Having shown that the United States being actually engaged in civil war, ---- in other words, having become a belligerent power, without formal declaration of war,--- it is important to ascertain what some of the rights of belligerents are, according to the law of nations. It will be observed that the law of nations is above the constitution of any government; and no people would be justified by its peculiar constitution in violating rights of other nations. With this caveat, it will be desirable to state some of the rights of belligerents. Either belligerent may seize and confiscate all the property of the enemy, on land or on the sea, including real as well as personal estate.
[This is exactly what they did to the woman above and hundreds of thousands of people in this country every year]
CAPTURE BY TITLE
Some persons have questioned whether title passes in this country by capture or confiscation, by reason of some of the limiting clauses of the constitution; and others have gone so far as to assert that all the proceedings under martial law, such as capturing the enemy's property, imprisonment of spies and traitors, and seizures of articles contraband of war [all drug related or other avenues the government of 1999 uses, whether guilty or not to seize such property], and suspending the habeas corpus, are in violation of the constitution, which declares that no man shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, Art. V; that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, Art. V; that unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be made, Art IV; that freedom of speech and of the press shall not be abridged, Art. I; and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, Art. II.
THESE PROVISIONS NOT APPLICABLE TO A STATE OF WAR
If these rules are applicable to a state of war, then capture of property is illegal, and does not pass a title; no defensive war can be carried on; . . . Not a gun can be fired constitutionally, because it might deprive a rebel foe of his life without due process of law --- firing a gun not being deemed "due process of law." If these rules above cited have any application in time of war, the United States cannot protect each of the States from invasion by citizens of other States, nor against domestic violence;
TRUE APPLICATION OF THESE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES
The clauses which have been cited from the amendments to the constitution were intended as declarations of the rights of peaceful and loyal citizens, and safeguards in the administration of justice by the civil tribunals; but it was necessary, in order to give the government the means of defending itself against domestic and foreign enemies, to maintain its authority and dignity, and to enforce obedience to its laws, that it should have unlimited war powers. The right of war and the rights of peace cannot coexist. One must yield to the other. Martial law and civil law cannot operate at the same time and place upon the same subject matter. Hence the constitution was framed with full recognition of that fact; it protects the citizen in peace and war; but his rights enjoyed under the constitution are different from those to which he is entitled in time of war.
[Now one must remember, that present day law is in reality military law that allows the civilian authorities to apply the rules of war upon belligerents. One must also remember that the United States has declared war upon its citizens by the act of 12 Stat 319 and 48 Stat 1, which, to this day, has never been repealed by Congress. The fact that Title 12 USC 95 (a) & (b) has declared the people of America "public enemies" still exists, proves it is a "domestic war" upon which President Roosevelt acted at the behest of the Federal Reserve. We have become the belligerent enemy to the belligerent United States. Mind you, we did not declare war against the United States, rather the United States declared an imperfect war upon the people of America. There is no public declaration as if we were a foreign power like Japan was in 1942. No, there is a subtle declaration in 48 Stat 1 and 12 Stat 319. People find this hard to believe until they read for themselves all these statutes and United States Codes and regulations I have quoted herein. The law speaks for itself quite clearly, and after reading them, it would be impossible for anyone to deny this fact. Belligerents we are, and with that in mind I return to the Book.]
WHETHER BELLIGERENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION DEPENDS UPON THE POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT
None of these rights, guaranteed to peaceful citizens, by the constitution belong to them after they have become belligerents against their own government. They thereby forfeit all protection under that sacred charter which they have thus sought to overthrow and destroy. [People, this was the ploy that the Roosevelt and Lincoln governments used to reign over the people of America. They reversed the roles as they declared the people the enemy, not the other way around]. One party to a contract cannot break it and at the same time hold the other to perform it. It is true that if the government elects to treat them as subjects and to hold them liable only to penalties for violating statutes, it must concede to all of them all the legal rights and privileges which other citizens would have when under similar accusations;.
