 
The Paper Cape

Magicians at law

*

Published by Humble O'Pinion at Smashwords.com

Copyright 2014 Humble O'Pinion

*

Smashwords Edition, License Notes

This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be resold or given away. This ebook is free at Smashwords.com, while supplies last. Thank you.
Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Magna Charta 1215

Chapter 2. Three Sheets to the Wind 1791

Chapter 3. The Statutes of Liberti 1842

Chapter 4. Death of the Republic 1860s

Chapter 5. Revised Statutes of Montana 1879

Chapter 6. Montana 3rd constitution 1884

Chapter 7. Montana State Constitution 1889

Chapter 8. Three Wars, Three Codes 1895-1921-1947
Preface.

Wisdom and honesty are not always partners. A very long time ago, some very wise but dishonest men found a way to rule large numbers of people by the use of pen and paper. The caper is called _written law._ Force is still required to maintain the rules of the written law, but less often.

This ebook is a study of the origin of the written law and the unwritten common law used by the people of England. The study also covers the founding of American law, the law of the Civil War era, and a special focus on the laws in place in Montana from 1864 to 1979, or so. The portions concerning Montana could apply to any similar state, as the post Civil War governments have laws written for uniformity; one-size fits all.

Foreword.

Common Law courts are local courts, for the inhabitants of the county. Common Law courts have been around for a long time- their history is at least as old as old as the King's courts or the Church courts in merry old England. Actually, it seems as though the three courts existed side by side in England, so long as lower courts recognized that the King's Bench is the one supreme court.

But that changed in the year 1791, when the English colonies in America abolished the King's law. From that moment onward, Americans have struggled to determine whose law is the supreme law of the land. Common Law courts in England were local courts under local law, independent of other courts. The people of the shire (county) judged each other by their own procedure, and punished their criminals by their own standards. The local people determined their own law by saying that law in their local courtroom. If the local court stayed within its subject matter and geographical jurisdiction, all was well. Under those conditions, the Common Law, the Crown and the Church courts co-existed in peace for many years.

The American Revolution ended the British law system in America. The King's Bench was abolished in 1791. But the new American governments cited the King's 'case records' and written 'statute laws' as a source of their 'new' American law. Why is it necessary to quote the laws of a country that you just defeated in war?

I don't believe that America defeated England in any war. I believe that the 'source of law' citations are evidence that America was, and is, under English law, and that English law is really the law of ungodly elitists. That's my view anyway, that's my Humble O'Pinion.

The year 1791 also reduced the standing of the ecclesiastical courts in America- the church courts. Back in Mother England, the Church and State were mingled. The King's Bench was always supreme, but the Church had jurisdiction in civil areas of law, concerning clergy and laity.

And the Church could muster an army, should the King get too far out of hand. The Church tempered the King and held him to account, at least partially.

But in the new America, the churches were kept separate from the State, and people accepted this reduction in ecclesiastical standing. In America, it became illegal to mingle the affairs of church and State.

America had no official king after 1776, no official church and no official law for the People, other than the People's common law. Common law is the essence of self-government, and the People won that freedom, or so it is written.

I believe that the secret elite rulers of old England are the same people that ruled America before and after the Revolution and their kindred Spirits rule America today. These rulers are opposed to local common law, believing that the commoners are lowly animals, not capable of self-government. The elite rulers and their lieu-tenants are the only men capable of saying the law for all men, and their law is enforced by Force. We are now under their New World Orders, their Hemp-rope Democracy and their kingdom of statutes.

America is an experiment to remove that Common Law, and to see just how much statute government the common man can tolerate. So far, the experiment has been a great success; most men today don't know the difference between a district court and a county court. Most men today don't even know what the Common Law is, let alone what it was.

After the American Revolution, probate courts became a pawn in the bid to takeover the American common law court system. The original function of 'probate proceedings' was to examine 'the proof' claimed by contestants in the will of a deceased person. Probate proceedings examine the proof and then dispose of the dead person's property, according to the rules of probate.

In England, the Crown Chancery court, the Church court and even the Common Law court performed this duty. Probate jurisdiction in these courts concerned property 'goods' only, as the King owns all lands; with one exception- the land the Church occupies.

There was no Crown court in America and the Church court had very limited power. The Americans were left with no venue for probate proceedings, other than their county court. And there the rub begins.

If America was truly a free country where the inhabitants said their own law and enjoyed the ability to own land outright, then their local county court would be the proper venue to dispense the land of deceased person. And so it was done.

But their exists a group of men that pretend that America is a free country and they pretend that 'outright land ownership' is possible, when such freedom and ownership is not possible.

The Pretenders offered separate probate courts as a replacement for local county courts in America, at least for a while. This means that written statute laws of the probate court would replace the unwritten common law as a source of law. But the powers in ancient probate proceedings were over money and property only; these proceedings are 'civil' in nature, not rising to the degree of a 'criminal' crime. The difference between civil and criminal courts is one of severity; 'civil' crimes are less severe than 'criminal' crimes and punished accordingly. The old common law courts in England handled both categories, while the Crown had separate courts for civil and criminal issues. The Church handled civil disputes by application, only.

When the U.S. congress draped the probate flag over the American county courts, they absorbed our criminal jurisdiction, without our consent. Is the U.S. congress then "declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever"?

When Americans allowed probate courts to take up jurisdiction in probate proceedings, and civil and criminal cases, they gave up their ancient Right to say their own law.

This probate court drape-over became apparent in America, long before the Civil War. But the Civil War would cause a change in our basic form of law. After the Civil War, America would re-organize its courts once again. Common Law county courts were ridiculed openly; Legislators criticized the local county courts; State and territorial supreme courts belittled the Common Law grand juries. Legislation designed to end the Common Law was renewed.

Prosecution by Information would replace Prosecution by Indictment after the Civil War, effectively ending Common Law grand jury power. The 'grand jury' is an ancient feature of the Common law, being a preliminary inquisitor into any serious crime. Grand juries suggest that a crime may have been committed, and the trial jury hears the case. That is our tradition, and the Royal rulers and their American cousins opposed that tradition.

The district judge and the county attorney would replace the Common Law grand jury, even though statutes falsely claim that the grand jury still exists. Statutory grand juries do exist- but they are for The Big Show only- as they have no trial jury to hear their Indictment, and they are impaneled by the statute judge, not by the People.

Trial jury neutered. The original common law trial jury could decide all matters of law, fact, procedure and punishment. The modern statutory trial jury has no say in matters of law with one exception; it has no say in matters of procedure or punishment, with that same exception (libel); and it has no say in matters of fact- the verdict- with one exception. That exception on a verdict is this: if the trial jury's verdict matches the opinion of the single district judge, then that judge will not set the verdict aside- he will let it stand.

The American Revolution took away our King and our Church and left us to defend ourselves from our corrupt governors.

The American Civil War took away our Common Law courts and killed our fake Republic, again leaving us to the mercy of corrupt governors, bankers, lawyers and politicians. If the People of the Republic still believed in their Common Law, this would be the time to stand and be counted. Some did stand and raise their hands, one hand held high and palm forward; and the other hand belt high, palm turned upward, in a belt high salute.

After the Civil War, federal probate courts then disposed of the 'unclaimed land' of the dead Republic, land that was located in conquered 'territories'. The distributors of the land were supposed to be county court judges. But instead, the land was handed out to and by probate judges, those men that had taken the ironclad Oath of allegiance to the new U.S. government.

The probate judges then disbursed the virgin lands to other U.S. citizens living in any of the U.S. territories. The men purchasing the land from the probate judges had to be citizens loyal to the U.S, and acceptable to U.S. statute law. When an applicant accepted this contract, he got his land for very small amounts of U.S. money, but gave up his claim to outright land ownership, in favor of equitable ownership, i.e., a tenant farmer. In acquiring the said rights to the beneficial use of the land, the citizen gave up his claim of outright ownership, and gave up his Common Law. So it is written, and so it is done. BACK

#  Chapter 1. Magna Charta.

_We had our Crown, our Church and our own Court_.

This is the first English law document, but it was written in Latin. The document had to be decoded by the learned men who spoke Latin, and that language excluded most commoners.

There are three versions of the Magna Charta, and all three versions claim to be the original document. But the words are not the same in each document.

The Magna Charta is a pledge by King John of England to the Church of England and to the King's noblemen, officers, judges, sheriffs and liegemen. The definition of the word 'liegemen' is important, as the Magna Charta separates "liegemen" and "freemen".

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Edition page 922: a liege is "bound in allegiance to the lord paramount". WEBSTER'S NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY, 1928 Edition, page 1245. Liege less- means 'not bound to a superior'; page 252. Bondsman- a slave, a villein, a serf, a bondman.

The Magna Charta version reprinted in the 1921 Montana Political Code [PDF 24/2293] uses the words 'liege' and 'liegemen' in the Preamble and the word 'freemen' in the text and also 'freemen'.

Magna Charta, Section 1 (in part)- "We have also granted to all freemen of our kingdom, for us and our heirs forever, all the underwritten liberties, to be had and held by them and their heirs, of us and our heirs forever."

BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 6th Ed. pages 917, 918 and 919: Liberti/liberty is permission to enjoy rights conferred by law, in Roman times "a freedman".

O'Pinion: the words 'freedman' and 'freemen' have separate meanings. The former owes his liberty to some sovereign, and the latter does not.

It seems pretty clear that King John is addressing his Noblemen, his servants and his bounded lieges and liegemen. King John is "also" addressing the freemen of the shires, whom are neither servant, nor liegemen. King John is not addressing 'freedmen'; he is addressing 'freemen'.

The King's men are the subject matter of the Preamble of the Magna Charta. The freemen are mentioned in the text only, because the King has no subject matter jurisdiction over any freemen.

The King would have subject matter jurisdiction over freedmen, because he has granted them liberti, i.e., permission to leave the ship.

But the word 'freedmen' is not used in the Magna Charta preamble, or text.

The Magna Charta infers that the King has jurisdiction over his noblemen and servants, but the Magna Charta never claims jurisdiction over freemen. Instead, the Magna Charta infers that it will leave the freemen alone.

King John's pledge has 63 sections. The first 8 sections are concerned with the wills of deceased noblemen, and their widows, children and their inheritances. [Probate rules]. Magna Charta Section 9 concerns Crown officers, landlords and rent. Sections 10 and 11 concern the monies of deceased noblemen and their debts owed to the Jews [probate and equity]. Section 12 forbids special war 'aid' (taxes), unless it is for ransom for the King or his family [emergency war taxes]. Section 13 confirms the liberties of the city of London, and other ports [special privi-leges]. Section 14 calls for a counsel of the Church and Noblemen together, to discuss taxes on the King's subjects. The process is done by letter and delivered by the King's sheriff [summons]. Section 15. There will be no war 'aid' (taxes) on freemen [free tenants], except ransom for the King and his family. 1921 RCM Pol. C. version of Magna Charta [PDF 26/2293] uses the term "free tenants"; A 'tenant' is one who holds land for another.

Webster 1928 page 264 free tenement. Eng. Law a freehold tenement. The term free tenement has ever since Henry II's day [John's father- King Henry A.D.1154-1189] has implied possessory protection of the king's court. Polluck & Mait.

O'Pinion: Magna Charta Section 15 confirms the standing of freemen, but plays upon their love of the King to save him in an emergency.

Magna Charta, Section 17. This statute is misleading. The King's civil court for the commoners was forbidden to follow the King's Bench from place to place, and must fix a permanent place.

O'Pinion says to hell with the King's Court of Common Pleas, keep it. We have our court, put yours back in that Wooden Horse.

Magna Charta, Section 18. Inquests [1921 version says "trials"] of novel disseisin [seized land], of mort d'ancestor [probate], and of darrein [last] presentment shall not be held elsewhere than in their own county courts, and that in manner following; We, or, if we should be out of the realm, our chief justiciar, will send two justiciaries [justices] through every county four times a year, who shall alone with four knights of the county chosen by the county, hold the said assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place of meeting of that court.

