It is rare but not new or unique in the history of the world when there comes a time that a people finally realize that they no longer live under the law of the land but have become subjects of a power that is not legal under the law of same, but functions on a design not fully known or predictable to anyone other than secret parties privy to the design. This is one of those rare times in history reached by many years of governmental breach of the laws of the land or social contract between the government and the people.

There comes a time when a man in the mere course of trying to provide for his life, health, liberty and sustenance that he can no longer ignore the obvious breaches of the social contract made by his forefathers or tacitly by himself. The weight of his senses and detection of the continual crimes committed against the land and the people by the so-called government compel him to declare his own independence from the illegal practices of the so-called government and to state the rights of all parties once under the now dissolved contract.


In the matter of Dissolution of both the so-called state and so-called federal government there is a want of a court of jurisdiction to file the complaint of Dissolution. Therefore, this Notice of Dissolution is framed for the purpose of posting anywhere and everywhere including courts without jurisdiction to hear or try matters involving state and federal laws. The only court with jurisdiction of this matter is God’s court and all appeals are made to Heaven and the people of the world.

This Notice of Dissolution may be mailed for filing or posting to any so-called "government" but it is with the declaration made herein that there is a want of an earthly court of jurisdiction. The so-called United Nations has no authority over this matter or any other matter as it has not the deposit of any of my consent, or the consent of the people of any other body (if that were relevant). All the people, or those who once had an obligation under the social contract known as the "Constitution of the united States," are now existing in a state of nature, without duty of any kind, to the federal or state governments a party to the said social contract.


Resolution Concerning War with Iraq:

Joint Resolution of the united States Congress, on or about the 16th day of October, 2002 (Senate and House of Representatives) relinquishing their power to Declare War to the President of the united States of America thereby changing and altering the form of government that was consented to in 1789 by our forefathers and their progeny by a tacit agreement. The legislature being the supreme depository of the will of the people cannot pass their power delegated to them by the people over to any other, including the executive. (RE: PUBLIC LAW 107 - 243 OCT. 16, 2002 AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002 Resolution For Transfer of War Power to President)

Principle Known to the Founders of the united States Constitution:

John Locke 1689:

"First, When the Legislative is altered… The Constitution of the Legislative is the first and fundamental Act of Society, whereby provision is made for the Continuation of their Union, under the Direction of Persons, and Bonds of Laws, made by Persons authorized thereunto, by the Consent and Appointment of the People, without which no one man, or number of Men, amongst them, can have Authority of making Laws, that shall be binding to the rest. When any one or more, shall take upon them to make Laws, whom the People have not appointed so to do, they make Laws without Authority, which the People are not therefore bound to Obey; by which means they come again to be out of the Subjection, and may constitute to themselves a new Legislative, as they think best, being in full liberty to resist the force of those, who without Authority would impose any thing upon them."

It has been said by Senator Biden in the debate on the resolution on Iraq that Congress, having the power to declare war, can choose how it declares it, even to the point of giving it to the President to do at his timing and discretion. Senator Biden is mistaken. In fact it is known by all that the President was not asking for a Declaration of War but for the power to commence it at his own will. Any resolution that grants the executive the power of war at his discretion is a usurpation of the power of Congress and an alteration of the form of government consented to by the founders, releasing all the people from any duty to the dissolved union and returning them to a state of nature.

Principle Known to the Founders of the united States Constitution:

John Locke 1689:

"Fouthly, The Legislative cannot transfer the Power of Making Laws to any other hands. For it being but a delegated Power from the People, they, who have it, cannot pass it over to others. The People alone can appoint the Form of the Commonwealth, which is by Constituting the Legislative, and appointing in whose hands that shall be." (362)

"The power of the Legislative being derived from the People by a positive voluntary Grant and Institution, can be no other, than what that positive Grant conveyed, which being only to make Laws, and not to make Legislators, the Legislative can have no power to transfer their Authority of making Laws, and place it in other hands."(363)

"Fouthly, The Legislative neither must nor can transfer the Power of making Laws to any Body else, or place it any where but where the People have."(363)

It is a known fact that the Declaration of War is an act of making a law which is binding on the people. But when Congress resolves to give their power to make that Declaration of War (or conduct that activity without a Congressional Declaration of War) over to the executive, they dissolve the form of government and dissolve the union. This is the present state of the union – DISSOLVED.

