I told you the story of Dred Scott and the importance of being a Citizen of a State, a Sovereign Citizen, a King. The United States Supreme Court told him that only a Citizen of a State, a King himself, could go into a Kings Court. Dred Scott was not a King. The constitution had never meant a Negro to be a King and, free or not, he was not a King.

The Supreme court also said, in the Dred Scott case, that Congress could not free the slaves in the territories. Slaves were the legal property of a King and as the Federal Government is only custodian of the Kings property it could not force a King to give up his rightful property in order to use the King's own land.

The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, also told us that slavery had been going on since the dawn of Man. There was slavery before we started this country, there was slavery when we started this country, there is slavery now. All of a sudden there is an outcry against slavery. We can't change how the government works just on a whim. There are procedures in place to change the system. Until then we will have to follow the rules as written.

Some Nation States had declared slavery illegal, which is their right. Some Nation States had not, which is their right. Just as the king of England has no right to tell the king of France how to treat its subjects. One State has no right to tell another State how they should live. Not only that, but, as custodian of the common property of all the Citizens of all the States, the Federal Government had no business telling a State how its kings should choose to live. We, the People, the Sovereign Citizens, the Kings, did not give them that power.

I told you the story of the Slaughterhouse Cases. There the United States Supreme Court told us that the Federal government was a limited government, a mere custodian of the property of Kings. They were, in fact the low man on the totem pole. There were the Kings who had hired public servants to manage the common property of the Kings in their own Nation States. These were the States Governments. Then there were the federal public servants that were paid to manage the common property of the United Nation States.

The United States Supreme Court told us that the founders of our country did fear a powerful central government and had taken great pains to limit the power of the Federal government.

The United States Supreme Court told us that the 14^th amendment radically changed our government and had hinted that president Johnson had lied to congress and got the 15^th amendment ratified.

The United States Supreme Court told us that between the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments we had radically changed our form of government. Under the guise of freeing the slaves, which we really didn't do, we lost our birthright to kingship.

Now, we are not born kings we are born freed slaves and must acquire a bona fide residence in a State to be king again. We were now born subjects of the United States, not even entitled to appear in the courts of Kings.

We had lost our unalienable rights guaranteed to Citizens of a State. Our unalienable rights, our right to kingship, traced back to the creator, was now only traceable to a bona fide residence in a State.

One must ask, what happens when I move? I would give up one residence and until I arrived at my destination and set up another residence, possibly in a different State, am I a freed slave during the move? I'm not making this up. Go See for yourself.

Now I am going to tell you another story that the Untied States Supreme Court told me. This case is called Hans v. Louisiana.134 U.S. 1 (1890)

This is the story of the last nail in the coffin of the Kings.

After this story I will tell you another tale. Do you remember that the Supreme Court hinted that there were some shenanigans going on in congress. I will tell you a tale as told to me by the Tulane Law Review. It will go into the behind the scenes doings around the 14^th Amendment.

When I am finished you will have to ask yourself, was there a conspiracy to overthrow the Kings of the United States? The same Kings that the Supreme Court told us didn't really understand how the country worked. Or as they put it "has never been very well defined in public opinion."

If the people don't really understand how the government works, they won't notice how we changed it. After all, our country was growing. People were coming from everywhere. They were used to being subjects of a government, usually a government run by a king. How many realized that here there were different nation States run by the consent of Kings. How many realized that the figure head called the United States of America was just that, a figurehead. A common voice for allied Nation States run by Kings.

You might have to even go as far as to ask; Was the furor about freeing the slaves just a smoke screen to give us a reason to change the constitution. Don't forget, we didn't actually free the slaves. We just changed their master. The slaves went from being the subject of the king to the subject of the newly empowered federal government, as had we all. Until such time as you could claim a bona fide residence in the State. I am now going to show you that even back then you couldn't get a bona fide residence in the State of Louisiana.

Think about it. The rules now say that anyone born in the United States is no longer born a King. He is no longer born a Citizen of a State. He is born a freed slave, a citizen of the United States. You must now acquire a bona fide residence in a State to become a King. What happens if you can't get a bona fide residence in a State. Then you are a freed slave forever. Subjects of the United States.

The United States Supreme Court told me that our government fundamentally changed with the passage of the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments. I told you. Now ask yourself, why wasn't I taught this in school? To me the answer is simple. If you don't know where it broke you can't fix it. The only thing keeping us from recovering our Kingship and our birthright is our ignorance. Copy this information and pass it on.

If your still not convinced, stay with me while I tell you the story of Hans just as the Supreme Court told me. Remember, if at any time you think that I am lying to you, all you have to do is go read the cases for yourself. Compare my translation to the original.

