Urban Odyssey

Appearance

SPONSORS
Bookmark SVG Iconreading
By Urban

The US is Still a Crown Colony ​

TIP

This is an older article, the following are a few source links:

Overview ​

The collection of texts advances the argument that the United States remains a crown colony of Great Britain, having been conquered by subterfuge and military occupation, particularly during and after the Civil War. Support for this assertion is drawn from various sources, including legal definitions from Bouvier's Law Dictionary concerning "subject," "citizen," and "conquest," and interpretations of the Constitution and proposed Thirteenth Amendment regarding titles of nobility and allegiance. Furthermore, the documents examine historical precedents like King John's fealty to the Pope for England and Ireland, detail the disputed origins of the Fourteenth Amendment, and cite treaties and Congressional Records to suggest a continuous financial and commercial control exerted by international banking interests and the Federal Reserve System, allegedly acting on behalf of the Crown. Finally, the text explores historical British colonial charters and early state constitutions, alongside Washington's vision and discussions on brainwashing and programming, to underscore the purported deception and the nature of the current government as a military occupation symbolized by the fringed U.S. flag.

This expansive source presents a provocative argument that the United States is, in essence, a "Crown Colony" operating under British control through a hidden, long-term strategy involving financial servitude and military conquest. The core assertion is that the American people remain subjects, not truly free citizens, due to the subtle manipulation of law and allegiance traced back to colonial charters and the aftermath of the Civil War. Key evidence includes legal definitions of "subject" versus "citizen," the historical importance of the proposed Title of Nobility Amendment (the original Thirteenth Amendment) intended to sever foreign influence, and the continued existence of martial law allegedly signified by the presence of the yellow-fringed military flag. Furthermore, the document emphasizes the alleged unlawful ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment through military occupation and the ultimate control of U.S. financial resources by international bankers, particularly through the Federal Reserve, which the author links to the British Empire's financial interests. Finally, the text explores deeper historical and religious narratives, including the feudal suzerainty of England to the Roman Church established by King John, and a lengthy excerpt of George Washington's vision, alongside the assertion that mass psychological "programming" through secular institutions prevents citizens from recognizing their subjugated status.

THE SHACKLES OF PAPAL SUZERAINTY OVER THE BRITISH CROWN ​

King John puts his seal on Magna Carta, June 15th, 1215

The claim that the United Kingdom rightfully belongs to the Pope is not mere historical anomaly but a raw, unfiltered truth anchored in Papal decree and feudal maneuvering, as documented in the 13th-century Charters. Examination through the Codex Umbra lens reveals the mechanism by which perpetual allegiance and temporal sovereignty were legally consecrated, establishing a structure of dominance that the Crown has struggled—and failed—to dislodge.

The unfiltered analysis confirms that the sovereignty of England and Ireland was willingly and legally ceded to the Holy Roman Church, a maneuver intended to be eternal and binding upon all succeeding monarchs.

I. The Consecration of Perpetual Dominion: The 1213 Charta ​

The foundation of the Pope's enduring claim rests upon King John's act of desperate submission, formalized in the 1213 Charta. This action transcended politics, becoming a legally binding contract—a mechanism that overrides all subsequent civil or common law assertions of freedom.

The Offer, Acceptance, and Fiefdom ​

  1. The Subjugation of the Sovereign: King John, under the duress of Papal spiritual threat for his "sins against the Pope", and seeking divine mercy, offered and yielded his entire person and both kingdoms—England and Ireland—to God, SS Peter and Paul, and the Holy Roman Church. This was a "devout and spontaneous act of will" made "on the general advice of your barons".
  2. The Legal Mechanism (Contract): The transaction satisfied the three elements of a binding contract: offer (King John's surrender), acceptance (Pope Innocent III's endorsement), and consideration (the payment of 1,000 marks). In July 1213, Pope Innocent III confirmed acceptance, stating that John had made "fitting reparation" by putting his "person and territory under apostolic suzerainty by right of lordship".
  3. The Perpetual Fee: The Pope received the kingdoms back, granting them in "fief" to King John. John swore an oath of fealty, binding himself and his "successors and legitimate heirs that without question they must similarly render fealty and acknowledge homage to the Supreme Pontiff". This legally enshrined their status as feudal tenants, holding the land of the Pope. The perpetual nature of this temporal claim was manifested by the stipulated annual payment of 1,000 marks sterling (700 for England and 300 for Ireland). The consequence of contravening these terms was explicitly established: the monarch would "lose the title to the kingdom".