THE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS CONFISCATION
Nothing in the constitution interferes with the belligerent right of confiscation of enemy property. [Always remember people, that you are the "enemy" declared by your wonderful government.] The right to confiscate is derived from a state of war. It is one of the rights of war. The right of confiscation belongs to the government as the necessary consequence of the power and duty of making war -- OFFENSIVE or defensive. [EMPHASIS Mine]. If authority were needed to support the right of confiscation, it may be found in 3 Dallas, 227; Vit.lib.iii., ch. 8, sect. 188; lib., ch. 9, sect. 161; Smith v Mansfield, cranch, 306-7; Cooper v Telfair, 4 Dallas; Brown v. U.S., 8 Cranch 110, 228, 229. From the foregoing authorities, it is evident that the government has a right, as a belligerent power, to capture or to confiscate any and all the personal property of the enemy; that there is nothing in the constitution which limits or controls the exercise of that right; and that capture in war, or confiscation by law, passes a complete title to the property taken; and that, if judicial condemnation of enemy property be sought, in order to pass title to it by formal decree of courts, by mere seizure, and without capture, the confiscation must have been declared by act of Congress, a mere declaration of war not being ex vi termini sufficient for that purpose.
[This is exactly how and why the IRS operate, the BATF, the DEA, and all those other alphabet agencies of government, right down to child services. And, remember the IRS is nothing but a private collector hired by the IRS District Director to collect for the private Federal Reserve System, the debt owed to the International Monetary Fund by the United States, that caused you to become the "enemies" in 1933 by 48 Stat 1, which was written by the Board of Directors of the Federal Reserve. You also must remember at the beginning of this book, it is said by Whiting, that minors can be taken in time of war from their belligerent parent, or have you forgotten so soon?]
MILITARY GOVERNMENT UNDER MARTIAL LAW
In addition to the right of confiscating personal property of the enemy, a state of war also confers upon the government other not less important belligerent rights, and among them, the right to seize and hold conquered territory by military force, and of instituting and maintaining military government over it, thereby suspending in part, or in whole, the ordinary civil administration. The exercise of this right has been sanctioned by the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of California, Cross v Harrison, 16 How 164-190. And it is founded upon well-established doctrines of the law of nations. No citizen, whether loyal or rebel, is deprived of any right guaranteed to him in the constitution by reason of his subjection to martial law, because martial law, when in force, is constitutional law.
A SEVERE RULE OF BELLIGERENT LAW
"Property of persons residing in the enemy's country is deemed, in law, hostile, and subject to condemnation without any evidence As to the opinions or predilections of the owner." If he is the subject of a neutral, or a citizen of one of the belligerent States, and has expressed no disloyal sentiments towards his country, still his residence in the enemy's country impresses upon his property, engaged in commerce and found upon the ocean, a hostile character, and subjects it to condemnation. This familiar principle of law is sanctioned in the highest courts of England and of the United States, and has been decided to apply to cases of civil as well as of foreign war.
CIVIL RIGHT OF LOYAL CITIZENS IN LOYAL DISTRICTS ARE MODIFIED BY THE EXISTENCE OF WAR
While war is raging, many of the rights held sacred by the constitution -- rights which cannot be violated by any acts of Congress -- may and must be suspended and held in abeyance.
[The following proves that you never owned your property and if you did it can still be taken, evidence the woman's plight above. So much for the argument that even the King may not enter your house although the cold, wind, rain , etc. etc. may. And so much for the argument that you are sovereign and the government takes a back seat to your wishes. Remember, reader that you have been declared the "enemy" by those officials of government, namely, Congress and the president, who you claim to be your servants. The confiscation acts have not been repealed and have been in force since 1787.]
BELLIGERENT RIGHT TO CONFISCATE THE ENEMY'S REAL ESTATE
The belligerent right of the government to confiscate enemy's real estate, situated in this country, can hardly admit of a question. The title to no inconsiderable part of the real estate in each of the original States of the Union, rests upon the validity of the confiscation acts, passed by our ancestors against loyal adherents to the crown. Probably none of these States failed to pass and apply these laws. English and American acts of confiscation were recognized by the laws of both countries, and their operation modified by treaties; their validity was never denied. The only authority which either of the States or colonies ever had for passing such laws was derived from the fact that they were the belligerents.
THE PRESIDENT IS THE SOLE JUDGE
"It belongs exclusively to the President to judge when the exigency arises in which he has the authority, under the constitution, to call forth the militia and his decision is exclusive on all other person." *Such is the language of Chief Justice Taney, in delivering the opinion of the Supreme Court, in Martin v Mott, 12 Wheaton, 19
[Jumping to Chapter five and reading what the true meaning of the constitution is, will be shocking to those that think what they read is what they read and cannot infer any other meaning. No so, because the constitution is couched in technical language, NOT common sense meaning. This was shown when I quoted Article I Section 8 clauses.]