Webster 1928, page 1474 novel disseisin. Assize of novel disseizin, Eng. Law, a real action (abolished by 3 & 4 Will I., c. 27 1833) granted by Henry II, probably in 1166, for the recovery of land from which the possessor had been recently disseized. It was brought by a writ bidding the sheriff to summon a jury of twelve men to declare whether the defendant had unjustly disseized the plaintiff. It had a large influence on the development of common-law civil procedure.

O'Pinion on Section 18 and 19. Disseisin: It is apparent that the King recognizes the commoner's county court. In Section 18, King John is mingling his own civil court onto that county court.

The gambit employed in Section 18 of the Magna Charta would become the mainstay of surrendered law. The magician drapes his cape over the local court and claims the court is now the property of the magician.

Magna Charta, Sections 20 & 21. For a freeman, slave or nobleman, trial by peers; let the punishment fit the crime.
Section 22. A clerk may not be fined by the Church for his holdings.

Section 23. Towns are not required to keep bridges, unless it was an ancient duty.

O'Pinion on Section 23: This kind of double-talk will continue for the next 800 years or more.

Magna Charta, Section 24.blue version No sheriff, constable, coroners, or others of our bailiffs, shall hold pleas of our Crown.

Yellow version (24). No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other royal officials are to hold lawsuits that should be held by the royal justices.

O'Pinion on Section 24: The proper court for pleas (civil cases) is the King's court of Chancery.

Section 25. Every county, hundred, wapentake, and tithing shall remain at its ancient rent, without increase, except the royal demesne manors [King's land tracts with his dwellings- granted to barons].

Webster 1928 page 1047 hundred. 2. In England, later also in Ireland, a division of a county, formerly having its own local court (the hundred court or hundred moot); also, the body of landlords and residents of the hundred, or, formerly, its court (see MOOT) or a session of the court. The jurisdiction of the court (which was not a court of record) as taken away by the County Courts Act of 1867, s. 28. The origin of the division is uncertain; it is often identified with a similar division of the Germanic races. Cf. WAPENTAKE, WARD.

The hundred has been regarded: as denoting simply a division of a hundred hides of land; as a district which furnished a hundred warriors to the host; as representing the original settlement of the hundred warriors; or as composed of a hundred hides each of which furnished a single warrior. William Stubbs.

The [Anglo-Saxon] hundred court was the judicial unit, so to speak, for ordinary affairs. Polluck & Mait.

3. U.S. Hist. A small political division derived from the English county division. It formerly existed in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, and still survives in Delaware.

Black's DICTIONARY Wapentake. From weapon and take; has the same meaning as hundred, when used north of the Trent.

Magna Charta, Section 26. Lay fee holders, if death. The King places a lien upon the property of his land users.

Section 27. If a freeman dies without a will, his friends and relatives can distribute his property, after his debts are settled. The church can be a witness. [Mingling of Crown, Church and Common law].
Section 28. No constable or officer can steal corn or other chattels.

Section 30, 31. No theft of horses, carts or wood from freemen.

O'Pinion on written laws preventing theft: What men need to be reminded that theft is unlawful? When King John codifies our Law, his paper law becomes a magic cape.

Magna Charta, Section (32) We will not keep the lands of people convicted of felony in our hand for longer than a year and a day, after which they shall be returned to the lords of the 'fees' concerned.
Section 34. Orders from the King's court may not cause a freeman to lose his court. [Recognition of county courts being separate from Crown].

Section 37. The King's farm land laws.

Section 38. The King's courts require witnesses to the crime.

Section 39. . No freemen shall be taken or imprisoned or disseised or exiled or in any way destroyed, nor will we go upon him nor send upon him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land. [This is another example of recognition of the local county court].

Section (40) To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
Section 41, 42. Commerce between states.

Section 43. Relief in death of baron.

Section 44-47. Jurisdiction of Crown officers.

Section 48. Evil customs of forests and rivers abolished, upon inquiry of 12 knights, knights approved by the county inhabitants. [Mingling of Crown and Common law].
Section 49-51. War & peace with current barons.

Section 52- 53. Remedy and relief for the Baron's Threat; justice promised by John. Recognition of the Baron's grand jury of inquisition- 25 barons assembled.

Section (54) No one shall be arrested or imprisoned on the appeal of a woman for the death of any person except her husband.

Section 55. King John pays homage to Baron's 25, and to the Church.

Section 56-58. Welshmen restored.

Section 59. Scotsmen restored.

Section 60-62. Magna Charta enabling clauses, recognition of 25 barons represented by 4 of the 25; pledge of lands and castles as sureties to the validity of the Magna Charta. Homage to the 25 barons; John commands dissenters to obey the 25 barons.

Magna Charta Section 63 (last section). Wherefore we will and firmly order that the English Church be free, and that the men in our kingdom have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights, and concessions, well and peaceably, freely and quietly, fully and wholly, for themselves and their heirs, of us and our heirs, in all respects and in all places forever, as is aforesaid. An oath, moreover, has been taken, as well on our part as on the art of the barons, that all these conditions aforesaid shall be kept in good faith and without evil intent.

Given under our hand - the above named and many others being witnesses - in the meadow which is called Runnymede [Runingmede], between Windsor and Staines, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign. [A.D.1215].

O'Pinion on the Great Charter: The Magna Charta is a contract between the King of England and 25 Barons. The contract recognizes the Church and the freemen of the county, but does not regulate them.

The Charter contains many procedures that make sense in law; by definition-no person is the exclusive holder of common sense. The Magna Charta is the first paper law for English speaking people. Can the paper force King John to comply with his own word? * Read your British history book, and find out. BACK

#  Chapter 2. Three Sheets to the Wind

The Declaration, Constitution & Bill of Rights.

If your law comes from these papers, stay out of a tornado.

On July 4th, 1776, the Founding Fathers filed a Declaration against King George III, of England, for the reasons specified below. The focus of this Report is matters of law; others matters are here deleted, for brevity.

THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. Action of Second Continental Congress, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen United States of America. WHEN in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation. ...their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that ...while Evils are ...a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, ...HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. ... HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only....HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures...HE has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly Firmness his Invasions on the Rights of the People. ...HE has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers. HE has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and the Amount and Payment of their Salaries...HE has combined with others to subject us to a Jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our Laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation... FOR protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States... FOR depriving us, in many Cases, of the Benefits of Trial by Jury...FOR taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments...FOR suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all Cases whatsoever...NOR have we been wanting in Attentions to our British Brethren. We have warned them from Time to Time of Attempts by their Legislature to extend an unwarrantable Jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the Circumstances of our Emigration and Settlement here. We have appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the Ties of our common Kindred to disavow these Usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our Connections and Correspondence. They too have been deaf to the Voice of Justice and of Consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the Necessity, which, denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of Mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace, Friends...are absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown...HE has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public Good. HE has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing Importance, unless suspended in their Operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. HE has refused to pass other Laws for the Accommodation of large Districts of People, unless those People would relinquish the Right of Representation in the Legislature, a Right inestimable to them, and formidable to Tyrants only. HE has called together Legislative Bodies at Places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the Depository of their public Records, for the sole Purpose of fatiguing them into Compliance with his Measures.

O'Pinion on separation from England: hundreds of supreme court cases quote the King's Bench and other Crown courts...to this day! State codes nationwide cite English statute and case law as a source of their own law. This is known as English 'Crown common-law' and is separate from English 'county common law', in that the two laws have different authors and different forms of storage. One is by letter, the other by spirit.

The written and spoken language of the old Crown judiciaries is a mixture of English and Latin. Latin is the language of the Magna Charta and Latin is still used in many courts today, even though the common man barely speaks his native tongue.

Is then, the King's law meant for the common man? Is the U.S. code meant for the common man? Are the State codes? The lawyers and judges don't speak my English in court, contrary to their claim of using 'common language'. Are the law writers trying to separate themselves from England, or from the commoner?

England colonized the northeast coast of America in the early 17th century. The colonies were funded by the Crown and ruled by Crown. But the colonists retained their 400 year-old Common Law and Church Law traditions, however restricted.

The colonists that arrived in America become somewhat independent of the Crown. This attitude spawned a Movement, and it was obvious that Independence was coming soon.

The wise noblemen and Royalty of England embraced the Movement, and made it theirs. The King would provide war preparation and funding, and a 'free' press for the dissemination of news and opinions; and the King would provide leadership for the Movement. If there is a war, the King controls the leadership of both sides of the war. Such tactics are the basic tools to kings and noblemen.

The elite Royal rulers treated their subjects well, most of the time. And when they did not treat the subjects well for long periods, the subjects would over-throw the king, from time to time. King George III was probably no better or worse than the usual god-king, but his American colonists were a tough bunch. The Yankees would require a new tool for long distance dominance: The Paper Cape.

The Constitution for the united States of America was created in 1789, by the Founding Fathers of America. The Constitution is a contract between the Founding Fathers and the governments of 13 sovereign States. The word 'sovereign' is defined as 'self- ruled'.

The Founding Fathers and their ancestors are, and were, the King's noblemen. They are, and were, connected to the nobility of Mother England by blood, by money and by Plan. That Plan, in my Humble O'Pinion, is the Expansion of the British Empire for the King, his Heirs, and their Noblemen forever.

The Constitution of the United States of America.

In the early days of my Education by Necessity, I believed that the Constitution was the supreme law of the land; its terms regulated the national government and its Attachment protected the rights of all Americans. The Constitution was written by patriots, for patriots, so said I.

I now believe that the same Constitution and its subsequent Pretender are merely more magic capes thrown down over our real Law, to deceive us.

Most researchers could spend hours explaining the Constitution. My focus will be in Article III (Judiciary) and the changes seen in the Constitution. I am not referring to amendments; I am referring to text changes in the body of the Constitution that were NOT done by lawful process.

Sources: BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 6th ED page 1639; THE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMITTEE, pocket constitution, print of 1994, page 9; The American Heritage Foundation, prepared by LOOK Magazine, 1947 print- contains photograph of the original hand-written constitution hanging in the Smithsonian Museum in Washington, D.C.

The first of these changes occur in the Preamble.

[BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY] We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

In BLACK'S version there are 8 letter case errors and one letter replacement, compared to the Smithsonian version.

The Pocket version contains no letter case errors except the first three words:

WE THE PEOPLE. The Smithsonian version has "We the People".

Certain constitutional 'experts' will argue that letter case is unimportant, because the Supreme Court has not ruled otherwise. I contend that said experts are no experts at all, if they ignore the specific language of the document. If letter case means nothing, then return the CONSTITUTION to its proper letter case, in tittle and in text.

The debate brings us back to the foundation of this report. If we cite certain language in written documents as our source of Law, we had better comprehend that written language in its entirety. Otherwise, dishonest men will take advantage of us, and change our Law.

The authority in the constitution of 1791 is from the People, not 'THE PEOPLE'.

I have only a few issues with the body of the constitution of 1791: Art I sec 9, #4 no direct tax unless direct proportion to the census (similar to Sec. 1).

How in the world does the graduated 'income' tax follow this clause?

Art I sec 9, #5 no tax shall be laid on articles exported from any state.

Ever see the tobacco stamp on a pack of cigarettes?

Art I sec 9, #7 no money taken from the treasury unless a statement of the account be published from time to time. Ok-lets audit the NSA, CIA, the IRS and the Federal Reserve- all of that are supposed to be government agencies.

Art I sec 9, #8 no titles of nobility (repeated in Sec. 10 #1).

What is 'title of nobility'? According to Ancestry.com (biggest genealogy group in the world), one of the titles on the list is 'esquire'. That means 'lawyer' in old England, and America, too. There exists a wide body of research that suggests the "original 13th amendment" forbade titles of Nobility, and that amendment was fraudulently removed without lawful process.