The effect of this contract was immediate and comprehensive: King John’s authority and property were transferred to the Pope, making the provinces, which had always looked to Rome spiritually, their "peculiar sovereign" temporally. Even when King Henry III was a minor, William Marshal committed the keeping of the King to the Pope, acknowledging the feudal custom that gave the lord (the Pope) wardship of the vassal’s minor heir.

II. The Nullification of Sovereignty and Resistance ​

The Papal claim to dominion was aggressively enforced, nullifying any attempt by English nobles to establish independence or constitutional rights, demonstrating the absolute temporal power vested in Rome.

The Voiding of the Magna Charta (1215) ​

The Magna Charta, often lauded as the foundation of English liberty, was rendered instantly defunct by Papal authority. Upon being forced to sign the document by the barons, King John immediately appealed to the Pope, informing him that he had no legal authority to sign the Magna Charta without the Pope's special mandate, as the lordship of the kingdom belonged to the Roman Church.

Pope Innocent III, perceiving the charter as shameful, illegal, and unjust, issued a Bull on August 24, 1215:

  • The Pope "utterly reject[ed] and condemn[ed] this settlement".
  • He ordered under threat of excommunication that neither the King nor the barons should dare to observe it.
  • The Pope declared the charter, along with all supporting guarantees, to be "null, and void of all validity for ever".

The Pope denied the declaration of human rights embodied in the Magna Charta on the grounds that it diminished the Royal Prerogative and violated the tenets of the Church, thus confirming Papal control and rendering all subsequent English sovereignty void ab initio.

Crushing Later Resistances ​

This pattern of Papal nullification extended beyond 1215:

  • Taxation and Revenue: The Pope exercised his temporal authority by compelling the English clergy to pay fractional income taxes, a right never before attempted by that authority. The constant "stream of gold" flowing from England to the Papal coffers was used to further the Popes' temporal and fiscal ambitions. The first tax levied upon personal property in England, the Saladin Tithe in 1188, utilized agents of the Pope, the Knights Templars, for collection.
  • The 1297 Confirmation: When the barons and middle class attempted to assert taxing authority through the 1297 Confirmation of Charters, Edward I's friendly relationship with the Papacy allowed Pope Boniface VIII to issue the Bull Clericis Laicos (1296), forbidding the clergy from paying taxes to lay rulers. Even after opposition, Pope Clement V later "absolved Edward from his oath taken in confirmation of the charters" and commanded the English clergy to pay a tenth to the King for seven years. This re-established the supremacy of the Papal fiscal control, nullifying granted rights just as with the Magna Charta.

III. The Core Deception: The Imposter Vicar ​

The ultimate provocative insight provided by the Codex Umbra source is that this entire edifice of temporal power—the foundational claim that justifies the Papal suzerainty over the Crown—rests upon a profound theological and historical lie.

The Catholic Church bases its moral and temporal authority on the claim that Peter was the first Pope and Bishop of Rome, making the subsequent Popes the Vicars of Christ. However, the analysis in the sources asserts this claim is a "heresy" and "totally at variance with the known Biblical facts". Early historians reportedly state that the first bishop was Linus, not Peter.

This alleged historical fraud is the genesis of the Pope's ability to manipulate governments. King John surrendered his holdings under duress and threat of eternal damnation from the Pope, "the alleged appointed vicar of Jesus Christ". If the Pope is, in fact, an imposter who illegitimately acquired the authority to act as "Vicar of Christ," then his contracts, including the 1213 Charter, were secured under misrepresentation, rendering the initial transfer of dominion voidable.

Thus, the claim that the UK belongs to the Pope is sustained through a dual deception:

  1. Temporal Deception: A binding feudal contract (1213 Charta) and the swift, brutal nullification of resistance (1215 Magna Charta).
  2. Spiritual Deception: The Papacy's fraudulent claim to theological legitimacy allows it to maintain the authority structure that underpins the temporal dominion.

