[Editor's Note: Perhaps the reader is following a link to this page from a discussion of interracial marriage.  Interracial marriage accomplishes in fact what the legislatures envisioned in the delusional change in law after the Civil War.  Rather than truly setting a people free, they used them and their condition to alter the fundamental law of the original Nation and their Posterity.  The supposedly freed men were not elevated in status but the original Citizens were eventually brought down to bondage in the superficial attempt to make them equal; this of course does not help the situation of those supposedly released from bondage.  Read these debates and see that the freedmen were not brought into the mainstream of liberty enjoyed by the Posterity of this Nation under the Judicial power of the States or united States; instead, a military jurisdiction was extended over all people.  Through these debates, amendments and laws, legislators set the stage for the ultimate corruption of blood, marriage outside of your race, which obstructs the Common Law of both Peoples, not achievable through mere legislation.  More elaboration will be found on this subject, for the benefit of all races, in a coming essay.  Meanwhile, let's review the legislative history of our current events as presented by Robert Wangrud.]

The questions many have on their minds today are: Just what is the CONDITION OF THE REPUBLIC?  Is the posterity of "We, the People" destroyed?  Can the Republic as it once stood be reformed?

Nationally, today, the Republic is under a socialistic power enforced by a military venue and a martial law jurisdiction under the authority of the President of the United States and regulated by the socialist Congress.  The legislatures of the several States have either been forced or have willingly cooperated in reforming America by converting the Christian Republic of our Nation into a Socialistic Republic under National Military Rule, i.e., Martial Rule.

This trend to reform America into a Socialistic Republic began in earnest with the 39th Congress.  The 39th Congress of the United States convened in the Capitol at Washington on the 4th day of December, 1865.

The Civil War had been considered ended even though the Southern States were still under military authority (martial law) and the Southern States were not allowed to be represented in the House or Senate (at the time of the 39th Congress).

Only Congressmen and Senators from the Northern States were represented in the 39th Congress, which means the conditions of the Republic we live in and by today are a direct result from a Congress that did not have representation by Congressmen or Senators from eleven of the several States, and thus it was a Congress that convened with the full power of martial law to enforce all of its legislation.

The 39th Congress convened after President Lincoln had been slain and Andrew Johnson had assumed the office of President of the United States for America.

One positive note about President Johnson is that he fought to preserve the Christian Republic as founded by our forefathers and as accepted by the people known as "We, the People."

He was eventually impeached by the socialistic Congress for his effort.  Therefore, Andrew Johnson never committed the crime of Corruption of Blood as many of the members of both houses of Congress did during the events of the 39th Congress.

For those who don't understand the term "Corruption of Blood" it simply means to commit treason against your race.

One such act of treason occurred over the issue of voting in the District of Columbia.

"Whatever differences of opinion may exist as to the authority of Congress to legislate for States loyal or disloyal, or for Territories, there is entire unanimity as to the power and duty of Congress to enact laws for the District of Columbia.  Here there is no countercurrent of 'reserved rights' or 'State sovereignty' as opposed to the authority of Congress. "Congress being responsible for the legislation of the District of Columbia, we naturally look in that direction for an exhibition in miniature of the policy of the national legislature on questions relating to the interest of the nation at large."  History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States by William H.  Barnes, A.M., p.  50. [Editor's Note: This book is available to download as a text file or PDF file.]

The words come to mind, "So goes the District of Columbia, so goes the Nation!" To support this idea is to also support an all-powerful central national government and a policy to destroy the sovereignty of the several States, which is the main object of the majority of the 39th Congress.

For example, the statement of Mr.  Wilson of Iowa:

"Mr. Wilson, of Iowa, whose duty it was, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee, to report the bill, opened the discussion by speaking as follows in favor of the measure: 'Can we excuse ourselves in continuing a limitation on the right of suffrage in the capital of the republic that has no justification in reason, justice or in the principles on which we profess to have based our entire political system?  Upon this question there seems to have been but little difference of opinion among the men who laid the foundation and built the superstructure of the Government.  In those days no limitation was placed upon the enjoyment of the defensive rights of the citizen, including the right of suffrage, on account of the color of the skin, except in the State of South Carolina.  All of the other States participating in the formation of the Government of the United States had some limitation, based on sex, or age, or property placed upon the right of suffrage; but none of them so far forgot the spirit of our Constitution, the great words of the Declaration of Independence, or the genius of our institutions, as to inquire into the color of a citizen before allowing him the great defensive right of the ballot."  Ibid, p.  51.

This statement by Wilson is a total lie.  Anyone who examines the evidence knows that the established law from the beginning of America was that only one race, the White Race, would govern America.

There were members in Congress back then who spoke the truth.

[Editor's Note: The following is a political statement which reflects upon the wisdom of including another race of people into the ranks of the Founding Race.  Courts will not rule upon political questions but will rule upon matters of law as presented elsewhere in this article.]

