controlling for Title 18 of the United States Code, has application limited to territories and insular possessions of the United States.
Another clear clue is in the catchline for the Title 18 jurisdiction section, § 7: “Special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States defined.” The section defines eight jurisdictions, none of which apply to the several States beyond borders of federal enclaves. No jurisdiction defined in Title 18 reaches the Union of several States party to the Constitution.
It is also important to understand that Congress can enact laws applicable exclusively within Article IV § 3.2 jurisdiction that fall within Article I delegated power, but not exercise the Article I power for general application. This is basically what happened following across-the-board repeal of excise taxes via the revenue act of November 23, 1921. Excise tax with general application were legitimate under Article I § 8 delegated authority, but when they were reenacted, they were promulgated under Congress’ special authority within the geographical United States.
To see this, consider definitions of interstate and foreign commerce at 18 USC § 10:
§ 10. Interstate commerce and foreign commerce defined
The term ’interstate commerce", as used in this title, includes commerce between one State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and another State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia.
The term “foreign commerce”, as used in this title, includes commerce with a foreign country.
The term “State” must have the definition or application set out in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in order to maintain consistency and agreement: “’State’ includes the possession.” Examples in the 18 USC § 10 definition of interstate principle set out above governs: That which was omitted or excluded was intended to be omitted or excluded.
The Federal Register Act provides a convenient test for the allegation that Title 18 of the United States Code is applicable only in the geographical United States subject to Congress’ Article IV § 3.2 municipal authority. Of particular import, 44 USC § 1505(a)(1) stipulates that all “Presidential proclamations and Executive Orders, except those not having general applicability and legal effect or effective only against Federal agencies or persons in their capacity as officers, agents, or employees thereof,” must be published in the Federal Register. The subsection concludes, “For the purposes of this chapter every document or order which prescribes a penalty has general applicability and legal effect.”
The legalese mumbo-jumbo is designed to make understanding as difficult as possible, but the mandate for publication of delegations of authority, regulations, etc., is articulated in Note 16, 44 U.S.C.A. § 1505, by the following decision:
The Administrative Procedure Act, § 551 et seq., of Title 5, and this chapter [44 USC §§ 1501 et seq.] require publication, irrespective of actual notice, as a prerequisite to issuance of a regulation making certain acts criminal. Hotch v. U.S., 1954, 212 F.2d. 280, 14 Alaska 594
There are no regulations (see Code of Federal Regulations titles) for Title 18 of the United States Code. Therefore, by terms of the Federal Register Act, there can be only three applications of penalty statutes classified in Title 18 of the United States Code: They can apply to, (1) agencies and officers, employees and agents of the United States, (2) territories and insular possessions of the United States, and (3) United States admiralty and maritime jurisdiction. All of the applications, or jurisdictions, are special in nature. Congress’ authority to regulate government, and to define and punish piracy and other offenses on the high seas, are Article I § 8 delegated powers, but the special territorial jurisdiction falls under Article IV § 3.2 municipal authority.
There is yet another erroneous fly in the ointment to be examined: Virtually all civil litigation and criminal prosecution by government officials is in the name of the “United States of America”, not the “United States.”
This detail cannot be overlooked. TheConstitution of the United States, as the Articles of Confederation before, vests authority in the governmental entity designated as the United States. Article I § 1 of the Constitution vests legislative authority in the Congress of the United States; Article II establishes the President of the United States; and Article III vests judicial authority of the United States in the supreme Court of the United States and whatever inferior courts Congress might establish. The Tenth Amendment prohibits the United States from exercising power not delegated by the Constitution.
The “United States of America” is an historically significant name. Article I of the Articles of Confederation established the several party States as the United States of America, and the people of the United States of America established theConstitution of the United States(Preamble). But each of the several States is sovereign within its borders except for powers delegated to the United States by the Constitution. The people of this nation have vested no authority in a governmental entity known as the “United States of America”, and state and national constitutions do not delegate authority for officers of the several States and the United States to unilaterally establish a new national power.
Resolving the mystery of who or what the “United States of America” is somewhat like walking through a house of mirrors, but two conclusions can be drawn from available evidence: (1) the United States of America is a governmental entity foreign to the United States, and (2) the United States of America is a geographical entity.
The first capacity of the Assistant Attorney General is found at 28 CFR, Part 0.55. At Part 0.55(b), the delegation order specifies that the Assistant Attorney General will conduct, supervise, or handle, “Cases involving criminal frauds against the United States...,” and at Part 0.55(s), the Assistant Attorney General over the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice is required to conduct, supervise, or handle, “Civil proceedings in which the United States is plaintiff...” In other words, the “United States” is principal of interest in the basic delegation of authority for the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice.
However, at 28 CFR, Part 0.64-1, the delegation to the Assistant Attorney General over the Criminal Division authorizes him to serve as agent for a distinctly separate entity, the “United States of America.” The delegation also authorizes him to redelegate this authority to Deputy Assistant Attorney’s General in the Criminal Division, or to the Director and Deputy Directors of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division. The entire delegation order, as it appears in the Code of Federal Regulations, is as follows:
The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division shall have the authority and perform the functions of the “Central Authority” or “Competent Authority” (or like designation) under treaties and executive agreements between the United States of America and other countries on mutual assistance in criminal matters which designate the Attorney General or the Department of Justice as such authority. The Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, is authorized to redelegate this authority to the Deputy Assistant Attorneys General, Criminal Division, and to the Director and Deputy Directors of the Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division.
In order to establish that the “United States of America” is a government or some other form of entity foreign to the “United States”, it is not necessary to prove the precise who, what or where, it is only necessary to prove that the United States of America is separate and distinct from the United States. The above delegations of authority to the Assistant Attorney General over the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice do that—Part 0.55 establishes his capacity in relation to offenses against the United States; Part 0.64-1 establishes his capacity as agent for the United States of America. They are clear and distinct capacities. Therefore, the United States of America is a government or political compact established under treaties and executive agreements which is foreign to the United States; whether geographically or in the sense that a donor heart is alien and foreign to a heart transplant recipient.
Delegations to the Director of the Bureau of Prisons are even clearer. The Director and his officers (wardens) are authorized to (1) imprison people convicted of offenses against the United States, (2) accept and imprison prisoners transferred from the United States of America, and (3) accept and imprison prisoners transferred from the District of Columbia. District of Columbia prisoners will not be considered in this context.
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons relating to offenses against the United States is at 28 CFR, Part 0.96, reproduced in relative part:
The Director of the Bureau of Prisons is authorized to exercise or perform any of the authority, functions, or duties conferred or imposed upon the Attorney General by any law relating to the commitment, control or treatment of persons (including insane prisoners and juvenile delinquents) charged with criminal offenses against the United States...
The Director’s capacity as agent of the United States of America is at 28 CFR, Part 0.96b:
(p)Link
Commenti
Storico
Stampa
Feed RSS 0.91
Feed Atom 0.3