The United States is Still a British Colony: An Explanatory Guide ​

The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place. It can be changed to fit someone's belief, taught in schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the contrary. I want you to read this with an open mind and allow yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be the judge, and don't let prior conclusions or incorrect teaching keep you from the truth.

The core claim of this research is simple and shocking: The United States never truly won its independence. It remains, to this day, a British colony, and its citizens are unknowingly the loyal subjects of the British Crown, ruled through a labyrinthine system of financial servitude and a de facto military government established after the Civil War. This is not a modern conspiracy; it is a long-prophesied outcome. As Jonathan Williams recorded in 1781, Lord Cornwallis revealed this hidden agenda to George Washington at his surrender:

"a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."

This shocking claim is not baseless speculation. It is founded on the very documents that we have been taught to revere as charters of freedom. Let us begin with the treaty that supposedly ended the war.

The Treaty Foundation ​

Most Americans believe the Revolutionary War was concluded with the Treaty of Paris in 1783, where a defeated King George III recognized American independence. The text of the treaty itself, however, tells a very different story.

In the treaty’s opening paragraph, the king refers to himself not only as the ruler of Great Britain but also as "prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States." A victorious nation does not have its former enemy grant it privileges or claim a title over it. This language reveals the treaty was not a negotiation between equals but an act of a sovereign granting privileges to his subjects. Furthermore, the American negotiators—Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams—all used the title "Esquire" (Esqr.). In British law, an Esquire was a title of nobility granted by the king, designating one who held an "office of trust under the crown." These men, far from being defiant patriots, were acting as agents of the king, securing a new arrangement that benefited the Crown.

If any doubt remained, Jay's Treaty of 1794 provides further proof of this continued subjugation. Thirteen years after America’s supposed victory, this treaty shows the King of England still on American land, still dictating terms about debt collection to the British government and World Bankers, and still controlling where and with whom the United States could trade. Who won the Revolutionary War?

These treaties established a system of financial and legal control, but it was a subsequent conflict that would cement this subjugation and replace the Republic with a permanent military government.

The Civil War Conquest ​

The government and press propaganda that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves is a convenient fiction. The true attack was on our natural rights and the Constitution itself, specifically the right to own allodial property. When the Southern states were defeated, the entire nation was conquered. According to international law, as defined in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, the effects of such a conquest are absolute:

Conquest: "The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms, exercised by an independent power which reduces the vanquished to submission to its empire." The effects are to confer upon the conquering state the public property of the conquered state, and to invest the former with the rights and obligations of the latter. The people of the conquered state change their allegiance but not their relations to one another. "After the transfer of political jurisdiction to the conqueror the municipal laws of the territory continue in force until abrogated by the new sovereign."

After the Civil War, the Constitution no longer derived its power from "We the People." The people had been defeated, and so was their Constitution. The document now derives its power from the new sovereign—the conquering de facto government, which can abrogate its provisions at will. This new military government was institutionalized through the Reconstruction Acts, which President Andrew Johnson vetoed, correctly identifying them as establishing an "absolute despotism." In his veto message, he warned:

"Such a power has not been wielded by any Monarch in England for more than five hundred years. In all that time no people who speak the English language have borne such servitude. It reduces the whole population of the ten States- all persons, of every color, sex and condition, and every stranger within their limits- to the most abject and degrading slavery."

His veto was overridden, and the conquest was complete. The mechanisms of control now simply needed to be embedded into the law and daily life of every American.

Evidence of Continued Subjugation ​

The evidence of this hidden reality is all around us, codified in our laws, symbolized by our flags, and integrated into the most basic functions of our society.