"Mr. Boyer, of Pennsylvania, said: 'The design of this bill is to inaugurate here, upon this most conspicuous state, the first act of the new political drama which is intended to culminate in the complete political equality of the races and the establishment of negro suffrage throughout the States.  Constitutional amendments with this view have been already introduced at both ends of the Capitol.  The object of the leaders of this movement is no longer concealed; and if there is any thing in their action to admire, it is the candor, courage, and ability with which they press their cause.  The agitation is to go on until the question has been settled by the country, and it may as well be met here upon the threshold.  This monstrous proposition is nothing less than the absorption into the body politic of the nation of colored population equal to one-sixth of all the inhabitants of the country, as the census reports will show.  Four millions of the population so to be amalgamated have been just set free from a servitude, the debasing influences of which have many a time been vividly depicted in the antislavery speeches of the very men who are the most prominent champions of this new political gospel. 'The argument in favor of the American negro's right to vote must be measured by his capacity to understand and his ability to use such right for the promotion of the public good.  And that is the very matter in dispute.  But the point does not turn simply upon the inferiority of the negro race; for difference without inferiority may unfit one race for political or social assimilation with another, and render their fusion in the same government incompatible with the general welfare.  It is, as I conceive, upon these principles that we settle the question whether this is a white man's government. 'The negro has no history of civilization.  From the earliest ages of recorded time he has ever been a savage or a slave.  He has populated with teaming millions the vast extent of a continent, but in no portion of it has he ever emerged from barbarism, and in no age or country has he ever established any other stable government than a despotism.  But he is the most obedient and happy of slaves."  Ibid, p.  54.

[Editor's Note: See also the political reasoning in the Treatise by Judge Tombs, link to be provided later.]

These men who stood for God, Country and Race were few as only the brave would at this time speak out and run the risk of being called a traitor to the new socialist republic.  Of course, the colored race received the privilege of voting in the District of Columbia and after the passage of the 15th amendment, under conditions of martial law, the voting privilege was extended to the colored in the several States.  Is this not a loss of State Sovereignty over who could vote which was established by the original constitutions of those States?

The 39th Congress knew they could not perpetually maintain full martial law over the Southern States so they schemed to make a lesser form of martial law perpetual over these States.  One such scheme was the Freedman's Bureau Bill.

"On the 19th of December Mr.  Trumbull gave notice that 'on some early day' he would 'introduce a bill to enlarge the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau so as to secure freedom to all persons within the United Sates, and protect every individual in the full enjoyment of the rights of person and property, and furnish him with means for their vindication.'  Of the introduction of this measure he said it would be done 'in view of the adoption of the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery.  I have never doubted that, on the adoption of that amendment, it would be competent for Congress to protect every person in the United States in all the rights of person and property belonging to a free citizen; and to secure these rights is the object of the bill which I propose to introduce.  I think it important that action should be taken on this subject at an early day, for the purpose of quieting apprehensions in the minds of many friends of freedom, lest by local legislation or prevailing public sentiment in some of the States, persons of African race should continue to be oppressed, and, in fact, deprived of their freedom; and for the [word missing in original text] also, of showing to those among whom slavery has heretofore existed, that unless by local legislation they provide for the real freedom of their former slaves, the Federal Government will, by virtue of its own authority, see that they are fully protected. "On the 5th day of January, 1866, the first day of the session of Congress after the holidays, Mr.  Trumbull obtained leave to introduce a bill 'to enlarge the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau.'  The bill was read twice by its title, and as it contained provisions relating to the exercise of judicial functions by the officers and agents of the Freedmen's Bureau, under certain circumstances, in the late insurgent States, it was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. "On the 11th of January Mr.  Trumbull reported the bill from the Judiciary Committee, to whom it had been referred, with some amendments of a verbal character.  On the following day these amendments were considered by the Senate, in Committee of the Whole, and adopted.  The consideration of the bill as amended was deferred to a subsequent day. "The bill provided that 'the act to establish a Bureau for the relief of Freedmen and Refugees, approved March 3, 1865, shall continue until otherwise provided for by law, and shall extend to refugees and freedmen in all parts of the United States. The President is to be authorized to divide the section of country containing such refugees and freedmen into districts, each containing one or more States, not to exceed twelve in number, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint an assistant commissioner for each district, who shall give like bond, scribed by the act and the act to which it is an amendment.  The Bureau may, in the discretion of the President, be placed under a commissioner and assistant commissioners to be detailed from the army, in which event each officer so assigned to duty is to serve without increase of pay or allowances. "The commissioner, with the approval of the President, is to divide each district into a number of sub-districts, not to exceed the number of counties or parishes in each State, and to assign to each sub-district at least one agent, either a citizen, officer of the army, or enlisted man, who, if an officer, is to serve without additional compensation or allowance, and if a citizen or enlisted man, is to receive a salary not exceeding $1,500 per annum.  Each assistant commissioner may employ not exceeding six clerks, one of the third class and five of the first class, and each agent of a sub-district may employ two clerks of the first class.  The President of the United States through the War Department and the commissioner, is to extend military jurisdiction and protection over all employees, agents, and officers of the Bureau ..."  Ibid, pp.  104-106.

Notice the bill provides for the President to establish districts and sub-districts; of course what is being done here is the establishment of districts within a regional area under a military jurisdiction.  Mr.  Trumbull wished to extend the power of the Freedmen's Bureau and empower it with the power of the federal militia under the authority of martial law. One Senator from Indiana saw this as an act to bring martial law over all of the States of the Union.