I have a big issue with Constitution Article III -Judicial power of the United States. Article III (in part).

Section. 1. The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated. Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office Section. 2. The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--[between a State and Citizens of another State;--]* between Citizens of different States,-- between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, [and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.]* Changed by the Eleventh Amendment.

O'Pinion on Article III. Some people interpret Article III to mean that the federal courts have supreme jurisdiction in all cases, whatsoever. If so, why not just say so in nine words, like I just did?

The federal courts have jurisdiction in federal matters ONLY, as enumerated in Article III. Article III uses the word 'supreme' with all lower case letters. The phrase 'supreme court' is used. Is the Supreme Court above all others?

Here is an example: a farmer in Belgrade, Montana is accused of murdering his wife. He is tried by a local district court and found guilty. He appeals the conviction to the Montana Supreme Court on the theory that the county attorney erred in giving jury instructions. The Montana Supreme Court hears the appeal and denies it; the district court made no error.

Can the man now appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court? He can, but his appeal will not be heard, because he has no issue to appeal. The man's grievance does not 'rise out of the constitution'. The U.S. Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of the farmer's case.

To expand the jurisdiction of Article III into areas such as local murder, domestic abuse, marijuana possession, firearms possession and so forth is The Acme of Absurdity.

Article III is another magic cape that has been thrown over the whole of the law, in hopes that people will call it 'The Supreme Law of the Land or something.

The Bill of Rights is an attachment to the constitution of 1791. Some Americans apparently believed that the government would jump outside the enumerated powers in the Constitution and infringe upon their personal Rights. The Bill of Rights was a list of Rights that the inhabitants believed they possessed. We call this belief 'Common Law'.

The States approved the Bill of Rights and Congress ratified the whole package in 1791. This is Offer, Acceptance, Performance and Consideration- a lawful contract.

If you are a believer in the original Constitution (1791), do you believe that the States are sovereign over the federal government (B of R 9,10)?

The federal government only has power in cases involving State verses State, where the parties agree to suit in US court; in international disputes where the U.S. or a State is a party, and parties agree (equity action); or any other case arising from the Constitution (read Article III).

Did these American inhabitants also believe that their county grand jury could hand down indictments? Did these American inhabitants also believe that their county trial courts were the 'one supreme court' of each county? Did these rugged individualists, these American pilgrims and pioneers, really believe they were self-governed and above the governments and kings of the world?

The Bill of Rights contains many sound principles in Law, but does not concern the State citizen. If a citizen claims privileges and immunities under any of the Three Sheets, you also Claim dual-citizenship, i.e., State and U.S. citizenship. If you are U.S. citizen, bound and protected by its law, then you owe allegiance to the U.S. by the contract of citizenship.

The Bill of Rights is more of a Resolution than a hard law. It is a reminder that we have rights and 'don't do that'. But it has no teeth.

Researcher LeRoy Schweitzer once gave Montana Attorney General Marc Racicot a lesson in the history of Montana law. The county is the highest court, the states are next, then the U.S. You are holding your job unlawfully, and you know it, says Schweitzer. When he was done, Racicot shot back: All true LeRoy, but where's your enforcement?

O'Pinion: So much for all those deep theories, lets get real. Every normal man in our country is a U.S. citizen by Acceptance. He takes a privilege or protection when true freedom is underneath the Cape. He pretends not to see that freedom because the benefit of the Cape is spread out everywhere, so damned obvious that no one can deny it.

But along with the Cape, comes the duty. BACK

#  Chapter 3. The Statutes of Liberti.

1842 first statutes begin in New York. New York State creates a code for field officers; partly adopted by other territories/states. Limited Liability Act- protects corporations from juries; draped over US to cancel common law juries; 1846 New Mexico Kearny Code, jury says law, etc; California statutes and constitution of 1849, written laws- hybrid common law and statute over-ride.

O'Pinion on unfinished chapters in long books: could somebody write this one for me? BACK

#  Chapter 4. Death of the Republic- the 1860s.

The spirit of the law gives life,

The letter of the law gives death;

Time is passed between the two,

The end that's nearer is up to you.

*

The American Civil War put an end to a way of life. The South and its ancient ways were destroyed. The North was buried in debt and hundreds of thousands of people were displaced, on both sides of the line. There were over 780,000 casualties of the war. Negro slaves were liberated, but few had the wherewithal to take advantage of their freedom.

Black and White Americans alike would now be made to pay for the most deadly war in American history: Lincoln's War, the War of Northern Aggression, and the Civil War.

So we are told, so it is written.

But there were many other reasons for the War. The most important of the reasons is that the Civil War changed our FORM OF LAW.

~

The CHANGE OUTLINE follows; then the DETAILS.

1861 April 19-Baltimore, Maryland, 1st casualty of the American Civil War.

1862 July, Gold in Alder Gulch, Wash. Terr., gold rush begins (now Mont.).

1863 * **, Alder Gulch now Madison county, Territory of Idaho.

1864 Dec 21, 1863- Feb 1864 Madison county, Idaho vigilante hanging spree

1864 May 4-19, 1864 Wilderness, Va. War casualties- 17,666 &11,033.

1864 May 8-21, 1864 Spotsylvania, Va. War casualties 18,399 &12, 687.

1864- May 26, 1864 Congress creates Montana with the Organic Act.

1864- June 1-3, 1864- Battle of Cold Harbor, Maryland, 11,000 casualties.

1864- June 15-18, 1864 Battle of Petersburg, Virginia Feds lose 7,881 men.

1864- June 27, 1864 Battle of Kenesaw, Georgia 3,600 casualties.

1864- July 30, 1864 2nd Petersburg, Virginia; 1,300 killed, 3,300 missing.

1864- September 1, 1864 Sherman sacks Atlanta.

1864- November 30, 1864 Feds win at Franklin, Tennessee 8,500 casualties.

1864- December 22, 1864 Sherman sacks Savannah.

1865- March 9, 1865 Sherman finishes off the Carolinas at Bentonville, N.C.

1865- April 9-May 26 1865 Rebellion armies surrender, Civil War is over.

1866- Montana population 28,000; dropped to 20,595 by 1870.

1866- March 5, Virginia City constitutional assembly, constitution is 'lost'.

1866- April 9, 1866 Helena constitutional assembly. 2nd constitution 'lost'

1867 March 2, 1867 three important bills passed: 1. s501 (probate expanded). amended Organic Act of 1864; 1867 legislation condemns both Montana Assemblies of Lost I & II; 2. Reconstruction #1,14 Stat. 428-430 (government for Rebel States), c.153; 3. 14 Stat 541 (public land-county court dispersal).

1867 March 23, 1867, Reconstruction #2, 15 Stat. 2-5, c.6.

1867 April 19, 1867 John Bozeman murdered by 'former' Vigilante.

1867 July 19, 1867, Reconstruction #3, 15 Stat. 14-16, c.30.

1867 July 1, 1867 Meagher murdered at Ft Benton.

1868 March 11, 1868, Reconstruction #4, 15 Stat. 41, c.25.

1868 June 8, 1868 Chapter 53 (mining claims) amd 14 Stat 541 '67 (town site);

1868 July 9, 1868 14th amendment, creates federal citizenship, ends state citizen.

1868 July 27, 1868 40th Congress. approves Expatriation act 15 Stat chapter 249.

1870 March 23, 1870 USA to probate judge Noble- townsite of Bozeman 1870 July 6, 1870 Probate judge Noble to Wm. Babcock lot 5 of Block B.

1870 Nov. 2, 1870 probate judge Noble to Wm. Ward lots in Bozeman townsite Block B ($20). ~

1871 Feb. 21, 1871 Incorporation of District of Columbia, 41st Congress, 3d Session., ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419. 'US CONST'.

1871 May 1, 1871 probate judge Hunter to F.F. Fridley lots 4 & 5, town-site Block E , Bozeman, Territory of Montana ($61).

1871 Oct. 8, 1871 probate judge Wm. Parsons to F.F. Fridley lots 8 & 9 Block F in Bozeman, County of Gallatin, Territory of Montana ($20).

1872 June 15, 1872 USA to John L. Noble 40 acre townsite SE1/4-NW1/4-Section 7-Range 6 S e Bozeman.

Outline Details.

The U.S. congress in Washington, D.C. established the Territory of Montana by the Organic Act of May 26, 1864. Three documents have the Organic Act": Original Organic Act [9 page PDF document, Organic Act only]; Organic Act text reprint in 1879 Revised Statutes of Montana, section 1903 to section 1951 from Revised Statutes of U.S. XXIII [PDF 49-52/1047 1879 RSM- contains other territories as well as Montana]; Organic Act reprint in Revised Code of Montana, year 1921, Political Code division [PDF page 50 of 2293]. Chapter XCV original Organic Act [PDF 2/9] "An Act to provide a temporary Government for the Territory of Montana," May 26, 1864. Organic Act, table of contents, summarized from 1921 RCM Pol. C.; with amendments [PDF 50/2293].

1. Boundaries.

2. Executive power.

3. Secretary.

4. Legislature.

5. US citizens can vote.

6. Legislative power over "rightful subjects", restrictions [PDF 52/2293].

7. Township, district and county officers appointed by governor.

8. Legislators restricted.

9. Judicial power.

10. Territorial attorney.

11. President.

12. First session of legislature.

13. Territorial representative- delegate to US.

14. Land sections 16 & 36 set aside for school revenue.

15. Governor approves judicial districts, judges.

16. Disbursement officer to give securities.

17. Treaties with Indians observed.

18. Idaho made Dakota.

~

Organic Act Section 9 (Judicial). [PDF 5 & 6/9; PDF 53 & 54/2293] And be it further enacted, That the judicial power of said ter-ritory shall be vested in a supreme court, district courts, probate courts, and in justices of the peace. The supreme court shall consist of a chief-justice and two associate justices, any two of whom shall constitute a quorum, and who shall hold a term at the seat of government of said territory annually; and they shall hold their offices during a period of four years, and until their successors shall be appointed and qualified. The said territory shall be divided into three judicial districts, and a district court shall be held in each of said districts by one of the justices of the supreme court at such times and places as may be prescribed by law; and the said judges shall, after their appointments, respectively, reside in the district which shall be assigned them. The jurisdiction of the several courts herein provided for, both appellate and original, and that of the probate courts and of the justices of the peace, shall be limited by law: Provided, that justices of the peace shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title of land be in dispute, or where the debt or sum claimed shall exceed one hundred dollars; and the said supreme and district courts, respectively, shall possess chancery as well as common-law jurisdiction. [clerks, writs, error, etc].

O'Pinion on 1864-1867 Territorial politics: The Organic act contains the word 'court' 35 times. It mentions at least 4 types of courts, but NEVER does it mention 'county court'.

The first 3 constitutions for Montana would recognize the county court. So why won't the U.S. congress recognize the county court? Why wouldn't the 1889 Montana Assembly recognized the county court?

There were men that were extremely interested in removing the local common law courts, as seen here; they wanted to install Lincoln's centralized statute law government and its courts.

The feat would be accomplished by black powder and hemp-ropes at first; and then by a magic Paper Cape.

The Vigilantes got their foot in the door by rounding up and hanging the local sheriff, his deputies and his many of his supporters. After the hanging spree, the Republican controlled U.S. congress rewarded the Vigilante murderers by establishing the Territory of Montana for them, as seen in the Organic Act, and the following series of events.

The Democrats and other advocates of common law did not go away. Instead, they assembled in Virginia City to write a 'state constitution'. The constitution is a requirement to be admitted to the Union.

The Assembly must first pass the constitution, then print it for the voters to read. If the voters of the Territory accepted the constitution, it would be submitted to the U.S. congress for their approval.