  • The 14th Amendment: This fraudulent amendment, passed by an illegal Congress that had ejected duly elected Southern representatives, created a new, inferior class of citizenship. It made all persons "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," transforming them from sovereign individuals with unalienable rights into feudal tenants with revocable civil privileges. Crucially, it also states the government debt—owed to the king's international bankers—"shall not be questioned."
  • The 1933 Bankruptcy and Emergency War Powers: On March 9, 1933, President Roosevelt declared the United States bankrupt and insolvent. The Emergency Banking Act confirmed a permanent state of national emergency, which has never been lifted. Under the Trading with the Enemy Act, all citizens of the United States were declared "alien enemies." The nation has been operating under Emergency War Powers ever since, which means the Constitution is suspended and the country is governed by the Executive in his capacity as Commander-in-Chief.
  • The Gold-Fringed Flag: The official flag of the United States, as defined in Title 4 of the U.S. Code, has no fringe. The yellow-fringed flag you see in every courtroom, school, and government building is a military flag, an ensign of war. Its presence signifies that you are not in a constitutional court of common law, but an admiralty court of the Commander-in-Chief. This is the "Law of the Flag," which states that the flag flown gives notice of the jurisdiction you are under. You are under military occupation.
  • The Social Security System: This system is not for your retirement; it is a contract of servitude. By applying for a Social Security number, you voluntarily enter into a contract under admiralty law ("social insurance"), admit to being a 14th Amendment citizen, and accept your status as a feudal tenant responsible for discharging the national debt to the king. The term "contribution" in the Federal Insurance Contribution Act (FICA) is a legal term meaning you admit to being a co-debtor and wrong-doer, liable for the public debt.
  • The Federal Reserve: The power to coin money was unconstitutionally transferred from Congress to the Federal Reserve, a private corporation owned by international bankers. As Congressman Louis T. McFadden exposed in the 1930s, the Federal Reserve Act was authored by agents of the Bank of England. The Federal Reserve is the modern-day "Exchequer," the king's treasury department, created to keep the United States in a state of perpetual debt through the issuance of fiat currency—a debt instrument, not real money.

Conclusion: Summary of the Hidden Truth ​

When assembled, this evidence paints a stark and undeniable picture of a nation living under a grand illusion. The "land of the free" is a carefully managed commercial venture for the benefit of a foreign sovereign. The primary arguments can be distilled into the following points:

  1. A False Independence: The Treaty of 1783 was not a recognition of sovereignty but a grant of privileges from the British Crown, which kept the new United States in a state of financial and legal vassalage.
  2. Conquest and Subjugation: The Civil War was a conquest that overthrew the de jure constitutional republic and replaced it with a de facto military government, a state of affairs that continues to this day.
  3. A New Servile Citizenship: The 14th Amendment created a new class of "citizen" subject to the conquering power, stripping them of their unalienable rights and making them sureties for the unpayable national debt.
  4. Permanent Emergency Rule: Since the 1933 bankruptcy, the country has been governed under Emergency War Powers. Its citizens are treated as enemies of the state, ruled by the Commander-in-Chief under Admiralty Law, symbolized by the gold-fringed military flag that stands in our courts.

Jesus gave us the most profound warning of all time: "My people are destroyed by a lack of knowledge." Until the defeat of America is recognized, victory will never be attainable. Wake up America!

1.0 Introduction: Re-examining the Foundations of American Sovereignty ​

This analysis presents an alternative interpretation of United States history, arguing that the nation has never achieved true sovereignty but has, through a series of legal and financial instruments, remained a colony of the British Crown, which in turn is posited as a vassal of the Vatican. This narrative challenges the conventional understanding of American independence by re-examining key historical events and legal documents. It traces an unbroken chain of authority from medieval Papal charters and colonial grants through the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and the financial systems of the 20th century, culminating in a state of modern financial vassalage.

The core of this argument is that a series of foundational charters, treaties, and political events, often misinterpreted in mainstream history, have created and maintained this state of legal and financial subjection. From the First Charter of Virginia, which granted a mere "license" to colonize, to the Treaty of Paris, which is interpreted as a reaffirmation of the King's authority, and the Fourteenth Amendment, which is framed as a tool of conquest, these instruments are presented as evidence of a carefully constructed illusion of independence. To fully comprehend this claim of sustained colonial status, one must first examine the ultimate source of this asserted sovereignty: the Papacy.