"On the following day, Mr.  Hendricks presented his objections to the bill in a speach of considerable length.  He was followed by Mr.  Trumbull in reply.  As both were members of the Judiciary Committee from which the bill was reported, and both had carefully considered the reasons for and against the measure, their arguments are given at length. "Mr.  Hendricks said: 'At the last session of Congress the original law creating the bureau was passed.  We were then in the midst of the war; very considerable territory had been brought within the control of the Union troops and armies, and within the scope of that territory, it was said, there were many freedmen who must be protected by a bill of that sort; and it was mainly upon that argument that the bill was enacted.  The senate was very reluctant to enact the law creating the bureau as it now exists.  There was so much hesitancy on the part of the Senate that by a very large vote it refused to agree to the bill reported by the Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr.  Sumner,] from a committee of conference, and I believe the honorable Senator from Illinois, [Mr.  Trumbull,] who introduced this bill, himself voted against that bill; and why?  That bill simply undertook to define the powers and duties of the Freedmen's Bureau and its agents, and the Senate would not agree to confer the powers that the bill upon its face seemed to confer, and it was voted down; and then the law as it now stands was enacted in general terms.  There was very little gained, indeed, by the Senate refusing to pass the first bill and enacting the latter, for under the law as it passed, the Freedmen's Bureau assumed very nearly all the jurisdiction and to exercise all the powers contemplated in the bill reported by the Senator from Massachusetts. 'Now, sir, it is important to note very carefully the enlargement of the powers of the bureau proposed by this bill; and in the first place, it proposes to make the bureau permanent.  The last Congress would not agree to this.  The bill that the senate voted down did not limit the duration of the bureau, and it was voted down, and the bill that the Senate agreed to provided that the bureau should continue during the war and only for one year after its termination.  That was the judgment of the Senate at the last session.  What has occurred since to change the judgment of the Senate in this imortant matter?  What change in the condition of the country induces the Senate now to say that this shall be a permanent bureau or department of the Government, when at the last session it said it should cease to exist within one year after the conclusion of the war?  Why, sir it seems to me that the country is now, and especially the Southern states are now in better condition than the senate had reason to expect when the law was enacted.  Civil government has been restored in almost all the Southern States; the courts are restored in many of them; in many localities they are exercising their jurisdiction within their particular localities without let or hindrance; and why I ask Senators, shall we make this bureau a perpetual and permanent institution of the Government when we refused to do it at the last session? 'I ask Senators, in the first place, if they are now, with the most satisfactory information that is before the body, willing to do that which they refused to do at the last session of Congress?  We refused to pass the law when it proposed to establish a permanent department.  Shall we now, when the war is over, when the States are returning to their places in the Union, when the citizens are returning to their allegiance, when peace and quiet, to a very large extent prevail over that county, when the courts are re-established; is the Senate now, with this information before it, willing to make this a permanent bureau and department of the Government? 'The next proposition of the bill is, that it shall not be confined any longer to the southern states,, but that it shall have a government over the States of the North as well as of the South. The old law allowed the President to appoint a commissioner for each o the States that had been declared to be in rebellion - one for each of the eleven seceding States, not to exceed ten in all.  This bill provides that the jurisdiction of the bureau shall extend where, within the limits of the United States, refugees or freedmen have gone.  Indiana has not been a State in insurrection, and yet there are thousands of refugees and freedmen who have gone into that State within the last three years.  This bureau is to become a governing power over the State of Indiana according to the provisions of the bill.  Indiana, that provides for her own paupers, Indiana, that provides for the government of her own people, may, under provision of the bill be placed under a government that our fathers never contemplated - a government that must be most distasteful to freemen.'"  Ibid, pp.  108-110.

Senator Hendricks recognized that the Regional National Agency would have the National Military power even in the Northern States should the Black Race or any part of them decide to reside in Indiana.  The Senator realized this condition would place the Citizens of Indiana under a military venue and a martial law jurisdiction as they interacted with the freedmen.

Next Senator Hendricks complains of the cost of the Freedmen's Bureau:

"'How is it that a department that has but a partial jurisdiction over the people shall cost almost as much for the management of four million people as it cost to manage the whole Government, for its army, its navy, its legislative and judicial departments, in former years?  My learned friend from Kentucky suggests that the expenses under John Quincy Adams' administration were about thirteen million dollars.  What was the population of the United States at that time I am not prepared to state.  But it was fare about four millions.  Now, to manage four million people is to cost the people of the United States, under law as it stands, nearly as much as it cost the people to manage the whole affairs of the Government under the administration of Mr.  John Quincy Adams.'"  Ibid, p.  111.

I ask you: How much has been the cost to maintain the black race today?  How far have they advanced?  One should consider whether or not Mr.  Wilson of Iowa would, today, if he examined the experiment he supported and evaluated his assumption if he would decide he was wrong.  Most of the excuses I read today why the black race are still below the standard of the Whites' Race are the same excuses I read that were made by the 39th Congress.  I believe we can call this "experiment" a failure.

Senator Hendricks further recognizes the military takeover of Indiana.

"'Then, sir, when this army of officers has been organized, the bill provides: 'And the President of the United States, through the War Department and the commissioner, shall extend military jurisdiction and protection over all employees, agents, and officers of this bureau. 'Will some Senator be good enough to tell me what that means?  If Indiana be declared a State within which are found refugees and freedmen, who have escaped from the Southern States, and if Indiana has a commissioner appointed to her, and if in each county of Indiana there be a sub-commissioner at a salary of $1,500 a year, with two clerks with a salary of $1,200 each, and then the War Department throws over this little army of office-holders in the State of Indiana its protection, what does that mean?  The people of Indiana have been ground hard under the military authority and power within the last three or four years, but it was borne because it was hoped that when the war would be closed the military power would be withdrawn from the State.  Under this bill it may be established permanently upon the people by a body of men protected by the military power of the Government. An officer is appointed to the State of Indiana to regulate the contracts which are made between the white people and the colored people of that State, and because he holds this office, not military in its character, involving no military act whatever, the military throws over him its iron shield of protection.  What does that mean?  I this officer shall do a great wrong and outrage to one of the people, and the wronged citizen appeals to the court for his redress and brings his suit for damages, does the protecting shield of the War Department prevent the prosecution of that suit and recovery of a judgment? What is the protection that is thrown over this army of office-holders?  Let it be explained.'"  Ibid, p.  112.