On March 5th, 1866, Thomas Meagher, Sam McLean and many other opponents of the federalist takeover did write a constitution, in Virginia City, Territory of Montana. They put their work in a single written document, and then sent it to the printer.

But the constitution never made it to the printer. It got 'lost'.

The Democrats didn't buy the story, or yield. Former Republican Thomas Meagher, Governor Green Clay Smith and many others wrote a second constitution, this time in Helena. The date was April 9th, 1866.

This second constitution also disappeared, and no copy has ever surfaced. For more on these mysterious disappearances, see The Acme of Absurdity and The Big Show by Humble O'Pinion, published at Smashwords.com.

No one has ever seen either constitution, but the U.S. congress took steps to make sure nobody ever heard of them, either. The U.S. congress angrily acknowledged both constitutional Assemblies, and their works, without stating what was written by those "supposed legislatures".

Under Senate Bill 501 (Organic Act amended- March 2, 1867), sections 1 through 7, Senate journal of February 25, 1867, page 1816- after the text of the Organic Act (Section 1-5), we find:

§ 6. And be it further enacted, That all acts passed at the two sessions of the so-called legislative assembly of the territory of Montana, held in eighteen hundred and sixty-six, are hereby disapproved and declared null and void, except such acts as the legislative assembly herein authorized to be elected, shall by special act, in each ease, re-enact: Provided, however, That in all the claims of vested rights thereunder, the party claiming the same shall not, by reason of anything in this section contained, be precluded from making and testing said claim in the courts of said territory: And provided further, That no legislation or pretended legislation in said terri-tory since the adjournment of the first legislative assembly shall be deemed valid until the election of the legislative assembly herein provided for shall take place. [After last section (8)] Approved March 2, 1867. On the same day that s501 passed (March 2, 1867), the U.S. congress acknowledged the power and validity of the local county court: [another] act of March 2, 1867, entitled 'An Act for the relief of the inhabitants of cities and towns upon the public lands,' approved March 2, 1867 (14 Stat. 541): Whenever any portion of the public lands of the United States have been or shall be settled upon and occupied as a town site, and therefore not subject to an entry under the agricultural pre-emption laws, it shall be lawful, in case such town shall be incorporated, for the corporate authorities thereof, and if not incorporated, for the judge of the county court for the county in which such town may be situated, to enter at the proper land-office and at the minimum price, the land so settled and occupied, in trust for the several use and benefit of the occupants thereof, according to their respective interests, the execution of which trust, as to the disposal of the lots in such town and the proceeds of the sales thereof, to be conducted under such rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the legislative authority of the State or Territory in which the same may be situated, &c.~

The United States Congress passed four statutes known as 'Reconstruction Acts'. (March 2, 1867, 14 Stat. 428-430, c.153; March 23, 1867, 15 Stat. 2-5, c.6; July 19, 1867, 15 Stat. 14-16, c.30; and March 11, 1868, 15 Stat. 41, c.25) The actual title of the initial legislation was "An act to provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel States" and it was passed on March 2, 1867.

The first Reconstruction statute (14 Stat 428-430) concerned 10 named Rebellion states [check this]

The public lands relief statute (14 Stat 541) is technically not a part of Reconstruction, because its subject matter concerns the dispersal of public lands in the Territories, and says nothing about the 10 Rebel States.

Similarly, the amendatory Territory of Montana statute of March 2, 1867, would not be a part of Reconstruction, because it says nothing about Rebel States. But all three acts were passed on the same day, in 1867.

Amendment to Organic Act, probate expanded. 39th U.S. Congress, Senate Bill 501 (s501) introduced January 11, 1867; reported January 24, 1867; recommitted February 13, 1867; reported February 14, 1867; approved March 2, 1867:

AN ACT amendatory of "An Act to provide a temporary Government for the Territory of Montana," May 26, 1864 [Organic Act (1921 reprint) 57/2293; amended by s501, March 2, 1867].

§ 2. That the probate courts of the territory of Montana, in their respective counties, in addition to their probate jurisdiction, are hereby authorized to hear and determine civil causes wherein the damage or debt claimed does not exceed five hundred dollars, and such criminal cases arising under laws of the Territory as do not require the intervention of a grand jury; Provided, that they shall not have jurisdiction of any matter in controversy when the title or right to peaceable possession of land may be in dispute, or of chancery or divorce cases; and in all cases an appeal may be taken from any order, judgement or decree of the probate courts to the district court.

[ the words 'hereby' and 'Provided' added after original version]

FORTIETH CONGRESS. SESS II. CH 53. 1868 CHAP LIII- An Act to amend as Act entitles "An Act for the Relief of the Inhabi-tants of Cities and Towns upon public Lands," approved March two, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the inhabitants of any town located on the public land of the United States may avail themselves, if the town authorities elect to do so, of the provisions of the act of March two, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, entitled "An Act for the Relief of the Inhabitants of Cities and Towns upon public Lands:" Provided, This act shall not prevent the issuance of patents to persons who have made, or may make, entries and elect to proceed under existing laws: And provided further, That no tittle under said act of March two, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven, shall be acquired to any valid mining claim or possession held under the existing laws of Congress : Provided also, that in addition to the minimum price of the lands included in any town site entered under the provisions of this act and "An Act for the Relief of the Inhabitants of Cities and Towns upon public Lands," approved March two, eighteen hundred and sixty- seven, there shall be paid by the parties availing themselves of the provisions of said acts all costs of surveying and platting any such town site, and expenses incident thereto, incurred by the United States, before any patent shall issue therefor.

APPROVED, June 8, 1868.[margin note] 1867 Ch. 177 Vol. XIV p.641 [ 641-might say 541, but sure looks like 641]

source: my document 6-8-1868 ch 53 from LOC.

AMENDMENT XIV July 9, 1868. The first clause of this amendment is the most contested legislation in the US CONST, including amendments. Here's why: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

O'Pinion on 14: how do you become (a) subject to/of the U.S.? By application (contract)?

The 14th amendment was the result of 3 years of political wrangling in Congress. It was the Republicans that wanted full freedom for the Negro slaves, and Republicans that forced the South to accept the14th amendment. The 14th amendment is a compromise by the two factions, as Negroes were not allowed to vote yet.

The real story of the 14th amendment is in Section 2. This clause throws the magic cape over the States, and exposes the real thrust of the Civil War: Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

O'Pinion: can I decode this one, maybe? If you don't let them vote, we won't count them for seats in the House? Indians can't vote, 18 year-olds can't vote, but U.S. citizens, or those who may become U.S. citizens, can vote. Why is Section 2 so twisted up?

The Republicans cried foul when the 3/5ths Negro Count Rule was being abolished in the Civil Rights legislation. If said rule was abolished, the South would gain many seats in the House, reflecting the new status of former Negro slaves.

The Republicans brought up a new plan, or perhaps it was the plan from day One. Congress would debate the Civil rights laws, make compromises, over-rides and finally pass the 14th amendment. The new amendment created citizenship for those that applied for it. This attracted former slaves away from the South, and Washington, D.C. filled up with Negroes.The 14th amendment is a civil contract with a public corporation, soon to be private. *

15 Statutes at Large, Chapter 249 (Section 1),

enacted July 27, 1868,

CHAP. CCXLIX - An Act concerning the Rights of American Citizens in foreign States.

Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this princi-ple, this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendents, are subjects of for-eign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed; Therefore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any declaration, instruc- tion, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That all naturalized citizens of the United States, while in foreign states, shall be entitled to, and shall receive from this government, the same protection of persons and prop-erty that is accorded to native-born citizens in like situations and circum-stances.

Sec. 3. And be it further enacted, That whenever it shall be made known to the President that any citizen of the United States has been unjustly deprived of his liberty by or under the authority of any foreign government, it shall be the duty of the President forthwith to demand of that government the reasons for such imprisonment, and if it appears to be wrongful and in violation of the rights of American citizenship, the Presi-dent shall forthwith demand the release of such citizen, and if the release so demanded is unreasonably delayed or refused, it shall be the duty of the President to use such means, not amounting to acts of war, as he may think necessary and proper to obtain or effectuate such release, and all the facts and proceedings relative thereto shall as soon as practicable be communicated by the President to Congress.

Approved, July 27, 1868.

O'Pinion: chapter CCXLIX is more of a 'resolution' than a hard law. There are no enabling instructions. Plus, the statute is hard to comprehend. My word twister antenna is way up.

What are they really saying here? Someone in chapter CCXLIX is claiming that such "American citizens" are subjects of/to some foreign power.

Who are the "American Citizens IN foreign states"? All people should pursue "happiness". The 1868 U.S. GOVERNMENT receives emigrants from all nations? Do they mean Germany and Texas? Individual Texans certainly didn't accept U.S. citizenship in 1868. The Texans had been conquered by a foreign entity, but they didn't gain individual citizenship with that entity, because they did not take any oath to the US. They failed to pledge al-legi-ance to the new Sovereign.

For whom is 15 Stat 249 written? Is the US congress allowing Germans or Texans to 'expatriate' (get out of the father-land)? What say-so would the US congress have over Germany? The statute is unclear. Perhaps the US congress is placating those students of law that believed their citizenship was being creating and destroyed.

In an effort to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and halt this violence, Congress enacted a series of civil rights statutes, including the Force Acts, see Act of May 31, 1870, 16 Stat. 140; Act of Feb. 28, 1871, 16 Stat. 433, and the Ku Klux Klan Act, see Act of Apr. 20, 1871, 17 Stat. 13.

41st Congress, 3d Session., Ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, enacted 1871-02-21).

Incorporation of District of Columbia by (Presidential) Legislative Act of February 21, 1871, under the Emergency War Powers Act and the Reconstruction Acts. Then reorganized June 11, 1878

\--16 Stat. 419 Chapter 62.

"The CORPORATION which is 16 Statute 419 CREATED by the name of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA succeeded to the property and liabilities of the corporations which were thereby abolished." D.C. vs Cluss, 103 U.S. 705, 26 L. Ed. 445.

District of Columbia, 1871. History: Act of March 3, 1791, ch. 17.(in part)

District on the Potomac accepted for permanent seat of government, and Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That a district of territory, not exceeding ten miles square, to be located as hereafter directed on the river Potomac, at some place between the mouths of the Eastern Branch and Connogochegue, be, and the same is hereby accepted for the permanent seat of the government of the United States.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, President to appoint commissioners for locating the same; That the President of the United States be authorized to appoint, and by supplying vacancies happening from refusals to act or other causes, to keep in appointment as long as may be necessary, three commissioners, who, or any two of whom, shall, under the direction of the President, survey, and by proper metes and bounds define and limit a district of territory, under the limitations above mentioned; and the district so defined, limited and located, shall be deemed the district accepted by this act, for the permanent seat of the government of the United States.

February 27, 1801, the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 placed the District under the jurisdiction of Congress. The act also organized the unincorporated territory within the District into two counties: the County of Washington on the northeast bank of the Potomac, and the County of Alexandria on the southwest bank. On May 3, 1802, the City of Washington was granted a municipal government consisting of a mayor appointed by the President of the United States.

"An Act to provide a Government for the District of Columbia 41st Congress, 3d Sess., ch. 62, 16 Stat. 419, enacted Feb. 21, 1871.

O'Pinion on providing a government: I thought Washington, D.C. already had a government. Maybe that was a different Washington, District of Columbia.

The Organic Act of 1871, formed the new corporation of the District of Columbia. This time, the cape covered the incorporated cities and the unincorporated counties of Washington and Alexandria. Washington City was always a corporation, now the entire 100 square miles is a corporation, and a whole lot more.

WEBSTER, 1928 page 649 District,. distrain 1.The territory in which a feudal lord has jurisdiction. 2. Division of territory. 3. Clergyman residence. 4. Any portion of undefined territory.

BLACK'S 6th Ed Districtio page 476. Lat. A distress, a distraint (a seizure).