Constitution of the united States of America:

Article I sect. 8 Clause 10-11:

"The Congress shall have Power…To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

Clearly the President of the united States does not have power to raise or send troops without a declaration of war. Congress does not have power to transfer their power to the President. And Congress does not have power to maintain a standing federal army for more than two years in the absence of a declared war. This maintenance of a standing army is one of the many continual violations of the Constitution and Social Contract between the people and the so-called government that renders the union dissolved. A list of many more violations that do the same are appended hereto as Exhibit A.


Declaration of Revocation of Tacit Agreement to Live under the so-called laws of the so-called Federal Government under the now Dissolved Constitution of the united States of America:

When men and women are born into a nation or commonwealth that was formed many years before them they consent to it only tacitly by their actions in owning property, enjoying protections, privileges and complying with laws which imply their agreement to the system of government in place. However, they too have a right to remove themselves from the so-called government when it dissolves itself by modification of the original form outside the provision for such change.

"That all Men being born under Government, some or other, it is impossible any of them should ever be free, and at liberty to unite together, and begin a new one, or ever be able to erect a lawful Government.

If this Argument be good; I ask, how came so many lawful Monarchies into the World? For if any body, upon this supposition, can shew me any one Man in any Age of the World free to begin a lawful Monarchy; I will be bound to shew him Ten other free Men at Liberty, at the same time to unite and begin a new Government under a Regal, or any other Form. It being demonstration, that if any one, born under the Dominion of another may be so free as to have a right to command others in a new and distinct Empire; every one that is born under the Dominion or another may be so free too, and may become a Ruler, or Subject, or a distinct separate Government. And so by this their own Principle, either all Men, however born are free, or else there is but one lawful Prince, one lawful Government in the World. And then they have nothing to do but barely to shew us, which that is. Which when they have done, I doubt not but all Mankind will easily agree to pay Obedience to him." John Locke (344)

Further, these people who tacitly agree cannot waive their rights to remove themselves by tacit agreement or by behavior that implies agreement with a modified form of the original that is made outside the law i.e., without amendment. As soon as the people who have discovered the change, desire to no longer support or obey such illegal laws, they may acknowledge their return to a state of nature, a condition they find themselves in, and not a result of their own acts. These people cannot be called revolutionaries or rebels or enemies of the so-called government exercising power without right and in dissolution. They are victims of their own so-called "representatives" that have violated the Constitution and dissolved it by altering the form of the government.

Principle Known to the Founders of the united States Constitution:

John Locke 1689:

"Every Man being, as has been shewed, naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into subjection to any Earthly Power, but only his own Consent; it is to be considered, what shall be understood to be a sufficient Declaration of a Mans Consent, to make him subject to the Laws of any Government. There is a common distinction of an express and a tacit consent, which will concern our present Case. No body doubts but an express Consent, of any Man, entering into any Society, makes him a perfect Member of that Society, a Subject of that Government. The difficulty is, what ought to be look’d upon as a tacit Consent, and how far it binds, i.e. how far any one shall be looked on to have consented, and hereby submitted to any Government, where he has made no Expressions of it at all. And to this I say, that every Man, that hath any Possession, or Enjoyment, of any part of the Dominions of any Government, doth thereby give his tacit Consent, and is as far forth obliged to Obedience to the Laws of that Government, during such Enjoyment, as any one under it; whether this his Possession be of Land, to him and his Heirs for ever, or a Lodging only for a Week; or whether it be barely traveling freely on the Highway; and in Effect, it reaches as far as the very being of any one within the Territories of that Government." (348)

Upon first inspection it appears that all men living in the so-called united States are subjects of the same because they enjoy protections, privileges and own property. But upon further inspection we find that this case applies only when the government itself has not dissolved itself by illegally altering its form that was consented to originally.