How many Regional National Agencies do we have in every State, County, and City in America today that are extended from the National military venue / martial law jurisdiction?  Every one of them is the answer.

Senator Hendricks next shows how property rights are considered under a military venue / martial law jurisdiction:

"'The fifth section, as amended by the proposition before the Senate, proposes to confirm the possessory right of the colored people upon these lands for three years from the date of that order, or about two years from this time.  ...  I have no doubt that General Sherman had the power, as a military commander, at the time, to set apart the abandoned lands along the coast as a place in which to leave the colored people then surrounding his army; but that General Sherman during the war, or that Congress after the war, except by a proceeding for confiscation, can take land permanently from one person and give it to another, I do not admit; nor did General Sherman undertake to do that.  In express terms, he said that they should have the right of possession; for what length of time he did not say, for the reason that he could not say.  It was a military possession that he conferred, and that possession would last only during the continuance of the military occupation, and no longer.  If General Sherman, by his General Order No.  15, placed the colored people upon the lands along the coast of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, for a temporary purpose, what was the extent of the possessory right which he could confer? He did not undertake to give title for any defined period, but simply the right of possession.  It is fair to construe his order as meaning only what he could do, giving the right of possession during military occupancy. Now, sir, the President informs us that the rebellion is suppressed; that the war is over; that military law no longer governs in that country; but that peace is restored, and that civil law shall now govern.  What, then, is the law upon the subject?  A right of posseion is given by the commanding general to certain persons with that region of country; peace follows, and with peace comes back the right of the real owners to the possession.  This possession that the General undertook to give, according to the law, could not last longer than the military occupancy.  When peace comes, the right of the owners return with it.'"  Ibid, p.  114-115.

Clearly, only the right of possession is available under a military venue / martial law jurisdiction.  If the posterity of those who formed the original body politic joined the body politic formed by the Regional National social security act, would not the posterity then have lost their right of property under the common law principle of DROIT-DROIT?  (See also, Dreit-Dreit)

"DROIT-DROIT.  A double right; that is, the right of possession and the right of property.  These two rights were, by the theory of our ancient law, distinct; and the above phrase was used to indicate the concurrence o both in one person, which concurrence was necessary to constitute a complete title to land.  Mozley & Whitley." Black's Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed., (1910), West Pub., p.  399, title: Droit-Droit

[Editor's Note: You can see the word droit used singularly in the French copyright warning at the beginning of many rental movies on videotape and DVD.]

Senator Hendricks is clearly showing that under a military venue / martial law jurisdiction that only the right of possession is recognized.  Isn't this the attitude of the officials today that person as defined by statue are not owners of property but only have a statutory privilege of possession? You know it is.  Then is it not also true that the two body politics formed under the 14th amendment and the Social Security Act are under a military venue / martial law jurisdiction?  You know they are.  Senator Hendricks next addresses the issue of State Sovereignty:

"'The General Government may buy land when it is necessary for the exercise of any of its powers; but outside of that, it seems to me, there is no power within the Constitution allowing it. 'The most remarkable sections of the bill, however, are the seventh and eighth, and to those sections I will ask for the careful attention of Senator; for I think if we can pass those two sections, and make them law, then indeed this Government can do anything. It will be useless to speak any longer of limitations upon the power of the General Government; it will be idle to speak of the reserved power of the States; State rights and State power will have passed away if we can do what is proposed in the seventh and eighth sections of this bill. We propose, first, to legislate against the effects of 'local law, ordinance, police, or other regulation;' then against 'custom,' and lastly, against 'prejudice,' and to provide that 'if any of the civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons' are denied to any person because of color, then that person shall be taken under the military protection of the Government. I do not know whether that will be understood to extend to Indiana or not.  That will be a very nice point for the bureau to decide, I presume, after the enactment of the law.  The section limits its operation to 'any State or district in which the ordinary course of judicial proceeding has been interrupted by the rebellion.'  It will be difficult to say whether in the State of Indiana and Ohio the ordinary course of judicial proceeding has or has not been interrupted.  We had some war in Indiana; we had a very great raid through that State and some fighting; and I presume that in some cases the proceedings of the courts were interrupted and the courts were unable to go on with their business, so that is might be said that even in some of the Northern States this provision of the bill would be applicable.  Suppose that it were applicable to the state of Indiana, then every man in that State, who attempted to execute the constitution and laws of the State, would be liable for a violation of the law.  We do not allow to colored people there, many civil rights and immunities which are enjoyed by the white people. It became the policy of the State in 1852 to prohibit the immigration of colored people into that State.  I am not going to discuss the question whether that was a wise policy or not.  A the time it received the approval of my judgment.  Under that constitutional provision, and the laws enacted in pursuance of it, a colored man coming into the State since 1852 can not acquire title to real estate, can not make certain contracts, and no negro man is allowed to intermarry with a white woman.  These are civil rights that are denied, and yet this bill proposes, if they are still denied in any State whose courts have been interrupted by the rebellion, the military protection of the Government shall be extended over the person who is thus denied such civil rights or immunities. 'The next section of the bill provides punishments where any of these things are done, where any right is denied to a colored man which under State law is allowed to a white man.  The language is very vague, and it is very difficult to say what this section will mean.  If it has as broad a construction as is attempted to be given to the second section of the constitutional amendment, I would not undertake to guess what it means.  Any man who shall deny to any colored man any civil rights secured to white persons, shall be liable to be taken before the officers of this bureau and to be punished according to the provisions of this section.  In the first place now that peace is restored, now that there is no war, now that men are no longer under military rule, but are under civil rule, I want to know how such a court can be organized, how it is that the citizen may be arrested without indictment, and may be brought before the officers of this bureau and tried without jury, tried without the forms which the Constitution requires.'"  Ibid, pp.  116-117