The district of Columbia is 10 miles square and includes, but is not limited to: the unincorporated counties of Washington and Alexandria; the City of Washington, a municipal corporation; and other territories subject to its jurisdiction.

The U.S. congress simply declared that the common law constitutions of Montana in 1866 were null and void.

The U.S. congress, acting as though it is the king, draped its probate court over our county court as a 'magic act', just as the King draped his Court of Common Pleas over the county court in A.D.1215.

The U.S. congress is concealing fraud here; a conspiracy exists to remove the People's county court from every county in the nation, and replace the courts with statutory probate courts.* BACK

Townsite of Bozeman city- SE1/4-NW1/4-Section 7-Range 6 S e 40 acres *-March 23, 1870 Probate judge Noble conveys to Leander Black lots in Block E (document contains dates for probate power): Black is "legally entitled to claim, purchase and hold" certain parcels of land. Source: my document 'Black from Probate H-116 (book H page 116 Gallatin County).

Black from probate judge record- book H- page116, lot 1 Block E, 1870: Gallatin County Clerk & Recorder. Whereas, upon the 23rd day of March, A.D. 1870, John L. Noble, the Probate Judge of the County of Gallatin, in the Ter =ritory of Montana. In persuance of the provisions of the Statutes of said Territory in such cases made and provided, and as such authorized by act of Congress of the United States of America of the 2nd day of March A.D. 1867, and of an act amendatory thereof, approved June 8th, 1868 did enter and purchase at the Office of for the sale of public lands at the City of Helena, in said Territory, as a town site for the town of Bozeman, in said County, in trust for the residents of said Town. The South East quarter, of the North West quarter of Section number seven, in township number two, South in Range number six, East, containing forty acres. ...to L.M Black in Block 'E'[certain lots]. Therefore, know all men, that I, John L. Noble, the Probate Judge of said County of Gallatin, as the trustee created and appointed by the Statutes aforesaid...convey to L.M Black [certain lots in Block E] for fourteen dollars.

O'Pinion on John L Noble, probate judge: There is something fishy here. Noble sells town site land in Bozeman to Leander M. Black, in 1870. In the deed seen above, Noble cites acts of March 2, 1867 and June 8, 1868 as his authority under Congress. But Noble gives no certain statute number, so I read the whole thing.

One Act of June 8, 1868 (chapter 53), amended 14 Stat 541 of March 2, 1867, Cities and Towns upon public Lands, adding mining claims to the existing statute, by citation.

The two statutes are properly connected by subject matter and by citation.

Another Act of March 2, 1867 is Senate Bill 501 (s501). This bill amends the Organic Act of 1864, by expanding probate jurisdiction

The two statutes are properly connected by subject matter and by citation.

One of the three acts of March 2, 1867- 14 Stat 541- concerns Cities and Towns upon public Lands. The act enumerates town site claims, and gives land claim jurisdiction to the judge of the county court of unincorporated towns. This 1867 statute was modified in 1868.

Judge Noble is not a county court judge, he is a probate judge working for the incorporated Territory of Montana. He can not claim jurisdiction under 14 Stat 541 of 1867, or chapter 53 of 1868, as those statutes concern Cities and Towns upon public Lands, and unincorporated county court judges.

Noble can claim jurisdiction under Organic Act, as amended, but those statutes confer no land dispersal powers, as is found in 14 Stat 541. Noble claims jurisdiction that he does not have. Bozeman was not incorporated until 1883.

The property mentioned in Book H page 116 (Gallatin County Land Record), is on the NE corner of Black Avenue and Main Street in Bozeman. Owners of the property include Black, Nelson Story (first cattleman in Montana), General James Brisbin (Civil War fame) and Joseph K. Toole (future governor of Montana).

Book 1, page 363 Probate Judge Alexander D. McPherson conveys deed to Gallatin Lodge #6 AF & AM (Block E), 5th day of November, 1870.

Book H, page 281- Probate Judge A.J. Hunter conveys six lots in Block E to F.F. Fridley. 1st day of May, 1871.

Book H page 379 Probate Judge. Wm. P Parsons conveys deed to F.F. Fridley in Block F 28th day of October, 1871.

Book 3 page 609 Probate judge J.P Martin distributes estate of John L. Harlow, deceased. 26 April, 1883.

Lost Montana constitutions of 1866. What did the 'lost constitutions' say? The two lost constitutions of 1866 were probably very similar to the 1849 California constitution, or the 1884 Montana constitution, with the following similarities and additions.

State Judicial Power.

1. The State shall have one supreme court, consisting of three learned justices, whom are elected by the lawful inhabitants of the State. The State supreme court shall have appellate jurisdiction only, on appeals taken from incorporated State courts, with the power to compel testimony.

County Judicial Power

1. The county shall have a grand jury, consisting of twenty-four or more lawful inhabitants, drawn by the sheriff. Their purpose is to determine whether it is likely that a famous crime may have been committed in Sample county. If such a finding is made, the grand jury shall indict the accused by lawful process, made known by their word.

The grand jury shall have the power to compel testimony and bring evidence; the method may be by Notice, Summons, Writ or by any other process the grand jury sees as necessary.

The grand jury shall enforce its mandates by indicting any offender, and calling the trial jury to try the offender's case.

2. The county shall have one supreme trial court, with 12 jurors randomly drawn from a list of property owners. As used in this clause, 'property' is defined as 'land' and 'man-made dwellings'. All jurors must be inhabitants of Sample county.

The trial court shall say the final word on all issues of law, fact, procedure and punishment on trials arising within the geographical borders of Sample county.

The court shall be convened in any place suitable to the lawful inhabitants of said county, by their needs, and paid for by them. The court may convene in two or more places simultaneously, according to their population.

3. The county court and grand jury shall the right to abolish, modify or add to any part of this chapter, or all of it.

The court shall enforce its jurisdiction by meting out punishment to criminals, according to the needs of the County inhabitants, and their ability to pay for said court and punishment.

All county officers and employees would be required to post a fidelity bond, according to their position. Any lawful inhabitant with valuable property may sign as a surety for the officer or employee. If so, there must be at least two sureties posting double the bond amount, each. All jurors are exempt from fidelity bonding.

Also, there must have been a few things left unsaid in the two constitutions of 1866. Perhaps they failed make the COMPACT WITH UNITED STATES, as seen in the other codes and constitutions. Or, perhaps the constitution failed to instruct the citizens to take the ironclad Oath of allegiance to the U.S.

One fact is known: the People in southwest Montana in the 1860s were mostly Democrats, and mostly opposed to Lincoln's centralized statute law. 'Virginia City' was named in honor of Jefferson Davis' wife, and the town of Bozeman was named after a southerner.

The miners that invaded Montana set up their own courts and elected their own officials.

Lincoln's agents also invaded Montana. They murdered the sheriff and his 'gang'. Lincoln's agents draped their own courts and their own statute laws over the miner's court and the miner's common law. BACK

#  Chapter 5. The Revised Statutes of Montana 1879.

STATUTORY NOTICE becomes the fact when the person affected knows about it. The People of Montana were warned that the old Law must expire.

By 1881 the Montana Territorial legislature had gone through 11 sessions of law writing. Much of the Common Law remained in the code of 1879, as amended in 1881. One statute instructed the sheriff to select the grand jury of and for his county; in another all prosecutions were done by Indictment of a grand jury. Other statutes enumerate the trial jury's power to judge the law, the facts, the procedure and the punishment, although cracks were now appearing in this area.

The 1879 statutes require certain employees to purchase and post their own fidelity bonds, or by the signature of two sureties. Elected officials are responsible for their deputies, and other common sense statutes that reflect our Common Law.

Montana legislatures: 1st(1864-1865) Bannack Statutes; 2nd Session, Extraordinary (1866);3rd Session, Extraordinary (1866); 4th Session, Regular & Extraordinary (1867); 5th Session, Regular (1868-1869).

6th Session, Regular (1869-1870); 7th Session, Regular (1871-1872); 8th Session, Extraordinary (1873); 8th Session, Regular (1874);9th Session, Regular (1876);11th Session, 1879 Revised Statutes of Territory of Montana RSM 1879;12th Session -1881 Revised Statutes of Territory of Montana RSM 1879.

The 1879 Revised Statutes of Montana, with the 1881 amendments are available online. This 1,047-page PDF document contains the entire written law for the Territory Montana in 1881. SUMMARY follows.

U.S. constitution; Revised Statutes of US Title 23, chapter 1 COMMON TO TERRITORIES [39/1047- seems to be written over a period of time, multiple sessions of US. congress]; [41/1047] Legislative power in Montana 26 May 1864; 3 March 1869; 20 June 1874; [PDF 42/1047] Section 1851 Legislative power over "subjects", but no law against "disposal of the soil".

Territory of Montana statutes [begin PDF 64/1047].

1879 RCM general laws PDF 427/1047 Start here: Civil Procedure begins on PDF 66/1047.

Table of Contents [PDF 882/1047]. Document page 432 [PDF 457/1047].

Section 144 common law. That the common law of England, so far as the same is applicable and of a general nature, and not in conflict with special enactments of this Territory, shall be the law and the rule of decision, and shall be considered as of full force until repealed by legislative authority.

O'Pinion: WOW, Lookie here! The legislature of 1879 threatened to repeal the Common Law.*

1879 5th Div. XI. Thirteenth. The term "court" shall, in all necessary cases, be deemed to refer to as well to probate judges and justices of the peace as to courts of record.

Section 335 [PDF 504/1047]. The county is a body corporate & politic.

Probate judge 512/1047 and 193/1047.

Section 506 [PDF 162/1047] The supreme court and each of the district courts shall have power to make rules and regulations for their practice in all matter not provided for by law.

O'Pinion on Section 506: the judges use unwritten law. If it is good enough for them, is it good enough for the trial jury?

Section 510 [PDF 162/1047]. Supreme, district, probate courts & clerks have seals "and no others" have seals. Section 515 [PDF163/1047]. "every court of justice, except the justice's court".

Section 693 [PDF 194/1047]. That each judge of the probate courts shall be conservators of the peace throughout his county.

Section 695 [PDF 194/1047]. probate clerk to issue venire (summons).

Section 719 [PDF 198/1047]. justice court has voluntary jurisdiction unless summons is issued.

Section 18 [PDF 383/1047]. Murder defined as 'unlawful killing'.

1879 Section 212 [PDF 425/1047] All offences recognized by common law as crimes and not here enumerated, shall be punished, in case of felony, by imprisonment in the Territorial prison for a term not less than one year, nor more than five years; and in the case of misdemeanor, by imprisonment in the county jail for a term not exceeding six months, nor less than one month, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by both such fine and imprisonment. And whenever any fine is imposed for any felony or misdemeanor, whether such be by statute or at common law, the party on whom the fine is imposed shall be committed to the county jail, when not sentenced to the Territorial prison, until the fine is paid; and he shall be imprisoned at a rate of one day for each two dollars until such fine is paid.

O'Pinion on Section212 of 1879: this statute recognizes true, unwritten law and offers the prison as a place of punishment. This offer is a one step of four in a contract. This statute is strong evidence that Common Law was alive and well in 1881.

GENERAL ELECTION LAWS [start on PDF 539/1047].

[PDF 927/1047] criminal jurisdiction third division of Revised Statutes amended: Section 6. The district court shall have exclusive jurisdiction in all cases of felony, and all other offences not cognizable in the probate courts, or courts of justices of the peace, and jurisdiction concurrent with said courts of all other offences. [Probate misdemeanor jurisdiction $500, JP $100, etc] APPROVED February 16, 1881.

Section 353 new trial. Second when the jury has been separated without leave of the court...[O'Pinion: jury power stolen here] seventh when the verdict is contrary to law or the evidence.

Section 781 [PDF 942/1047] priests, attorneys, physicians, all Territorial officers and firemen are exempt from grand or trial jury duty.