Principle Known to the Founders of the united States Constitution:

John Locke 1689:

For it would be a direct Contradiction, for any one, to enter into Society with others for the securing and regulating of Property: And yet to suppose his Land, whose Property is to be regulated by the Laws of the Society, should be exempt from the Jurisdiction of that Government, to which he himself the Proprietor of the Land, is a Subject. By the same Act therefore, whereby any one unites his Person, which was before free, to any Commonwealth, by the same he unites his Possessions, which were before free, to it also; and they become, both of them, Person and Possession, subject to the Government and Dominion of that Commonwealth, as long as it hath a being." (348) (Emphasis added)

The possession of property does indeed unite the owner to the government in which the property is located. But as one can readily see, this only applies when the government has not dissolved itself or as Locke has said "as long as it hath a being." To further reinforce this reality Locke completes the logic of all men:

Principle Known to the Founders of the united States Constitution:

John Locke 1689:

"But since the Government has a direct Jurisdiction only over the Land, and reaches the Possessor of it, (before he has actually incorporated himself in the society) only as he dwells upon, and enjoys that: The Obligation any one is under, by Virtue of such Enjoyment, to submit to the Government, begins and ends with the Enjoyment; so that whenever the Owner, who has given nothing but such a tacit Consent to the Government, will, by Donation, Sale, or otherwise, quit the said Possession, he is at liberty to go and incorporate himself into any other Commonwealth, or to agree with others to begin a new one, in vacuis locis, in any part of the World, they can find free and unpossessed: Whereas he, that has once, by actual Agreement, and any express Declaration, given his Consent to be of any Commonwealth, is perpetually and indispensably obliged to be and remain unalterably a Subject to it, and can never be again in the liberty of the state of Nature; unless by any Calamity, the Government, he was under, comes to be dissolved; or else by some publick Act cuts him off from being any longer a Member of it." (349) (Emphasis added)

Again, it is clearly seen that an illegal, corrupted government cannot maintain the allegiance of any people even when they own property within what the so-called government lays claim to. It is indeed a "calamity" when the government dissolves itself by altering the form of it without authority or in an illegal manner i.e., without an amendment in this case. And this act of dissolution of the government by the so-called representatives of the people, the greatest of frauds committed upon the family of mankind, cannot be awarded any rights over those that it returns to live in the state of nature. This dissolved government cannot have any right over the property of those people, consisting of their lives, liberties, or possessions including the land they work, possess and occupy.

When a so-called government as that of the united States makes a web of illegal laws so comprehensively entangling the people that they cannot survive without complying in some way with the fraudulent system, they forfeit the power to deny the people access to the system whether it be fraudulent or legal. A case would be the so-called government giving their approval for those that notice them of the dissolution to be free but deny them the use of the fraudulent paper money. What then can the people, now free, do in the land without the ability to use the common form of currency, even though it is fraudulent? By what logic and flow of authority do criminals, violating the laws of the land, have a right to deny access and use of any of their fraudulent systems to those who declare them fraudulent? And by what right and authority do the criminal representatives violating the constitution have if they attempt to convict those people who have declared these fraudulent systems so? It is clear they have none.

The people are free to appear to conform or partially conform or to be in complete violation of the fraudulent system without legal recourse by the dissolved government. Then one may ask, "What then are the rights of a dissolved government?" The answer is clear, ABSOLUTLY NONE! And this is plain to see that no right may be obtained over a people by criminal violators of the Constitutions of the land in order to starve, deport, deny, incarcerate, harass, kill, deprive, injure, expose, confiscate, or harm the property of any person now free in a state of nature.