In 1874 Louisiana passed an act that later made it to be a State Constitutional amendment. This act said that the State decided to issue bonds. The State said that these bonds will be a valid contract and we will honor that contract. If you buy these bonds we will pay you back with interest starting on January 1^st, 1880

We are going to levy and collect taxes to pay off these bonds.

Well, Louisiana sold the bonds. Levied and collected taxes to pay off the bonds. Everything was going well.

Then in 1879 the State of Louisiana made a new constitution. This constitution said; You know those bonds we sold and promised to start paying off on January 1^st next year. Well, we're not going to pay those bond holders off. They just lost their money. We just stole it. Oh, you know the taxes we levied and collected to pay off that debt, well, we just stole that too. It is now going to be used to run the State.

Yea, that's right, we sold you the bond and told you that it was a valid contract that the constitution said that we had to honor. Yea, that's right we collected taxes from the people to pay off that contract. We lied. We kept it all. What are you going to do about it?

Well, Hans took them to court. He went to a Circuit court. The State of Louisiana had violated Article 1 section 10 of the Constitution. This was a federal question. He wanted his money back.

Well, the attorney general of Louisiana wrote the Circuit court a letter and said that this character can't sue us. The Constitution does not give a mere Circuit Court jurisdiction of a suit against a State. We don't have to talk to you, and we won't.

Well, obviously the lawyer for Hans knew that Hans couldn't sue as a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. That's the character of the party. The character of Hans was that of a freed slave, a citizen of the United States.

He needed a way to sue the State of Louisiana where the fact that he was a citizen of the United States didn't matter. So he told them that he was entitled to sue the State because the third article of the constitution says "the judicial power of the United States shall extend to all cases in law and equity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;"

Also Congress had passed a law that made Circuit Courts able to try cases just like State Courts in all cases arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the Untied States.

See, the new master is setting up its own courts.

The lawyer for Hans admits that if the case relied on the character of the parties then Hans doesn't have a chance.

Then, the lawyer for Hans claims that these provisions don't rely on the character of the person. Whether he is a King or a freed slave makes no difference. The States agreed to the constitution so if they broke any of the rules they, in effect, agreed to be sued for the violation of rules they agreed to.

Hans's lawyer admits that if Hans were a Citizen of the State of Louisiana he would have been able to use another section of the third article of the Constitution.

There is a section of the constitution that gives only the Supreme Court the power to hear a case when the State is a Party. But, to use that section of the Constitution you have to be a Citizen of the State. A King suing his property managers.

But, for a citizen of the United States to sue a State he needs a jurisdictional argument that doesn't notice that he is a freed Slave. In other words one that doesn't rely on the character of the parties.

These arguments, the lawyer argued, are not concerned with who is bringing the suit. The only question is did the State violate the contract known as the Constitution.

Why is the lawyer tap dancing about the character of Hans. Hans thinks that he is a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. And, according to the United States Supreme Court all that was required to convert Hans from a freed Slave to a Citizen of the State is a bona fide residence in the State. Remember they told you that in the Slaughterhouse Cases. Hans is claiming that he bought 87,000 dollars worth of bonds. He's not a vagabond. Surely if he has that much money to invest, than surely he has a home. There can be only one answer. The State of Louisiana no longer owns any land, so you can't have a bona fide residence in the State because there is no land to have a residence on.

There can be no doubt. If the confederate States were forced to ratify the 14^th amendment, could it be possible that the Confederate States were also forced to give up their land. Possibly to pay for a war debt? The Supreme court told us, in the Dred Scott case, that that has happened before. Now all of the people in the Southern States are no better than freed Slaves because they can't claim a bona fide residence in a State that has no land.

How else can you legally explain reconstruction?

Let's review. It makes sense. In the Dred Scott case the Supreme Court told us that the Citizens of a State were the Sovereign Kings. Only Kings could claim the rights of Kings. The Kings got together and created a government to manage the common property of the Kings and to allow all of the kings of the Nation State to speak with one voice. To speak as a Nation State. Well, the Nation State is a Sovereign entity, but it is not THE sovereign entity. The Kings are. They created the State, they own it. It is the servant of the Kings, not their master. The butler may speak for the master but he is not the master, he is the servant.

Well, a Nation State can't be sued by anyone without the permission of the Nation State. The King of France has no right to go into an English Court and try to sue England. Neither can a King of Maine sue the Nation State of Louisiana.