Section 773 [PDF 943/1047] county commission to select 100 possible trial jurors for a case. Commission then selects 24, then 12. APPROVED February 23, 1881. [PDF 944/1047] Justices and constables elected by "qualified voters" APPROVED February 9, 1881. Next section is cattle and sheep [irony?]; next is law library, nuisances and opium dens.

State penitentiary, property subject to taxation [952/1047], railroads, roads and highways, gaming, territorial tax [PDF 960/1047], Territorial officers [961/1047]; school books, vagrancy, warrants.

SPECIAL LAWS [PDF 970/1047] Silver Bow county created; Missoula warrants; other counties funded; [997/1047] boundaries, then city governments. [PDF 1012/1047] Montana to send stone to WDC for Washington Monument. [PDF 1014/1047] The United States grand jury, convened in the county where said penitentiary is located, having frequently examined the same and called attention to the fact that the same was insufficient and too small to meet the demands upon it. (US owns the Pen and the ground under it).

Index to the 1879 codes PDF 1020/1047]. [BACK

#  Chapter 6. Montana 3rd constitution 1884.

Second NOTICE by statutory law. The common law grand jury and county court will be abolished.

1884. Power comes from the people, they are free, self-governing and sovereign, providing their laws are not repugnant to the Constitution of the Untied States; Property rights, safety, happiness; No person denied free religion, but must still take oaths [word twisting], no polygamy, no licentious acts. Do not oppose the State or the U.S.
Section 6. Courts of justice are open to everyone.

Section 7. Security from unreasonable search, probable cause.

Section 8. That until otherwise provided by law, no person shall for felony be proceeded against criminally, otherwise than by indictment, except in cases arising in the land or navel forces, or in the militia when in actual service in the time of war or public danger. In all other cases, offenses shall be prosecuted criminally, by indictment or information.

O'Pinion on Section 8, 1884: more shenanigans here. All criminal cases by indictment, except military. All other cases by indictment and information. The writers are attempting to confuse the reader. All criminal cases should be prosecuted by indictment, I agree. What other cases are there? Are we talking about civil cases and misdemeanors? Do we prosecute civil cases and misdemeanors by indictment? No. Civil cases are contested by application of the parties.

This is a big secret to some people, them not wanting you to know that traffic tickets are civil crimes and are contested by agreement of both parties. An indictment is not necessary on civil cases.

O'Pinion concerning the misdemeanor clause in Section 8, 1884: Misdemeanor crimes are also contested by consent of both parties. If you get a citation for shoplifting and don't show up for court, no one will send the police to arrest you. Instead, the court will wait until you enter into some other contract with them or their government, and then fine you for the shoplifting. These are small crimes that do not rise to the level of a grand jury indictment. Section 8 is another pile of twisted words, designed to neuter the ancient common law grand jury.

1884 constitution. Sections 9, Treason. 10. Libel, jury, under the direction of the court, shall determine the law and the fact. O'Pinion: more double-talk. Either the jury says the law, or the judge says the law.

Expost facto law, debt law, right to bear arms, property rights.

Section 16. That in criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right to appear and defend in person and by counsel; to demand the nature and cause of the accusation; to meet the witnesses against him face to face ; to have process to compel the attendance of witnesses in his behalf, and a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the county or district in which the offense is alleged to have been committed.

O'Pinion on Section 16: this statute was all good until the last line, where the word 'district' was inserted. The 'district' is the statute cape being laid over the county. Sometimes the district cape will protect you; sometimes it will smother you. My guess is this statute was in the two Lost constitutions, without the word 'district'.

Section 17. That no person shall be imprisoned for the purpose of securing his testimony in any case longer than may be necessary in order to take his deposition. If he can give security, he shall be discharged; if he can not give security, his deposition shall be taken by some Judge of the Supreme, district, or county court, at the earliest time he can attend, at some convenient place appointed by him for that purpose, of which time and place the accused and the attorney prosecuting for the people shall have reasonable notice. The accused shall have the right to appear in person and by counsel. If he have no counsel, the judge shall assign him one in that behalf only. On the completion of such examination, the witness shall be discharged on his own recognizance, entered into before said judge, but such deposition shall not be used, if in the opinion of the court the personal at-tendance of the witness might be procured by the prosecution, or is procured by the accused. No exception shall be taken to such deposition as to matters of form.

O'Pinion on Section 17. This statute was probably left over from earlier times, in an attempt to empower the grand jury. But it is not my common law, as it is not lawful to imprison me to get me to talk, period. A better remedy would be banishment from the neighborhood or county.

On the second half of the statute- I say that I have no right to "appear" in your court, nor a duty. If I am forced by strength, I will not accept your benefit in the form of assistance of counsel, licensed by my adversary. That would be dumb for me, now wouldn't it?

1884 constitution Section 18-20: double jeopardy, bail, and habeas corpus.
Section 21. That the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall never, be sus- pended, unless in case of rebellion or invasion the public safety requires it.

O'Pinion on habeas: have you the body? Bring him and tell us why you hold him (the words of the ancient grand jury). Section 21 is more double talk. We have been in a constant state of emergency since 1917. If you think habeas corpus works now, try it.

Section 23. The right of trial by jury shall remain inviolate in criminal cases; but a jury in civil cases in all courts, or in criminal cases not of the grade of felony, may consist of less than twelve men, as may be prescribed by law. And the Leg- islative Assembly may provide by law that, in civil cases, any number, not less than two-thirds of a jury, may find a verdict, and that such verdict, when so found, shall betaken and held to have the same force and effect as if all of such jury concurred therein. Hereafter, a grand jury shall consist of twelve men, any nine of whom, concurring, may find an indictment; Provided, The Legislative Assembly may change, regulate, or abolish the grand jury system.

O'Pinion on Section 23. The big one: here again, is lawful NOTICE. The law writers are warning you again, that the grand jury must go, and the trial jury will be reduced.

Sections 24-26. Peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, due process, involuntary servitude.
Section 27. The provisions of this Constitution are mandatory and prohibitory, unless by express words they are declared to be otherwise.

Section 28. The enumeration in this Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny, impair, or disparage others retained by the people.

1884 constitution ARTICLE II. Boundaries. Article III. Division of power; Article IV. Legislative; Article V. Executive; Article VI. Judicial Department.

Sec. 1. The Judicial powers of the State, as to matters of law and equity, except as in this Constitution otherwise provided, shall be vested in a Supreme Court, in district courts, county courts, justices of the peace, and such other courts as may be created by law for cities and incorporated towns. But the Legislative Assembly may provide for the abolition of county courts and the transfer of their probate and other jurisdiction to the district courts, and in such case may provide that such dis-trict courts shall be always open for the transaction of business, except on legal holidays and non-judicial days.

O'Pinion on 1884 Article VI, Judicial power, Section 1. This is the only recognition of the county court as a lawful, established court, by any Montana Assembly. I believe the U.S. congress rejected this constitution for that reason, even though the clause warns us the said county court must be abolished. Section 1 is consistent with the Organic Act, the 1879 RSM and the national trend to replace county courts with probate courts.
Section 2. Three elected judges of supreme court; writs; power to call jury to hear issues of fact; clerk.

Sec. 11. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction in all cases in equity, and in all cases at law which involve the title or right of possession of real property, or the legality of any tax, impost, assessment, toll, or municipal fine, and in all other cases in which the debt, damage, claim, or demand, exclusive of interest, or the value of the property in controversy exceeds fifty dollars; and in all criminal cases amounting to felony, and all cases of misdemeanors not otherwise provided for ; of actions of forcible entry and detainer; of proceedings in insolvency; of actions to pre- vent or abate a nuisance; of actions of divorce and for annullment of marriage, and of all such special actions and proceedings as are not otherwise provided for. Air 1 said courts shall have the power of naturalization and to issue papers therefor; they shall have appellate jurisdiction in such cases arising in justices and other inferior courts in their respective districts as may be prescribed by law, and consistent with this Constitution. Their process shall extend to all parts of the State, provided that all actions for the recovery of the possession of, quieting the title to, or for the en-forcement of liens upon real property shall be commenced in the county in which the real property, or any part thereof affected by such action or actions, is situated. Said courts and the Judges thereof shall have power also to issue, hear and determine writs of mandamus, quo warranto, certiorari, prohibition, injunction, and other origi-nal and remedial writs, and also writs of habeas corpus, on petition by, or on behalf of, any person in actual custody in their respective districts. Injunctions, writs of pro-hibition, and habeas corpus may be issued and served on legal holidays and non judi-cial days.

O'Pinion on district court power, 1884: the district court has assumed jurisdiction in all cases of equity (civil cases) and law, as long as the case in law includes equity or taxes. Once again, the 1884 law writers are concealing the Common Law county court. Why can't the district court power include all cases in law? Answer: because the district court has no jurisdiction in local law, unless it has consent of the parties (civil law).

Article VI, Section 14. District borders same as county borders.

County Courts.

Sec 20. There shall be elected in each organized county a county judge, who shall be judge of the county court of said county, whose term of office shall be two years, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution; his salaries and duties, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution, shall be as provided by law; but nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prevent the Legislative Assembly from fixing different salaries of county judges for the several counties of the State.Sec. 21. There shall be a clerk of the county court in each county. The

Legislative Assembly may provide for the election of such clerk by the people, or it may provide that the duties of such office shall be performed by some other county officer. The duties of such clerk and his compensation shall be prescribed by law.

Sec. 22. County courts shall have original jurisdiction within their respective counties in all matters of probate, settlement of estates of deceased persons, ap-pointment of guardians, conservators, and administrators, and, settlement of their accounts, and such other civil and criminal jurisdiction as may be conferred by law: Provided, That such courts shall have no jurisdiction in any case where the debt, damage, claim, or value of the property involved, shall exceed one thousand dollars, exclusive of interest, except in cases relating to the estates of deceased or insane persons or minors.

O'Pinion on Sections 20- 22, county courts. This section shows juxtaposition of the law writers. Can the incorporated State take over the county court, as enumerated here? No, the State can only create its own courts and hope that the county court goes away.

In Section 22- we find county court jurisdiction in all matters of law, but the constitution now says the equity limit in civil cases is $1000. This is part of the court drape-over, in this instance the district court is limiting the county court, mingling forms of law.

Speculation: The U.S. congress must have been dismayed when they read Section 20, of the 1884 constitution. The yahoos in Montana are confused in their effort to take over the county court, or maybe they think the county court is what they want. What are the law writers trying to do in Montana? Are they attempting to revive the Common Law? We, the U.S. congress, can never accept such sloppy work. The Montana constitution 1884 is hereby REJECTED.

Sec. 24. Neither the county courts, nor justice's [of peace] courts, shall have jurisdiction in any case involving the title or right of possession of real property, nor in cases of divorce, nor for annulment of marriage, nor in cases of equity; nor shall they have power to issue writs of habeas corpus, mandamus, certiorari, quo warranto, injunc- tion, or prohibition, nor the power of naturalization; nor shall they have jurisdic- tion in cases of felony, except as examining courts, nor shall criminal cases in said courts be prosecuted by indictment; but said courts shall have such jurisdiction in criminal matters, not of the grade of felony, as may be provided by law . Prose- cutions may be by information, or otherwise, as the Law may provide.

O'Pinion on Section 24, 1884: In old England, the county court could not hear cases of real property, because the King owned all real property. The King's Court of Chancery would adjudicate such matters.

Also in old England, the county court could not hear cases of divorce (civil law), as that was the province of the Church, at least in the early times.

In modern times the Church has been removed from American law, and the King's Court of Chancery has a new name- the district court.

The district court has, or will have later, all powers at law; including jurisdiction in local criminal matters of equity (civil) or of law (criminal).

The ancient justice of the peace is the King's small claim's court, as it is today. The justice of the peace has never been a true common law court, but the elite rulers of our world have pretended that the court is that of the people.