How can a court be organized?  Consider a court organized by statue passed by Congress under its power to legislate under martial law.  This court could be created in appearance to look and to proceed as any court would that was not under a military venue / martial law jurisdiction.  The judge would not be in uniform or referred to as a judge advocate (as a judge is in a military tribunal).  The court would appear as the regular court exercising the judicial power of the United States or the States, but it would be supervised b the military venue / martial law jurisdiction as legislated by Congress under any of the three forms of martial law.  [See March, 1990 issue of Behold!] Is there any evidence this is true today?

Look at the Flag of the United States that is displayed in the court.  It has a fringe border around it, doesn't it?  Nowhere in the information I have of the description of the National Flag of the United States does the authority for a fringe exist outside of a military venue and a martial law jurisdiction.

"The placing of a fringe on the national flag, the dimensions of the flag and the arrangement of the stars in the union are matter of detail not controlled by statute, but are with the discretion of the President as Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. "Ancient custom sanctions the use of fringe on the regimental colors and standards, but there seems to be no good reason or precedent for its use on other flags." The Adjutant General of the Army, March 28, 1924; 34 Op.  Atty.  Gen.  483, 485 (1925).

The military does require the fringe to be used on their flags.

AR 840-10, 1 October 1979 "2-3.  Sizes and occasions for display. "b.  National flags listed below are for indoor display and for use in ceremonies and parades.  For these purposes the United States flag will be rayon banner cloth, trimmed on three sides with golden yellow fringe, 2 1/2 inches wide.  It will be the same size as the flags displayed or carried with it. "c.  Authorization for indoor display. "(4) each military courtroom."

The display of the military's fringed United States flag outside of military venue / martial law jurisdiction is prohibited by their own regulations.

AR 840-10, 1 October 1979 "1-6 Restrictions.  The following limitations and prohibitions are applicable to flags, guidons, streamers, and components. "e.  Unauthorized use of official flags, guidons, and streamers.  Display or use of flags, guidons, and streamers or replicas thereof, including those presently or formerly carried by US Army units, by other than the office, individual, or organization for which authorized, is prohibited except as indicated in (3) below. "(3) Recognized United States Army division associations ..."

All that needs to be uncovered is the President's Proclamation or Executive Order that the yellow fringed flag be installed in the State and federal courts - or is it the venue of the case which automatically places the military flag in the courts of the civil authorities?  - and you can prove the courts under Article III (possessing the judicial power of the United States) or the State courts of record (having common law jurisdiction) are in suspension.

The President does have the power to do this in any court, State or federal, that hears cases either civil or criminal involving the enforcement of law proceeding from any Regional Title such as 26 USC or 42 USC, etc.  Title 18 USC 241-242 are statutes protecting the body politic under the 13th and 14th amendments, which places them within the military venue / martial law jurisidiction.

Any court, State or federal, hearing cases under these statutes would fly the yellow fringed flag.

As far as I can determine it, there are only two courts on the federal level that have both criminal and civil jurisdiction and these are courts established under Article III and military courts.  In the States, only two courts have criminal and civil jurisdiction; these are courts in possession of the judicial power of the State (Common Law Courts) or legislative courts under the federal military venue / martial law jurisdiction.

What is the difference between the criminal jurisdiction of a State court of common law jurisdiction and a State legislative court under federal military venue /martial law jurisdiction?  It is simply that a State court of common law jurisdiction must prove hardship or damage to justify its criminal jurisdiction (as determined by a jury).

This is a criminal jurisdiction that is purely statutory, as compared to a common law criminal jurisdiction which is determined by a jury (either petit or grand) and not by statue.  But a petit or grand jury under the common law could only be composed of Citizens as known and understood by the original constitution, either State or federal, whereas a jury (either petit or grand) under a military venue / martial law jurisdiction could only be composed of persons as defined by statute.

Legislative statues (either State or federal) only describe persons as found in the body politic under the 14th amendment or the Social Security Act.

Patriots across this Nation are demanding common law juries.  What these people don't realize is common law jurors can only be called up from the body politic formed under the statute of 1776 (Declaration of Independence and its counterpoint, Citizens of the State).  Those defined as persons by statute are not qualified to sit as a jury under the common law jurisdiction.

This is one of the purposes of the rescission program we offer, to reform the original body politic from where the common law jurors are drawn.  How can any person demand that which does not exist?  Only by reforming the original body politic can juries of common law jurisdiction be possible.