However, in this country a Citizen of a State is a King in that State. How does one small king protect himself against other kings in his State who have banded together and have taken over the State and stolen his property or rights. As a King, he is above the State and there is a special provision through which he can take his claim directly to the United States Supreme Court. It is the only court that can, by contract, hold court over one of the United nation States. It is his one protection against the organized corruption of his State Government.

That's what happened to Hans. The State had made a contract with each bond holder and promised to follow through. They had worded it to fit Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution in which the States promised to honor their contracts.

They had collected taxes to pay the debt and when the time came to pay the bonds the State simply said we lied. We are not going to pay the bond holders and we are just going to keep the money we raised from taxes.

Just for the record, the State of Louisiana did some other illegal things that Article 1 Section 10 of the Constitution says that they can not do. The cancellation of the contract they had with the bond holders was an ex post facto law which canceled a previous obligation. Also the State is prohibited from creating a bill of credit, which this was.

A Bill of Credit will become more important latter. By article 1 Section 10 of the Contract with we, the Kings, the States are forbidden to issue a Bill of Credit.

If you still think that I am making this up go look in the Constitution. Look up article 1 Section 10. No State shall accept anything but gold and silver coin as tender in payment of Debt. When was the last time you paid the State in gold or silver coin? When was the last time you even saw gold or silver coin. Yet, the States are absolutely forbidden to accept anything else. How could this be?

For Hans they reneged on the contract for the bonds, which States are forbidden to do. They emitted a bill of credit which they are also forbidden to do. If a State Citizen and King can not make its servant follow the rules, who can?

Well, if there is no territory owned by the Kings of a State, then there is no bona fide residence. You are a citizen of the United States, no more than a freed slave. If this is true and it is impossible to have a bona fide residence and become a Citizen of the State. Than no one can stop the State from stealing whatever it wants from the inhabitants of the State. The inhabitants who were Once Kings, are kings no more. They no longer have the right to go into court as a King over its servant, the State.

There can be no doubt that the lawyer knows that Hans is not a Citizen of the States of Louisiana. There can be no doubt that the Lawyer knows that Hans is a citizen of the United States. Simply a freed Slave. That's why he is dancing around the issue of the character of Hans.

Do you remember that in the Dred Scott story the Supreme Court talked about the character of a person.

"He would undoubtedly be entitled to the rights of a citizen and clothed with all the rights and immunities which the Constitution and laws of the State attached to that character."

This is the character of Hans that Hans's lawyer is dancing around. The lawyer knows that Hans is a freed slave and not a King. They are talking about the rights and immunities attached to the character called Hans.

Now, watch the Supreme Court dance around the issue.

The Supreme Court said that a State cannot be sued by a citizen of another State, or of a foreign state, on the mere ground that the case is one arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. We have decided that before. In fact one of the cases was about the same screw job that Hans is complaining about.

Do you notice that they are talking about a citizen of another State or a citizen of a foreign state. Well, Hans doesn't think that he is either one of those. It's obvious his lawyer and the judges know differently.

Well, the judges tell the story of Chisholm v. Georgia. They tell the story of how when we first set up our government everything was going smoothly. Then this guy Chisholm showed up and tried to sue the State of Georgia and the Supreme Court decided that he could do it.

Well, the people were upset. That wasn't what we intended. Remember, it is like the King of England trying to sue France. It just isn't done.

So, at the next meeting of Congress, the eleventh amendment was proposed and passed.

As the Supreme Court Said: "This amendment, expressing the will of the ultimate sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures and all courts, actually reversed the decision of the Supreme Court."

Just who is this ultimate Sovereignty of the whole country, superior to all legislatures and all Courts? It is We, the People. The Kings of this Nation of independent nation States. We changed the rules. We amended the Constitution.

That is why a Citizen of a State can sue his own State. He is the King and the State is the paid servant of the King. The Supreme Court will admit this soon.

The eleventh amendment did not, in terms, prohibit suits by individuals against the States, but declared that the Constitution should not be construed to import any power to authorize the bringing of such suits. The language of the Amendment is that "The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit, in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state."

Notice how a Citizen of the State is carefully left out.

The Court delivered an unanimous opinion "that, the Amendment being constitutionally adopted, there could not be exercised any jurisdiction, in any case, past or future, in which a State was sued by the citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. "

The Supreme Court in another case said: "that neither a State nor the United States can be sued as defendant in any court in this country without their consent, except in the limited class of cases in which a State may be made a party in the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of the original jurisdiction conferred on this Court by the Constitution."

"except in the limited class of cases in which a State may be made a party in the Supreme Court of the United States by virtue of the original jurisdiction conferred on this Court by the Constitution."