Section 24 lowers the status of the county court to that of the justice of the peace court. All this wrangling over the county court is preparation for its final removal, and death.

Sec. 27. The Legislative Assembly shall have power to provide for creating such police and municipal courts and magistrates for cities and towns as may be deemed necessary from time to time, who shall have jurisdiction in all cases arising under the ordinances of such cities and towns respectively; such police magistrates may also be constituted ex-officio justices of the peace for their respective counties.

O'Pinion on Section 27, 1884: the State is creating a police force under Ordinances, which are private law. The theory is still in force today.

MISCELLANEOUS provisions.

Sec. 28. The Supreme, district, and county courts shall be courts of record.

Sec. 32. There shall be but one form of civil action, and laws and equity may be administered in the same action.

Sec. 35. No Judge of the Supreme, district, or county courts shall act or practice as an attorney or counsellor at law in any of the courts of this State during his continuance in office, nor shall the clerk of any such court, during his term of office, be retained, employed, or practice as an attorney in the court of which he may be a clerk. ARTICLE VII. Suffrage and Elections. ARTICLE VIII. State Institutions. ARTICLE IX. Education. ARTICLE X. Industrial Resources. ARTICLE XI. Military Affairs. Statutory state militia. ARTICLE XII. Revenue and Taxation. ARTICLE XIII. Public Indebtedness. ARTICLE XIV. Municipal Corporations and Officers.

COUNTY OFFICERS.

Sec. 9. In each county there shall be elected four county commissioners, who shall compose the board of county commissioners, and who with the county Judge of the county shall hold sessions for the transaction of county business, as provided by law, any three of whom shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. The county Judge shall be chairman of the board of county commissioners. ARTICLE XV. Corporations, Other than Municipal. ARTICLE XVI. Miscellaneous Subjects and Future Amendments. ARTICLE XVII. Schedule.

Ordinances.

Second - That the people inhabiting the Territory of' Montana, by their repre- sentatives in said Convention assembled, do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within said Territory, and that the same shall be and remain at the sole and entire disposal of the United States; that the lands belonging to the citizens of the United States, residing without said State, shall never be taxed higher than the lands belonging to residents thereof; and that no taxes shall be imposed by the State on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States.

Third - That this ordinance shall be irrevocable, without the consent of the United States and the people of the State of Montana.

Fourth - That in behalf of the people of Montana, we, in convention assembled, do adopt the Constitution of the United States.

O'Pinion summary on 1884 constitution: This document illustrates the transition between common law local courts and the new statutory district/probate courts. The legislators acknowledged the county court several times in the 1884 constitution, confirming its standing in Law. Next, the legislators lay their Chancery courts on top of the county court, giving it status in Equity. Chancery courts are government controlled, just as they were in old England.

Voters approved the constitution in November of 1884 by a wide margin 15,506 for, 4,266 against. The document was sent to Washington and REJECTED.

In their book Montana- A History of Two Centuries, authors Malone, Roeder and Lang suggest that 1884 law writers failed to draft "a proper constitution", and that the Montana voters understood this failure; but "the voters cared less about the constitution than about its function as the key that would open the door to statehood. BACK

#  Chapter 7. Montana State Constitution 1889.

Statehood did not give us our rights; it took them away.

Five years after the failed convention of 1884, Montana law writers tried again. But this new bunch had to be a different group, as the offensive language had been removed. The Assembly followed the wishes put forth in the LEGISLATIVE NOTICE of 1879 and 1884.

The true common law county court is gone in 1889, replaced by district courts. Even the probate court had been eliminated; that court being a sacrificial pawn of the takeover, absorbed by the district court.

Constitution of 1889 ARTICLE VIII JUDICIAL DEPARTMENTS.

Section 1. The judicial power of the state shall be vested in the senate sitting as a court of impeachment, in a supreme court, district courts, jus- tices of the peace, and such other inferior courts as the legislative assembly may establish in any incorporated city or town.

Section. 8. Criminal offenses of which justice's courts and municipal and other courts, inferior to the district courts, have jurisdiction, shall, in all courts inferior to the district court, be prosecuted by complaint. All crim- inal actions in the district court, except those on appeal, shall be prose- cuted by information, after examination and commitment by a magistrate, or after leave granted by the court, or shall be prosecuted by indictment without such examination or commitment, or without such leave of the court. A grand jury shall consist of seven persons, of whom five must concur to find an indictment.

A grand jury shall only be drawn and summoned when the district judge shall, in his discretion, consider it necessary, and shall so order.

O'Pinion on 1889 Section 8: This is the statue that neuters the grand jury and eliminates the county court. If all criminal cases in justice, municipal and district courts are prosecuted by Complaint, Charge or Information, approved by said court, then what court is left to prosecute by indictment? There is none! The one court that does prosecute by indictment, and without the approval of a judge or court, is the county court, by indictment from the county grand jury. In 1889, the county court is no longer mentioned and the grand jury is only mentioned twice. Only twice? Geez, how often do you expect to use a grand jury?

Instead of county grand jury and trial jury, the 1889 writers enumerate a state district court and a county grand jury, chosen by the state district judge.

Hold it right there!

An incorporated district judge has no jurisdiction over an unincorporated county or town, according to statute.

The district court can only hear indictments from a state grand jury, drawn from the district. The district court can hear Complaints, Charge and Information, as seen above.

The county grand jury then, has no trial jury, and the district court needs no Indictment. The county grand jury would mingle with the district court for few years after 1889, then go dormant.

Statehood put an end to the common law local courts, the probate courts and the grand jury and reduced the power of the trial jury.

1889 CONSTITUTION OF MONTANA Ordinance II, 1 (in part) Be it Ordained: First. That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured and that no inhabitant of the state of Montana shall ever be molested in person or property, on account of his or her mode of religious worship. Second. That the people inhabiting the said proposed state of Montana, do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to the unappropriated public lands lying within the boundaries thereof, and to all lands lying within said limits owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes, and that until the title thereto shall have been extinguished by the United States, the same shall be and remain subject to the disposition of the United States, and said Indian lands shall remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the congress of the United States, that the lands belonging to citizens of the United States, residing without the said state of Montana, shall never be taxed a higher rate than the lands belonging to residents thereof; that no taxes shall be imposed by the said state of Montana on lands or property therein belonging to, or which may hereafter be purchased by the United States or reserved for its use. But nothing herein contained shall preclude the said state of Montana from taxing as other lands are taxed any lands owned or held by any Indian who has severed his tribal relations and has obtained from the United States or from any person a title thereto by patent or other grant, save and except such lands as have been or may be granted to any Indian or Indians under any act of congress containing a provision exempting the lands thus granted from taxation, but said last named lands shall be exempt from taxation by said state of Mon-tana so long and to such extent as such act of congress may prescribe. BACK

#  Chapter 8. Three Wars, Three Codes.

The Montana Codes of 1895, 1921 and 1947.

1895 Political, Penal, Civil & Civil Procedure Codes of Montana. The PDF document containing all four 1895 codes is 1414 pages long. The new court structure established a Supreme, District, Justice and incorporated Municipal/town court system. The county court established by the 1884 constitution is not enumerated in the 1895 code.

The county grand jury has been neutered by the removal of its county trial court. The process called 'Indictment' has been usurped by 'Information'. The district and township trial jury's right to determine law is not enumerated in the 1895 code, with the exception of trials for liable.

The number of jurors in district court remains at 12 in criminal cases, but the lower courts now seat 6 jurors, with an option for less. While the 1895 statutes on Indictment and grand jury exist, the wording is twisted and confusing and meant to cloud the intention, as seen below. Such is the way of the word twisters.

The 1895 code was a new code, as it was the first State code. Yet the some of the concepts enumerated in 1895 look very much like the Organic Act and the subsequent federal territorial statutes that were applied to all territories. The 1895 code provided for a seven-man grand jury, drawn by the district judge and brought before him. This State controlled grand jury pretends to be our county grand jury. The county grand jury and county trial jury are inseparable; both are organs of the court. Without one, the other is void.

There is no county trial court in 1895, that particular court being omitted.

1895 district court 826/1414 Civ Pro, chapter IV sections 30-49.

Justice court 829/1414 justice of the peace is "township" court, $300 limit.

Police courts 830/1414 are incorporated city and town courts.

Jurors 836/1414 of 1895.

Sec 222. A grand jury is a body of men, seven in number, returned in pursuance of law, from the citizens of a county, before a court of competent jurisdiction, and sworn to inquire of public offenses committed or triable within the county.

Sec 223. A trial jury is a body of men returned from the citizens of a particular district before a court or officer of competent jurisdiction, and sworn to try and determine, by verdict, a question of fact.

Sec 224. A trial jury consists of twelve men; provided, that in civil actions and cases of misdemeanor, it may consist of twelve, or any number less than twelve, upon which the parties may agree in open court.

Sec. 225. A jury in justice's court both in civil cases and misdemeanors, consists of six persons, but parties may agree to a less number than six.

Sec 226. A jury of inquest is a body of men summoned from the citizens of a particular district before the sheriff, coroner, or other ministerial officer, to inquire concerning particular facts.

O'Pinion on 1895 judicial procedure. These statutes test your sanity. What does 'in pursuance of law' mean? What citizens are not in a county? What is a court of competent jurisdiction? If you mean 'district court', why not specify? What offenses are triable with the county? What offenses are not triable in the county? Are they talking about triable within the county court?

In the next section- why is the trial jury drawn from the district, instead of the county, as above? The grand jury is county grand jury (prosecution by indictment), and the trial jury is district or township jury (prosecution by information). The two juries are not compatible.

Impaneling grand juries 841/1414. District judge can order county grand jury to appear before his State district court.

There was good news in the 1895 Code, from a common law point of view. The 1895 Code required bonds for all sorts of government employees. There are several pages on official bonds in the index alone. Every official was bonded, except the governor, the legislature and the high judges.

The amounts for the official bonds were fairly high for the day. The amount was according to monies handled by the officer. The procedure for posting bonds is barely mentioned in the 1889 constitution, but enumerated widely in the 1895 code. Government officials are given options such as posting a self-purchased bond, or the signature of two friends, each doubling the amount.

1895 Montana Political Code (1895-1907)

Article IX, Sections 1050-1090.

Official Bonding.

1041 Index to Article IX.

1050-1057 Filing, record and conditions (1057 text).

1058-1059 Sureties.

1060-1063 Form, construction (1060 text).

1064-1066 Suit on bond, defects in bond form.

1067-Insufficiency of sureties.

1068-1072 Additional, original bonds, liability, separation.

1073-1078 Release of sureties, vacancies.

1079-Supplemental bond.

1080-1085 " " ", discharge, administrators, receivers.

1086-1089 Action on bond, deputies, clerks.

1090-1100 Action to compel performance.

4321- 4333 , 4333 "County officers must execute official bonds.

1895 Pol. C. 1050 Every official bond must be filed in the proper office within the time prescribed for filing the oath, unless otherwise expressly provided for by statute. [Lots of references].

1895 Pol. C. 1051. Unless otherwise prescribed by statute, the official bonds of state officers must be approved by the governor and filed and recorded in the office of the secretary of state. [No ref].

1895 Pol. C. 1053 Unless otherwise prescribed by statute, the official bonds of county and township officers, must be approved by the judge of the district court, and filed and recorded in the office of the county clerk. [lots of references].

1895 Pol. C. 1054. Official bonds must be recorded in a book kept for the purpose, and entitled "Record of Official Bonds". [No ref].

1895 Pol. C. 1055 the approval of every official bond must be indorsed thereon and signed by the approving officer the same. [No ref].

1895 Pol. C. 1056 No officer with whom any official bond is required to be filed must file such bond until approved. [No ref].