Senator Hendricks poses another question about how the Freedmen's Bill will hit at the core of State sovereignty:

"'Suppose a minister, when called upon, should refuse to solemnize a marriage between a colored man and white woman because the law of the State forbade it, would he then, refusing to recognize a civil right which is enjoyed by a white person, be liable for this punishment? 'I regard it as a very dangerous legislation.  It proposes to establish a government within a government - not a republic within a republic, but a cruel despotism within a republic. In times of peace, in communities that are quiet and orderly, and obedient to law, it is proposed to establish a government not responsible to the people, the officers of which are not selected by the people, the officers of which need not be of the people governed - a government more cruel, more despotic, more dangerous to the liberties of the people than against which our forefathers fought in the Revolution.  There is nothing that these men may not do, under this bill, to oppress the people. 'I have not heard, since Congress met, that any colored man has done a wrong in this country for many years; and I have scarcely heard that any white man coming in contact with colored people has done right for a number of years.  Everybody is expected to take sides for the colored man against the white man.  If I have to take sides, it will be with men of my own color and my own race ...'"  Ibid, pp.  118-119. Senator Hendrick's last statement holds true; white men can have all the compassion for the other races they wish; but when it comes down to committing Corruption of Blood, he had better stand with own race. Senator Hendricks was not the only voice against Congress imposing a military venue / martial law jurisdiction over the Nation; Mr.  Ritter of Kentucky also strenuously opposed the Freedmen's Bill. Very strenuous opposition to the passage of the bill was made by most of the members from Kentucky.  Mr.  Ritter, of that State, uttered his earnest protest at considerable length against the measure.  He presented his views of the "'grand purposes and designs of those who introduced this bill.'" In his opinion they intended "'to commence a colony in each one of the five States above named, which ultimately to drive out the entire white population of those States and fill their places with the negro race.'" And whether this is the design or not, it is certain, in my judgment, to have this effect.  And they could not have devised a more effectual scheme for that purpose. "'Sir, it is not to be expected that the two races will live contentedly where there are large number of the colored people living near to neighborhoods settled with white persons.  Experience has proved to many of us that wherever large numbers of colored people live, that the white people living within five or ten miles of the place becomes sufferers to a very large extent.  Now, sir, if this should be the case (as I have no doubt it will) in the States in which you purpose to establish these people, the whites and blacks will disagree to such an extent that, when people find that the colored people are permanently established, they will be compelled in self defense, to seek a home somewhere else.  No doubt, Mr.  Speaker, but that those who prepared this bill saw that the difficulties and disagreements to which I have just alluded would arise, and hence they require that military jurisdiction and protection shall be extended, so as to give safety in their movements; and if the white inhabitants become dissatisfied, the commissioner is prepared with authority by this bill to buy them out and put the negroes upon the land.'"  Ibid, pp.  149-150. Mr.  Ritter's statements are true even to the present day; most regional government agencies do cater to the non-white races. "Mr.  McDougall have subsequently obtained the floor, make the remark: 'I, being a white man, say for the white men and white women that they will take care of themselves.  This bill was not made for white women or white men, or white men and women's children.'"  Ibid, p.  163. President Andrew Johnson sent along with his veto of the Freedmen's Bill his objections in writing.  Here are some of his statements: "'In those eleven States the bill subjects any white person who may be charged with depriving a freedman of 'any civil rights or immunities belonging to white persons' to imprisonment or fine, or both, without, however, defining the 'civil rights and immunities' which are thus to be secured to the freedmen by military law.  This military jurisdiction also extends to all questions that may arise respecting contracts.'"  Ibid, p.  165. Notice the bill's definition of a crime requires deprivation of statutory "civil rights or immunities" to freedmen, again jail and fine determining statutory crimes.  The common law definition of a crime is that hardship or damage has been done and determined by a jury, not the legislators. "'The punishment will be, not what the law declares, but such as a court-martial may think proper; and from these arbitrary tribunals there lies no appeal, no writ of error to any of the courts in which the Constitution of the United States vest exclusively the Judicial power of the country.'"  Ibid, p.  165. This is just what we face today in the regional federal Courts.  These Courts are not Courts in possession of the judicial power of the united States; even the appellant Courts carry the same military jurisdiction.  The supreme Court under these conditions is barred from using the judicial power of the united States in a military jurisdiction.  Whether or not the supreme Court should be accepting cases within a military jurisdiction is highly questionable. On the question of land - when President Andrew Johnson made the following statement - remember that the due process he is referring to is the due process of the Fifth Article in Amendment as the 14th amendment had not been passed yet. "'In addition to the objections already stated, the fifth section of the bill proposes to take away land from its former owners without any legal proceeding being first had, contrary to that provision of the Constitution which declares that no person shall 'be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'  It does not appear that a part of the lands to which this section refers may not be owned by minors or persons of unsound mind, or by those who have been faithful to all their obligations as citizens of the United State.  If any portion of the land is held by such persons, it is not competent for any authority to deprive them of it. If, on the other hand, it be found that the property is liable to confiscation, even then it can not be appropriated to public purposes until, by due process of law, it shall be declared forfeited to the Government. 'In this connection the query presents itself, whether the system proposed by the bill will not, when put into complete operation, practically transfer the entire care, support, and control of four million emancipated slaves to agents, overseers, or task-masters, who, appointed at Washington, are to be located in every county and parish throughout the United States containing freedmen and refugees?  