JUSTICE HARLAN pointed out that he didn't agree with what the court said about the Chisholm case because the case they were talking about was interpreting the constitution as it was then, and not as it is now.

I don't want to get too caught up in Hans now. He will come up again later.

The main thing to take from this story now is that it is obvious that the lawyer for Hans is dancing around the issue of the character of Hans and the rights that attach to that character.

Hans believes he is a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. Surely if he has bonds worth 87,000 dollars in 1870, he had a residence. The Supreme Court said that was all you needed to be a King. A bona fide residence in the State. The character of Hans should have been obvious. He had the character of a King. Or, does he?

Does he have a bona fide residence in the State of Louisiana or doesn't he? If he does than he is a Citizen of the State and a King. If Hans does not have a bona fide residence in the State of Louisiana than he is a freed slave. It's just that simple.

Go see for yourself. You can go and see for yourself that the Supreme Court never mentions a Citizen of a State when telling you that Hans has no right to be here. Or as they said in the Slaughterhouse Cases It is too clear for argument that the phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose.

Hans is not a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. Hans is a citizen of the Untied States. Hans is not a King and owner of the government. Hans is a freed slave and subject of the government.

There is only one explanation. Hans did not have a bona fide residence in the State of Louisiana. By the 14^th amendment as explained by the United States Supreme Court you are born a freed slave. A citizen of the United States and subject to their jurisdiction until such time as you want to be a King, a Citizen of the State, and you have a bona fide residence in that State.

It is obvious that Hans wanted to be a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. He was claiming that he was one. The only other thing he needed was a bona fide residence in the State. His lawyer was claiming that Hans didn't need the character of a King to sue the State. Why would he do that unless he knew that Hans had the character of a freed slave and subject of the United States?

Why would the Supreme Court tell Hans that a State can not be sued without its permission by a citizens of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state. Hans is claiming that he is neither one of these. He is a Citizen of the Same State. He is a Citizen of the State of Louisiana suing the hired help.

It is too clear for argument that the phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose. The lawyer and the Supreme Court both knew that Hans was not a Citizen of the State of Louisiana. He must not have a bona fide residence in that State. He has the character of a freed slave. Hans is a Citizen of the Untied States. A subject of a foreign State.

If you have been checking up on me you have seen for yourself that the United States Supreme Court told us that it was our birthright to be born Kings. That is what we fought for when we declared our independence. They told you that in the Dred Scott Case. You've seen in the United States Supreme Court tell you that the fourteenth amendment changed all that. Now you were born a freed slave, a citizen of the United States until you got a bona fide residence in a States. They told you that in the Slaughterhouse Cases. Now, in the Hans case, Hans thinks he is a King. A Citizen of the State of Louisiana. Obviously, the lawyers and the Court know differently. Hans is a Citizen of another State or a subject of a foreign State. His residence in the State of Louisiana must not be bona fide for some reason?

Now that I've told you the story that some very credible people told me. Let's have some less credible people tell you the same story but from another angle. This is the actual story of the overthrow of the United States. A behind the scenes look at the overthrow of our country. It is the Story of the Dubious Origins of the 14^th amendment. The lawyers are going to confess.

If you think that I am bulling you, ask yourself; Is my government treating me like a freed slave or a King. The answer will be obvious.

Do you remember the story of Dred Scott? In that story the Supreme Court told us that in Connecticut -- there was a provision which provides that if any free negro shall travel without such pass, and shall be stopped, seized, or taken up, he shall pay all charges arising thereby. Free negroes and mulattoes were associated with servants and slaves in the police regulations established by the laws of the State. Sounds like a traffic stop doesn't it.

Never forget. If you think that I am lying to you, go see for yourself. When you see that I am telling you the truth, copy this information and give it to someone else. When enough people know what happened, we can again declare us all to be Kings. It's just that easy.

Don't forget. The police will be kings too. The army, navy and air force will be converted to kings too. So will all of the bureaucrats that are oppressing us because it's their job. They'll be Kings too. We just have to agree to mutual defense again. Agree that all shall be Kings again, and we'll kick anyone's butt that says differently. Go back to the original agreement.

If you still think I am bulling you. Go and look at the United States Constitution. Surely you can believe that document. Go and see that all of the amendments after the 13^th specifically mention citizens of the United States. Remember, the Slaughterhouse Cases taught us that a Citizen of a State is a King and has rights. A citizen of the United States is a freed slave and subject to the police power of the government.

Are you registered to vote as a citizen of the United States? After the 14^th amendment, Dred Scott was one too.

OK, it's time for the lawyers to confess.