In fact the person now free has a right to hide and protect himself and his family, there being no burden placed upon him by the criminal acts of tyrants and usurpers to perform any thing or to prove his standing or anything else. For it is the free man that has a right to defend property and family from his dissolved government. He is also free to resist acts against his property by the dissolved government even though he choose to allow it or to ignore it or do nothing if it is not harmed. In short the people in the state of nature as a result of the dissolution of the so-called government, have all rights and the so-called governments have none.


Dissolution of the 50 so-called states of the union:

Let it not be said that a man can become an enemy of his brothers because he looks in vain for a legitimate government in his home land. There is a hunger in the land again for a legitimate government which the people have a right to live under. If the people cannot find one that they can live under by tacit agreement or direct consent then the people have a right to come out from under an illegal one and exist in a state of nature or create a legitimate government by consent that will better protect the life, health, liberty and possessions of the people.

There can be a case for the dissolution of a union of states in which the state itself would remain and lawfully exact obedience from its citizens if itself is unaltered as a result of the dissolution of the union. A case close to this would be the southern states prior to the so-called "Civil War." These states were complaining about the usurpation of their rights and wanted to retain them unaltered by the laws of the Constitution. But what we find in the present case is that the states were guaranteed such rights under the united States Constitution that without retaining them they would not have ratified the same. These very terms, many of which are included under the first ten amendments or "Bill of Rights," are now no longer kept by the states themselves, being usurped again by the so-called federal government. The member States of this so-called union do not complain nor do they attempt to get out of this illegally altered union, resulting in a complicity of fraudulent government by both federal and state governments.

Therefore, since all state governments are in full agreement with the fraudulent misconstruction of the present so-called federal government, the states too have dissolved themselves and forfeited any allegiance from the people of the said so-called state governments as well as the so-called federal government. We need only to review the united States federal Constitution to see that all the so-called states of the so-called union have allowed their own state powers to be usurped by the federal government thereby dissolving their own states. These usurpations have caused a change in the form of the legislative of both the federal government and the state governments.

The Constitution of the united States of America – the "Bill of Rights:"

2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

What state maintains a militia at this time? None! There are citizens that claim to be a part of a militia but none does actually exist under the direct call of the governor of the state. Any militia today is only citizens arming themselves for protection from the tyranny they see in dissolved governments. The so-called "National Guard" by definition cannot be a state militia even if the governor can call it up because the President of the united States can call it up by himself. This is a federal army in every state of the so-called union.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is almost totally infringed. One could not begin to list and name all the gun laws created in all the states and the federal government to infringe upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. What kind of arms do you say? I say all kinds of arms as well as our founding fathers did. Then let us hear from Federalist Paper 29 by Alexander Hamilton regarding real homeland security:

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate size, upon such principles as will really fit it for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist." (Emphasis added)

We see here that it was the intention of the framers of the federal Constitution to have at all times a powerful standing citizen militia that had the same armament and the same skills with its use as the temporary federal army when it was raised by Congress for a Declared War. The present and long existing lack of a militia has rendered all states helpless to the long illegally standing federal army. This alone is a sufficient act of dissolution of the state governments as well as their means of continuance against encroachments by the federal government. Essentially we have two layers of a federal government, one in the state and one in Washington. Both are dissolved and illegal freeing all men to live in a state of nature with all their property including their land.

Now, since I live in the so-called state of Texas, I have further evidence of dissolution to present before mankind. The following is offered as further evidence of the dissolution of the government of the so-called state of Texas:

Texas Constitution March 1996:


"He shall be Commander-in-Chief of the military forces of the State, except when they are called into actual service of the United States. He shall have power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, repel invasions, and protect the frontier from hostile incursions by Indians or other predatory bands."

This provision for a militia and the calling forth of the same has been turned over to the so-called federal government in the name called the "National Guard." This is an alteration of the government of the state of Texas and passing this right over to another, namely the so-called federal government. This act deprives the so-called state of Texas from its ability to protect itself from abuses of power by the so-called federal government.

Texas Constitution March 1996:


"Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States."