Such a system would inevitably tend to a concentration of power in the Executive which would enable him, if so disposed, to control the action of this numerous class and use them for the attainment of his own political ends.'"  Ibid, pp.  167-168. Andrew Johnson's last remark is interesting, as he indicates that the people should decide the issue - which was the furthest thing in the minds of the turncoats in the 39th Congress. "'In accordance with the Constitution, I return the bill to the Senate, in the earnest hope that a measure involving questions and interests so important to the country will not become a law unless, upon deliberate consideration by the people, it shall receive the sanction of an enlightened public judgment."  Ibid, p.  170. The 39th Congress voted to override the President's veto on both the first and the second versions of the Freedmen's Bill and made it law in violation of the organic law of the nation. Also before the 39th Congress was the Civil Rights Bill. "'The preceding Congress having proposed an amendment to the Constitution by which slavery should be abolished, and this amendment have been 'ratified by three-fourths of the several States,' four millions of the inhabitants of the United States were transformed from slaves into freemen.  To leave them with their shackles broken off, unprotected, in a new and undefined position, would have been a sin against them only surpassed in enormity by the original crime of their enslavement. 'As provided in the amendment itself, it devolved upon Congress 'to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'  The Thirty-Ninth Congress assembled, realizing that it devolved upon them to define the extent, privileges, and duties of the freedmen.  That body was not slow in meeting the full measure of its responsibility."  Ibid, p.  188. Notice - the language of the power clause of section two of the Thirteenth Amendment is the language of martial law. "Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." 13th amendment, section 2. Mr.  Johnson of Maryland, even though in favor of conferring citizenship on the Negro, has a hard time justifying this bill due to the unauthorized power which Congress would self-appoint to itself. "Mr.  Johnson, of Maryland, made a speech in which he expressed himself as in favor of conferring citizenship upon the negro, and yet unable to vote for this bill from the opinion he entertained on 'the question of power.'  He referred to the Dred Scott and other decisions, and showed their bearing upon the legislation now proposed.  He said: 'I have been exceeding anxious individually that there should be some definition which will rid this class of our people from that objection.  If the Supreme Court decision is a binding one, and will be followed in the fuure, this la which we are now about to pass will be held, of course, to be of no avail, as far as it professes to define what citizenship is, because it gives the rights of citizenship to all persons without distinction of color, and, of course, embraces Africans or descendants of Africans.'"  Ibid, p.  198. But, Mr.  Davis of Kentucky in his opposition of the bill, had no problem with the fact that Congress couldn't justify its position. Mr.  Davis, of Kentucky, spoke against the propriety and constitutionality of making all negroes citizens of he United States.  He said: "'There never was a colony before the Declaration of Independence, and there never was a State after the Declaration of Independence, up to the time of the adoption of the Constitution, so far as I have been able to learn by the slight historical examination which I have given to the subject, that ever made or attempted to make any other person than a person who belonged to one of the nationalities of Europe a citizen. I invoke the chairman of the committee to give me an instance, to point to any history or any memento, where a negro, although that negro was born in America, was ever made a citizen of either of the States of the United States before adoption of this Constitution. The whole material out of which citizens were made previous to the adoption of the present Constitution was from the European nationalities, from the Caucasian race, if I may use the term. I deny that a single citizen was ever made by one of the States out of the negro race.  I deny that a single citizen was ever made by one of the States out of the Mongolian race.  I controvert that a single citizen was ever made by one of the States out of the Chinese race, out of the Hindoos, or out of any race of people but the Caucasian race of Europe. 'I come, then, to this position: that whenever the States, after the declaration of Independence and before the present Constitution was adopted, legislated in relation to citizenship, or acted in their governments in relation to citizenship, the subject of that legislation or that action was the Caucasian race of Europe; that none of the inferior races of any kind were intended to be embraced or were embraced by this work of Governemtn in manufacturing citizens.'"  Ibid, p.  199. [Editor's Note: The use of the word Caucasian is lax in that citizenship of the united States was reserved only to members of the white race.  Other peoples had passed through or lived in the Caucasus Mountains such that Caucasian could be mistaken for other peoples as well.] Mr.  Davis, of Kentucky, brings into the argument the citizenry of the Statute of 1776 (The Declaration of Independence).  He knew the source of Citizenry in America.  Further when challenged on his statements by Mr.  Clark, Mr.  Davis brings full explanation to the citizenry in America. "At the close of Mr.  Davis' speech, much debate and conversation ensued among various Senators upon a proposed amendment by Mr.  Lane, of Kansas, by which Indians 'under tribal authority' should be excluded from the benefits conferred by this bill.  After this question was disposed of, Mr.  Davis was drawn out in another speech by what seemed to him to be the necessity of defending some positions which he had assumed.  He said: 'I still reiterate the position that the negro is not a citizen here according to the essential fundamental principles of our system; but whether he be a citizen or not, he is not a foreigner, and no man, white or black, or red or mixed, can be made a citizen by naturalization unless he is a foreigner.' "Mr.  Clark, of New Hampshire, interposed: 'I wish the Senator from Kentucky would tell us what constitutes a citizen under the Constitution.' Mr.  Davis: 'A foreigner is not a citizen in the fullest sense of the word at all.' "Mr.  Clark: 'The Senator is now telling us who is not a citizen, but my question is, What constitutes a citizen?' "Mr.  Davis: 'I leave that to the exercise of your own ingenuity.' "Mr.  Clark: 'That is it.  Washington is dead; Marshall is dead; Story is dead; I hoped the Senator from Kentucky would have enlightened us.  He says a negro is not a citizen, and a negro is not a foreigner and can not be made a citizen.  He says that a person who might be and was a citizen before the Constitution, is not a citizen since the Constitution was adopted.  