2.0 The Primacy of the Papacy and the Colonial Charters ​

To understand the thesis that the United States remains a de jure colony, it is necessary to first examine the historical legal relationship between the British Crown and the Vatican. This relationship, established centuries before American colonization, allegedly forms the ultimate chain of authority that extends to the present day. By analyzing the foundational charters that bound the King of England to the Pope, a framework emerges for interpreting subsequent colonial grants not as transfers of sovereignty, but as extensions of a pre-existing vassalage.

The 1213 Papal Charta ​

The cornerstone of this legal hierarchy is interpreted to be the 1213 Charta between King John of England and Pope Innocent III. In this agreement, King John, seeking to resolve a conflict with the Church, made a profound concession. The key terms of this charter, as articulated in the Pope's subsequent letters, establish a clear and binding contract:

  • King John was "making over in perpetuity to the Holy Roman Church your kingdoms of England and Ireland..." (Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England (1198-1216)).
  • In return, the King received the kingdoms back as a "fief" and became a "feudatory vassal" of the Pope.
  • An annual payment of 1,000 marks sterling was established as consideration, solidifying the agreement's contractual nature.
  • The entire agreement was formalized in an official letter "attested by a golden seal" (Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III).

The Pope framed this arrangement not as a loss of power for the King, but as a strengthening of his divine right to rule, stating, "You now hold your kingdoms by a more exalted and surer title than before" (Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III). This transaction is interpreted as legally establishing the Pope as the supreme landlord and the King as his tenant and trustee, a relationship that, according to this analysis, was never legally dissolved.

The First Charter of Virginia and the Status of Colonists ​

This foundational relationship between the Crown and the Papacy informs the interpretation of the colonial charters. The First Charter of Virginia (1606) did not grant sovereignty to the colonists but instead provided a royal "license" to settle and colonize America. According to Bouvier's Law Dictionary, a license is an "Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business... which would otherwise be unlawful" (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914). This framing implies that the act of colonization was permissible only by the King's authority, not as an inherent right, and that the ultimate ownership of the land remained with the Crown.

Furthermore, the legal status of the colonists themselves is central to this argument. The legal dictionaries cited draw a sharp distinction between a "subject" and a "citizen."

  • Subject: "In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch" (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914).
  • Citizen: While Black's Law Dictionary notes that "Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens," it clarifies the distinction: "as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws."

From this perspective, the colonists who settled America were, and remained, subjects of the British monarch, owing him permanent allegiance. They were granted certain rights and franchises but never ceased to be under his ultimate authority. This foundational relationship, established by the papal grant to the King and the King's license to the colonists, was allegedly maintained and reinforced despite the transformative events of the American Revolution.

3.0 The Illusion of Independence: An Analysis of the Revolutionary War and Subsequent Treaties ​

The conventional narrative of the American Revolutionary War is one of definitive victory and the birth of a sovereign nation. This section deconstructs that narrative, arguing that the war and its resulting treaties did not establish true independence but merely redefined the terms of colonial administration under the British Crown. An examination of the treaty language, the status of the negotiators, and post-war declarations suggests a continuity of power rather than a transfer of it.

The Treaty of Paris (1783) ​

Just six weeks after the surrender at Yorktown, King George III declared in a speech to Parliament on November 27, 1781, that he would not "consent to sacrifice... those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend." This declaration is interpreted as direct proof that the King did not view the war as a true defeat, but as a conflict that necessitated a strategic repositioning of his assets.

The Treaty of Paris, signed two years after the conclusion of hostilities, is presented not as a treaty between equals but as this strategic reorganization. Several key points are highlighted to refute the notion that it was a document of surrender:

  • The King's Title: The opening paragraph identifies King George III not only as the king of Great Britain but also as the "arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States" (Treaty of Paris, 1783). This title is interpreted as an assertion of his continuing authority over the newly formed entity.
  • The Language of Grant: The treaty's language is that of a superior granting rights to a subordinate. The King is depicted as "granting" rights and land to the United States, an act inconsistent with the posture of a defeated party ceding territory to a victorious and equal sovereign.