1895 Pol. C. 1057- "the condition of the official bond must be that the principle will well, truly and faithfully perform all officials duties then required of him by law, and also all such additional duties as may be imposed on him by any law of the state and that he will account and pay over to the person or officer entitled to receive the same, all moneys or other property that may come into his hands as such officer. Such bond must be signed by the principal and at least two sureties. INFORMALITIES in official bonds sec 1066 note.

The first State code was written in 1895. There were no automobiles, airplanes, or radios. Telephones were barely in existence in Montana in 1895, telegraph was the fastest form of communication. It was a slower time, compared to now. Yet they retained their custom of requiring officers to post bonds.

O'Pinion on the Montana codes, in general. The Codes are a compilation of hundreds of years of legislation. They contain mostly good, solid common law, i.e., common sense rules by most people's standards.

But they also contain a trend with a hidden agenda. That trend is 'The Domination of a People by Legislation.

The Trend is piecemeal. Boil the frog slowly; take a right here and there; then wait 20 years. The frogs are comfy; they will never suspect a thing.

Exposing that piecemeal trend is the motive for this Report.

The codes after 1895 would be amended, modified and reduced many times over the years. Occasionally the law writers would reformat the entire code. Such was the case in 1907, 1921, 1947 and 1979.

In each of the four sessions mentioned above, we also find more examples of rights taken from the People by government, and given to themselves. I will only examine two of the four codes, but the Trend is clear; the People's rights are being abolished by statute.

Revised Code of Montana- 1921. The Montana Supreme Court addresses the issue of indictment verses information statutes in CODE FOUR, 1921, case citations.

The clause of this section, relating to prosecutions of criminal actions by information, did not execute itself, and before it could be carried into effect, the exercise, jurisdiction, and limitations of the procedure, and the rights of the state and accused, must be defined by the legislative department. State v. Ah Jim, 9 Mont. 167, 172; 23 Pac. 76.

The clause of this section relating to the grand jury executes itself, and in the absence of further legislation, all offenses of the grade of felonies, or having their origin in the district court, must be inquired into under the provisions of the Criminal Practice Act relative to indictments. State v. Ah Jim, 9 Mont. 167, 172; 23 Pac. 76.

In a prosecution for murder, the substantial rights of the accused were not prejudiced by the submission of his case to the grand jury created by the constitution, and the clause of this section t the number of jurors composing that body is not ex post facto. State v. Ah Jim, 9 Mont. 167, 172; 23 Pac. 76.

The provision of the constitution relating to prosecution by information is not self-executing, and in the absence of legislation defining the procedure, a trial and conviction upon information is without process of law. In re Durbon, 10 Mont. 147, 148, 25 Pac. 442. [PDF 76/2293, Pol C.1921 RCM].

A conviction in a court of the state for a felony committed in the territory prior to the adoption of the constitution cannot be sustained where the prosecution was by information, as provided for by the constitution and act of March 2, 1891, relating thereto, as the provision of the federal constitution guaranteeing to the accused the right to be prosecuted through the intervention of the grand jury was, at the time of the commission of the offense, the supreme law of the land, and the substitution by the state constitution of prosecution by information in place of that by indictment, not being a matter affecting the procedure, deprived the accused of a substantial right, and gave said act a retrospective operation. State v. Kingsly, 10 Mont. 537, 545, 26 Pac. 1066. [PDF 76/2293, Pol C.1921 RCM].

One of the objects of the constitution was to do away, to a great extent, with the machinery and expense of a grand jury, by substituting therefore prosecution by information. It is not necessary, in order to vest power in the county attorney to file an information, that there shall be a preliminary examination and commitment. He may act, after leave has been granted by the court, in a case where there may not have been any charge or information before a committing magistrate. State v. Brett, 16 Mont. 360, 364. 40 Pac. 873; State v. Bowser, 21 [year ca 1900] Mont. 133, 135, 53 Pac. 179. [PDF 76/2293, Pol C.1921 RCM].

Under this section, either there must have been an examination and commitment, or leave of the court procured, but both steps are not required. State v. Brett, 16 Mont. 360, 364. 40 Pac. 873.

One of the purposes of the convention in formulating this section, and the people adopting it, was to dispense with the slow, expensive and therefore unsatisfactory procedure by indictment, and to substitute a procedure expeditious and inexpensive, to be availed of by the prosecuting officers at their discretion, subject to control by the court, to guard a particular defendant against oppression and malice, and prevent the abuse of power by the county attorney. State v. Brett, 16 Mont. 360, 364. 40 Pac. 873; State v. Cain 16 Mont. 561, 563, 41 Pac. 709; State v. Vinn, 50 Mont. 27, 34, 144 Pac. 773.

The proceeding authorized by this section, allowing prosecution by information with the leave of court, without preliminary examination having been had, is not a deprivation of liberty of a citizen without due process of law, and does not abridge the privileges and immunities of any citizen as guaranteed by the fourteenth amendment of the constitution of the United States. State v. Brett, 16 Mont. 360, 364. 40 Pac. 873.

Prosecutions in the district court may be either by information, in cases where there has been an examination and commitment or admission to bail by a magistrate, in which case an order of the court is not necessary; or by information filed by order of the court upon written motion of the county attorney, which may be done without such examination. State v. Bowser, 21 Mont. 133, 134, 53 Pac. 179. [Four more citations- court has power to decide which method is used, and can impanel a second grand jury for the same charge].

Official bonding in RCM 1921. In this concept, the official puts up a bond of his own money, or his surety, to insure fidelity in job performance (SEE the history of Official Bonds in Montana, by O'Pinion, Published by smashwords.com, 2013).

The bonding amounts required by county officers have dropped by roughly half from the 1895 levels. When the reader considers the devaluation of the U.S. dollar from 1895 to 1921, we must factor that value drop into the bond requirements; the actual bonding requirements have been reduced even further.

1921 Section 466 Political code [PDF 377/2293]. Sheriff $15,000 -($30,000 in 1895-Sec. 4333 Pol. C. PDF 445/1414); clerks and assessors was $25,000 in 1895 now $10,000; treasurer- was 150,000 in 1895, now $100,000, etc.

O'Pinion on 1921 official bonding. The early legislators respected the ancient concept of fidelity bonding; later legislators did not.

1947 Revised Code of Montana. This series of code ran from 1947 to 1979. It was re-organized and a bit easier to read. The much longer series was now 9 volumes, compared to the 5 volumes of 1921.

The 1965 Montana legislature made some radical changes in the official bonding statutes. The statutes that require officers to purchase their own fidelity bonds were repealed in 1965. The repealed statutes are numbered 6-101 to 6-104. The legislators merely continue the numbering with the new laws.

1965- 6-105. The state controller is to purchase all bonds for state officers and these positions are excluded from bonds: supreme court justices, district judges and legislators. 6-301 (468) bonds "must be filed" history 1895, 1907,1921 footnotes say this is mandatory - State ex rel. Wallace v Callow 78 M 308, 324, 254, P187.

RCM 1947 6-315 (484 of 1921) defects does not void bond. Footnotes say depositary bond is not an official bond. State v. American Bank & Trust Co., 75 M 369, 371,243, P 1093.6-327 failure to file bond vacates office. History 1941

6-331 application of bonds to state, county, municipal officers. The Legislature removed the word 'state' from this list in 1965.

On page 93 of the 1965 pocket supplement to the 1947 RCM. 6-101 to 6-104 (bonds for state officers) was repealed in 1965. En. Sec 51, Ch.177, Laws of 1965.

The repealed statute (Pol. C. 1051, 1052 1895) was 70 years old in 1965. The concept is even older than the statute, as seen above, and yet it was repealed by the legislature in 1965.

The legislature removed the requirement that the state officer put up his own bond, in favor of the government putting up a 'bond' for the officer. A bond of this type defies the definition of the word 'bond'. The officer is no longer bound by his own skin. He is now 'insured' by some unknown taxpayer.

A similar abolishment occurred for county officers in 1967. All of the 43 bonded positions were given an option in 1967. RCM 1947 6-203, 204: All elected and appointed county officers and employees shall be bonded. The bond may be individual or a blanket bond [one cape covers all]. Sections 1,2,6,7 Ch 68 L. 1967.

Here again- the word 'bond' is stretched. A blanket insurance policy is not a fidelity bond. One occurs before the breach of contract. The other after the breach. One is in place in reality; the other is in the future. One is paid for by the employee, the other is paid for by the employer. One is approved by the district judge before the contract; the other only comes into existence after the district judge orders it so, after the breach of contract.

With this new definition for 'bond', fidelity is no longer insured; the blanket insurance policy only pays for damaged property. The official bonding concept was thusly abolished in 1965 and 1967.

RCM 1947 Demurrer abolished in 1961. A Demurrer is a writing that quiets the indictment or complaint, saying the accusation has no validity in law and therefore can't be rectified. Demurrers have been replaced in 1961 by the pleading 'fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted' and so on.

1907/1915 RCM on demurrer: [PDF page 707 of 1295] Sec 6534.

A demurrer is not the proper method of attacking a complaint alleged to be defective for containing surplusage or conclusions of law. Raiche v. Morrison 37 Mont. 244, 95 Pac. 1061.

RCM 1947 Jurors. RCM 1947- 93-1301, Sec. 230 Civ. Pro 1895: who is a juror. One-citizen of U.S. age 21 to 70 [70 removed in 1965]. Two-ordinary intelligence. Three-knowledge of English. Four-property owner.

This 1947 statute was modified in 1965, 1971 and 1975. The 1995 statute now looks like this: MCA 1995 3-15-301. Who competent (juror) 1. A registered elector. 2. A US citizen.

Punishment by jury abolished in 1967. 1947 Revised Code of Montana at 94-7411 (12027). "In all cases of a verdict of conviction... the jury may assess and declare the punishment for their verdict".

En Sec 198, p247 Bannack Statutes; Code Stat 1871; 1879; 1887; 1895; 1907.

RCM 1947 94-7412 (12028 of 1921) guilty/ but jury can't decide punishment- the court may assess punishment.

History. En Sec 198, p247 Bannack Statutes; Code Stat 1871; 1879; 1887; 1895; 1907; 1921.

RCM 1947 94-7412 was repealed in 1967 but the court's power to assess punishment was expanded.

In the 1965 supplement to R.C.M 1947- juries still had the right to assess punishment. Under 1947(1965 Revision) 94-7411(12027) 'Jury may assess punishment'. State ex rel Wilson v. District Court 143 m 543 393 P 2d 39.

1995 MCA 46-18-103 "all sentences under this chapter shall be imposed exclusively by the judge of the court". History En. 95-2212 Sec 1, 196 1967; R.C.M. 1947 95-2212.

Habeas Corpus suspended in 1967. Habeas corpus (you have the body) general meaning. Bring the prisoner to the judge to examine the legality of the imprisonment.

U. S. constitution. Art. I, Section 9 at #2.' the privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended'.

1972 Montana Constitution Art II 19. 'the privilege of habeas corpus shall never be suspended'.

1889 Montana Constitution Art III sec 20. 'The privilege of habeas corpus shall never be suspended'.

1884 Montana Constitution Art I sec 21. 'The privilege of habeas corpus shall not be suspended'. [All add 'except in rebellion, invasion'].

O'Pinion: The statute writers really give it to us on this one! If habeas corpus can NEVER be suspended, how could it be a privilege? Well, they suspended it anyway!

Montana Session Laws 1967 chapter 196 95-2716. " A person may not be released on a writ of habeas corpus due to any technical defect imminent not affecting his substantial rights".

Repealing clause. "R.C.M. 1947 and all acts and parts in conflict herewith are hereby repealed"[two pages of statute numbers, all beginning '94,' example 94-7412].

Montana Code. Prisoner may apply for a writ of habeas corpus to the court. Once a court has received the application, that court assumes jurisdiction to hear the application.

Stick a Fork in this Report, We're done. BACK TO THE FUTURE!

This Report is dedicated to the county Patriots.

By Humble O'Pinion 2014. **