Texas Constitution March 1996:


"All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship."

Texas Constitution March 1996:


"The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions, from all unreasonable seizures or searches, and no warrant to search any place, or to seize any person or thing, shall issue without describing them as near as may be, nor without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation."

Texas Constitution March 1996:


"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Texas Constitution March 1996:


"The military shall at all times be subordinate to the civil authority."

How then did the "Federal Bureau of Investigation" (FBI) and the federal "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms" (BATF) enter into the town of Waco, Texas and attack a religious community by surrounding it for 53 days with paramilitary personnel and military equipment if the so-called state of Texas was maintaining its sovereignty? Where is the Texas right to "reasonable search and seizure" when the federal men in black show up as a surprise and surround your house or religious commune? The result of this attack on the religious commune was the burning of it to the ground. It is irrelevant as to who started the fire. Because there was no indication at all that such was the intent of the people of this commune before the arrival of the FBI and the ATF.


Texas Constitution March 1996:


"All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient."

Why is the federal "Immigration and Naturalization Service" (INS) patrolling the borders of Texas? There is no federal Constitutional provision for such a power or authority given to the INS. The INS function is to maintain uniformity among the states in the manner of becoming a citizen. There is no provision for federal INS officers patrolling the state borders. This is solely a state right and the so-called state of Texas has illegally passed this right over the so-called federal government, thereby modifying both forms of government from the original without amendment.

The Constitution of the united States "We the People:"

Article I Sec. 8, Clause 3:

"To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States."

The list of rights delegated to the State of Texas by the people thereof and passed to the so-called federal government in violation of the sovereignty of the State of Texas is extensive yet unnecessary here to prove the dissolution of the so-called state of Texas. This can also be termed an "Abandonment or Delivery of the People to a Foreign Power."

"Fourthly, the Delivery also of the People into the Subjection of a foreign Power, either by Prince, or by the Legislative, is certainly a change of the Legislative, and so a Dissolution of the Government. For the end why People entered into Society being to be preserved one intire, free, independent Society, to be governed by its own Laws; this is lost, whenever they are given up into the Power of another."

This is in agreement with the Texas Constitution Article 1 Sec. 1 where it is declared that Texas is to be a free and independent state only subject to the constitution of the united States. But this is lost when these state powers are passed to the federal government. The Federal government is foreign if they have no right to such powers as they exercise that belong to the state of Texas.

The so-called state of Texas has allowed the so-called federal government to invade its sovereignty and usurp its powers and attack its citizens without aid from the protections of the state constitution. It is therefore altered in its form from that which the people have consented to both directly and tacitly and is thereby dissolved.

Finally, nothing is more indicting, evident and convicting than the fact that the state government and its representatives to Washington are conceding to the transfer of delegated authority from the federal Congress to the federal executive. This act results in usurpation and dissolution of the federal government and the state of Texas is in agreement with it. This is an act of complicity with the illegal alteration of the form of the federal government. To aid in this deception and promotion of it is the creation and maintenance of a fraudulent form of government that cannot be obeyed by the people of the so-called state of Texas or the so-called united States.


Rights of Parties to the Violated and Altered Social Contracts:

No rights can be obtained over a people who have had their own government dissolved by the corruption of so-called representatives. The altered and corrupt so-called State and Federal government forfeit the obedience and support and funding of all the people who were once under their authority. Yet the people, that now find themselves without a legitimate government based upon their consent, retain all rights to their life, health, liberty and possessions of every kind. Further, they are excused from making a declaration of notice such as this one. They also never come to a position of waiver of their rights because of the fraud and deception committed by their so-called representatives in dissolving their government. And finally they also can never be held accountable for any behavior that complies with or violates the laws of the now dissolved state and federal governments.

The people are now under no law but that of God. They can only be tried in courts consisting of parties that they agree to in the form they agree to. They can only be made up of people in a state of nature who represent no authority in connection with the dissolved state and federal government.