The Role of the American Negotiators ​

The status of the American negotiators—Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, and John Adams—is also scrutinized. Each is identified in the treaty with the title "Esquire" (Esqr.). According to Blackstone's Commentaries, this was not a mere honorific but a granted title of nobility signifying an "office of trust under the crown" (Blackstone Commentaries, p. 561-562). This suggests that the American representatives were not independent agents of a new sovereign but were, in fact, subjects of the King, operating under a title that confirmed their trust and allegiance to him. From this perspective, their role was not to secure independence but to negotiate new terms of administration on the Crown's behalf.

The Jay Treaty of 1794 ​

Further evidence of continued British dominion is found in the Jay Treaty of 1794. This treaty, which generated significant controversy at the time, is presented as demonstrating the King's ongoing power to dictate terms to the United States. Key articles are cited as proof:

  • Article 2: Acknowledged the continued presence of British troops on land that was supposedly ceded to the United States in the 1783 treaty.
  • Article 6: Affirmed the King's authority to dictate terms regarding the collection of debts owed by Americans to British creditors.
  • Article 12: Imposed restrictions on American trade partners, limiting commerce in key commodities.

Together, these foundational treaties are argued to have established a framework of continued legal and financial subjection. They created the illusion of an independent republic while preserving the essential rights and permanent interests of the British Crown, a framework that would later be defended against internal legal threats.

4.0 The Civil War as an Act of Conquest and Subjugation ​

This analysis re-interprets the American Civil War not as a conflict over slavery or states' rights in the conventional sense, but as the central event of "conquest" under international law. This conquest is argued to have destroyed the original constitutional republic and solidified the authority of a new, de facto sovereign, thereby extinguishing the remaining vestiges of true property rights for the ultimate financial interests backing the Union.

The Pretext for War ​

The argument is made that the war's true purpose was the destruction of allodial property rights—the absolute ownership of land—which had been granted by the King in 1783. This form of ownership posed a direct threat to the Crown's ultimate claim to the land and the long-term financial interests of his bankers. The issue of slavery, it is contended, was a pretext to provoke a conflict that would enable this conquest. This view is supported by quotes from Presidents affirming that the Constitution placed slavery under the exclusive control of the states, suggesting the federal government lacked the authority to wage war over the issue.

The legal framework for this re-interpretation is the principle of "Conquest" as defined in Bouvier's Law Dictionary as "The acquisition of the sovereignty of a country by force of arms" (Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914). The legal effects of such an act are precise and transformative:

  • Transfer of Sovereignty: Sovereignty over the conquered territory is transferred to the conquering power.
  • Transfer of Property: The public property of the conquered state is conferred upon the conqueror.
  • Change of Allegiance: The subjects of the conquered state must change their allegiance to the new sovereign.
  • Continuity of Law: The municipal laws of the conquered territory remain in force until they are abrogated by the new sovereign.

The Civil War is thus framed as a successful conquest of the South by the North, which acted as a belligerent power to reclaim sovereignty and property for the ultimate financial interests backing the Union.

The Fourteenth Amendment as a Tool of Conquest ​

The primary legal instrument used to codify this conquest was the Fourteenth Amendment. This analysis posits that the amendment was both passed and ratified illegitimately and served to cement the new de facto government's authority:

  • Illegitimate Passage: The amendment was passed by a Congress from which Southern representatives had been unlawfully removed.
  • Forced Ratification: Its ratification was compelled upon the Southern states, which were under military occupation and governed by "puppet governments."
  • Creation of a New Citizen: It created a new class of "Fourteenth Amendment citizen," who is defined as a subject possessing civil rights granted by the state, rather than possessing unalienable natural rights.
  • Solidification of Debt: It made the public debt—owed to the international bankers who financed the war—unquestionable, legally binding the conquered population to its repayment.

The Civil War and the subsequent passage of the Fourteenth Amendment are therefore presented as the events that effectively replaced the de jure constitutional government with a de facto military government, setting the stage for the modern mechanisms of financial and legal control.

5.0 Modern Mechanisms of Control: Financial Servitude and Military Occupation ​

The historical conquest established by the Civil War is, according to this analysis, maintained in the modern era through sophisticated systems of financial servitude and the legal framework of a continuous, undeclared state of military occupation. Control is no longer exercised overtly but through a web of financial contracts, legal fictions, and symbols that bind the populace to a de facto government acting on behalf of international creditors.