What right was taken away from him by the Constitution that disqualifies him from being a citizen?  The free negroes in my State, before the Constitution was adopted, were citizens.' "Mr.  Davis, having admitted that free negroes were citizens before the Constitution in New Hampshire, Mr.  Clark said: 'I desired that the Senator should tell me what, in his opinion, constituted a citizen under the Constitution.' "Mr.  Davis replied: 'I will answer the honorable Senator.  We sometimes answer a positive question by declaring what a thing is not.  Now, the honorable Senator asks me what a citizen is.  It is easier to answer what it is not than what it is and I say that a negro is not a citizen.' "Mr.  Clark: 'Well, that is a lucid definition.' "Mr.  Davis: 'Sufficient for the subject.' "Mr.  Clark replied: 'That is begging the question.  I wanted to find why a negro was not a citizen, if the gentleman would tell me.  If he would lay down his defnintion, I wanted to see whether the negro did not comply with it and conform to it, so as to be a citizen; but he insists that he is not a citizen.' "Mr.  Davis: 'I will answer that question, if the honorable Senator will permit me.  'Government is a political partnership.  No persons but the partners who formed the partnership are parties to the government. Here is a government formed by the white man alone.  The negro was excluded from the formation of our political partnership; he had nothing to do with it; he had nothing to do in its formation.' "Mr.  Stewart, of Nevada: 'Is it a close corporation, so that new partners can not be added?' "Mr.  Davis: 'Yes, sir, it is a close white corporation.  You may bring all of Europe, but none of Asia and none of Africa into our partnership.'"  Ibid, pp.  201-202. [Editor's Note: At this point, Senator Davis is describing the limit of authority to which the White People held their elected officials, that no one other than White People were allowed into this Union.  Each of the politicians in the State Legislatures and the US Congress were White men who took oaths of office to uphold the Constitutions ratified by We, the People in their family capacity as the White Race.  None of these politicians were qualified to propose the changes made in the US and State Constitutions after the Civil War, much less grant themselves authority to do so, nor ratify those changes.  Another essay is in the works which will describe the reasoning, based in organic law, which justifies this position; this same position is ripe for presentation to a judicial forum, if any still exists.] The Senators in disagreement with Mr.  Davis were very careful to avoid the Statute of 1776 (The Declaration of Independence); for their argument that the Constitution makes no distinction between races is only acceptable if the national Constitution stood alone in authority, which it does not.  The national Constitution is completely governed by the Statute of 1776 and is under its authority.  The national Constitution is as Mr.  Davis said, "a closed white corporation." Notice that Mr.  Davis did not say incorporated. Mr.  Roger, of New Jersey, recognized the Civil Rights Bill to be just what it was and is today, the destruction of State sovereignty. "Mr.  Rogers, of New Jersey, followed with an argument against the bill, because it interfered with 'States' Rights.'  Under its provisions, Congress would 'enter the domain of a State and interfere with its internal police, statutes, and domestic regulations.'  He said: 'This act of legislation would destroy the foundations of the Government as they were laid and established by our fathers, who reserved to the States certain privileges and immunities which ought sacredly to be preserved to them. 'If you had attempted to do it in the days of those who were living at the time the Constitution was made, after the birth of that noble instrument, the spirit of the heroes of the Revolution and the ghosts of the departed who laid down their lives in defense of the liberty of this county and of the rights of the States, would have come forth as witness against the deadly infliction and the destruction of the fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the States in violation of the Constitution, and the breaking down of the ties that bind the States, and the violation of the rights and liberties of the white men and white women of America. 'If you pass this bill, you will allow the negros of this country to compete for the high office of President of the United States.  Because if they are citizens at all, they come within the meaning and letter of the Constitution of the United States, which allows all natural-born citizens to become candidates for the Presidency, and to exercise the duties of that office if elected.' [Editor's Note: Observe that Mr.  Rogers uses the phase 'natural-born citizens' and the 14th amendment uses the phrase 'all persons born' which substitutes the word 'person' for 'citizen' and deletes the word 'natural.'] 'I am afraid of degrading this Government; I am afraid of danger to constitutional liberty; I am alarmed at the stupendous strides which this Congress is trying to initiate; and I appeal in behalf of my country, in behalf of those that are to come after us, in generations yet unborn, as well as those now living, that conservative men on the other side should rally to the standard of sovereign and independent States, and blot out this idea which is inculcating itself here, that all the power of the States must be taken away, and the power of the Czar of Russia or the Emperor of France must be lodged in the Federal Government.' [Editor's Note: No offense to any non-white race or mixture, but when you attempt to join the white people in the operation of their government, you degrade it by your presence.  This is no fault of yours as far as intelligence or ability is concerned; it is based on the fact that your ancestry is not the same as the white people.  Everyone wants the benefits of what they saw in the US but did not examine the source of those benefits which was the judicial power applied to moral life in the US.  By attempting to join what you think is desirable, you destroy what you think is desirable; rather, find and develop your story of origin / common law or follow the white people's law by example to secure your own happiness in your own country.] ''I ask you to stand by the law of the country, and to regulate these Federal and State systems upon the grand principles upon which they were intended to be regulated, that we may hand down to those who are to come after us this bright jewel of civil liberty unimpaired; and I say that the Congress or the men who will strip the people of these rights will be handed down to perdition for allowing this bright and beautiful heritage of civil liberty embodied in the powers and sovereign jurisdiction of the States to pass away from us.'"  Ibid, pp.  222-223. [Editor's Note: What forethought a handful of defenders had at the crossroads of our Nation before and after the Civil War, that the resolution of the slavery issue would be used ultimately to destroy our form of government.  It should be added that all races will suffer for this.] Continued as Corruption of Blood - Part 2.