The people are totally excused from the taxation that is required to maintain the fraudulent unlawful dissolved governments. Yet they have the full protection of same and the full benefits of same that they enjoyed at any time under the dissolved governments.

When a system of government such as the state and federal government of the so-called united States has such control over the activities of the people that inhabit the land in question, the effect of living outside it would be nothing short of starvation and destitution. This condition cannot be a reward granted to a government that violates the social contract of the people. The so-called government now has to maintain the people with the same benefits as they enjoyed at any time under the fraudulent system but without any liability that would normally be expected had the government complied with the laws of the social contract. In one very important way many of these so-called benefits were used to entice the people into supporting fraud and abuse and the penalty for such use is the forfeiture of any taxation to continue the fraud.

It is clear that a corrupt illegal government cannot obtain a right over the people to pay for it and at the same time it cannot remove the people from any means of supporting themselves just because they have discovered the fraud and no longer consent to it. A government that has created the chains that hold all in place with a support system cannot suddenly deprive the people who now have no means if they cannot function without the comprehensive fraud they have been made dependent upon. Yet the people do have a right to starve the system to nothing, the system does not acquire a right to starve the people to nothing because they cheat them out of their form of government.


History, Morality and Time Irrelevant to present condition:

Some people endeavor to show at what point and for what purpose and the time in which the so-called laws changed to create our present system in hopes that this will protect them or help them adapt to the desire of those that produced the alteration. Some people have tried to show that this present condition in the so-called united States has passed from a Constitutional form of government to a Commercial Corporation, as if this was somehow legal. It is a known fact that our so-called representatives constantly refer to their acts as legal under the united States Constitution, indicating that they intend to make us believe that the law of the land is still the united States Constitution.

The fact is that it is irrelevant as to what form our so-called representatives have made from the original because whatever it is, it is illegal and done without the necessary procedures of amendment to the united States Constitution. It matters not whether our present system be military or martial, Corporate or Commercial, or so-called Constitutional or a mixture of all, for whatever one may think it is, it is all dissolved by the illegal modification from the original that all consented to either by direct or by tacit agreement.

The only waiver possible is that the so-called government has waived its right to maintain that there is a legal form of government that the people consented to in their lack of resistance or defiance. Their attempt to show the people’s tacit agreement to an illegally modified form by their lack of resistance is without merit. Lack of resistance is rather evidence of deception, conspiracy and secret design. No man can give tacit agreement to modifications made under those methods. It remains that all in the so-called governments maintain until this day the law of the land is contained fully in the united States Constitution. Now that we know they have illegally modified it, it is dissolved.

Further, it is irrelevant to the rights of any person in the present state of nature out from under the so-called union and states as to what time it occurred and what time the person perceived its illegal modification. For the dissolved state and federal government can derive no right from showing a time that the individual was either aware or unaware of his condition and how that might affect his rights.

And certainly it is irrelevant to dissolution to discuss the moral need for such violations and corruptions that history and foreign pressures placed upon the land at any time. For it is clear that all forces could have been resolved legally and openly in the forum of the Congress and the proper amendments made. Since this was not done, all the changes and modifications not included in the amendments to the united States Constitution act to dissolve both the federal and state governments.

Therefore, the issues are joined, that the rights of a man in the state of nature are fully known and cannot be injured without violating the laws of God established in the present Kingdom of Heaven on Earth by Christ’s Holy disciples of whom John Locke and Thomas Hobbes and St. Augustine and our founding fathers are members. Therefore, it is not I that am the enemy of mankind but those who exercise force in dissolved governments. And the enemy of those that do so is God himself and his Holy angels. And it is the corrupt and wicked disloyal so-called representatives of the people that have made these superior powers their own enemies. Therefore, let it not be said that this contest centers on anything other than the rights of men in the state of nature and principles of the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth given to men by the grace and salvation of God in Christ Jesus versus men without authority using force and fear under the presumption of authority in the dissolved so-called federal and state governments once known as the "United States of America."

Exhibit A