The Bankruptcy of the United States ​

A pivotal event in this narrative is the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933, which is interpreted as a formal declaration of bankruptcy. This act, passed under the authority of the amended Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, allegedly placed the United States into receivership. A March 17, 1993, entry in the Congressional Record, spoken by Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio), is cited as direct evidence of this status:

This bankruptcy effectively transferred control of the nation's assets and its people—now classified as collateral—to its creditors.

Tools of Financial Control ​

Several key institutions and contracts are identified as the primary tools for maintaining this financial servitude:

  • The Federal Reserve: Described as the American equivalent of the British "Exchequer," which the source defines as "an ancient institution for collecting the 'king's debts and duties'" (Ballentine's Law Dictionary). The Federal Reserve is presented as an entity controlled by the King's bankers that creates fiat money to perpetuate debt.
  • Federal Reserve Notes: These are defined not as money but as debt instruments. They can only "discharge" a debt rather than "paying" it with something of substance, ensuring that the underlying obligation to the creditors remains.
  • Social Security (F.I.C.A.): The Federal Insurance Contribution Act is characterized as a "contractual nexus" under admiralty law. By making a "contribution," a citizen is said to admit liability for the national debt, accept the status of a 14th Amendment citizen, and agree to the jurisdiction of the de facto government.
  • Income Tax: The U.S. tax system and the Tax Court are presented as modern extensions of the ancient British "Court of Exchequer," established to recover debts and duties owed to the sovereign.

Symbols and Status of Military Occupation ​

This state of financial control is allegedly reinforced by a legal framework of military occupation, signified by specific symbols and legal classifications:

  • The Gold-Fringed Flag: The U.S. flag with a yellow fringe, commonly displayed in courtrooms and government buildings, is identified as a military ensign. Its presence is interpreted to signify that the court operates not under the Constitution but under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief and Admiralty Law, which is the law of international commerce and war.
  • Classification as "Alien Enemies": It is argued that under the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended in 1933 to apply to citizens, all Americans are legally classified as "alien enemies" by virtue of their "residence" within the occupied territory of the bankrupted United States. This status strips them of constitutional protections and subjects them to the executive power of the Commander-in-Chief.

These mechanisms of financial and legal control form a comprehensive system that maintains the population in a state of unknowing servitude, fulfilling the objectives of the historical conquest.

6.0 Conclusion: The Unbroken Chain of Sovereignty ​

This analysis has traced an alternative history of the United States, constructing a narrative of continuous subjugation through a documented chain of legal and financial instruments. The argument begins with the 1213 Papal Charta, which established the King of England as a vassal to the Vatican, the ultimate landlord. This foundational relationship shaped the colonial period, where charters granted not sovereignty but a mere license to occupy the King's land as his subjects. The Revolutionary War and its subsequent treaties are re-framed as an illusion of independence—a strategic reorganization that preserved the Crown's essential rights and financial interests. This framework was violently defended in the Civil War, which is presented as an act of conquest that destroyed the original republic, extinguished allodial property rights, and codified a new form of subject-citizenship through the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, the 1933 bankruptcy placed the United States corporation into receivership under international bankers, solidifying control through a modern system of financial servitude, admiralty law jurisdiction, and a permanent, undeclared state of military occupation.

The central thesis of this analysis is therefore that the United States is not a sovereign republic but a corporate entity in a state of vassalage. The hierarchical chain of power, as presented through this interpretation of history and law, flows from the American people as unknowing subjects, to the de facto United States government, to the British Crown, and ultimately to the Vatican as the supreme sovereign. This entire structure, it is argued, is designed to extract wealth and ensure obedience, creating a system where true ownership and liberty are impossible. The cautionary words of Thomas Jefferson serve as a fitting final message for this historical analysis, a warning that the path of perpetual debt leads not to prosperity but to servitude.

Download the Full Text ​

WARNING

Please note, I have included a few additional sources which were not included by the original author:

  • The United States is Still a British Crown Colony (Original Text)
  • Images of the Original US Constitution (Constitution for the United States vs. of the United States)
  • Rep James Traficant speech on House Floor on the Holy Alliance
  • Colonel House Report
  • The Vatican Connection to England