(Updated Jan. 30, 2003)

Simple facts regarding the "we are subjects of the British Crown" issue

    Several years ago, some folks developed an argument that "we are still subjects of the British crown" and started promoting it. You are free to believe that argument which will waste your time. Here is a simple refutation of that argument:

1. The Articles of Confederation provided as follows:

2. On February 6,  1778, the United States entered into a Treaty of Alliance with France (8 Stat. 6).  On July 16, 1782,  we borrowed substantial sums from King Louis XVI of France, via an agreement signed by French Foreign Minister Charles Gravier de Vergennes. It must be noted that there are people who erroneously assert that this loan was really secured from the Brits instead of the French (you can be the judge of their honesty).

3. Our country and the British Crown signed the Treaty of Peace on September 3, 1783 (8 Stat. 218), the first provision of which reads as follows:
See also Nov. 30, 1782 Provisional Treaty and Jan. 20, 1783 Treaty of Cessation of Hostilities.

    Does this 1783 Peace Treaty still exist? All one needs to do to confirm this is to check out a government  publication entitled "Treaties in Force" which can be found in any good library, especially a university library. Under the list of our treaties with Great Britain and the United Kingdom, you will find that this 1783 treaty is still in effect, at least a part of it: "Only article 1 is in force." Art.1 was the section of this treaty acknowledging our independence. The War of 1812 resulted in modifications of this treaty and so did later treaties.

4. The courts have not been silent regarding the effect of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Peace. For example, the consequences of independence were explained in Harcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526-27 (1827), where the Supreme Court stated:

In M'Ilvaine v. Coxe's Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), the Supreme Court  held: In reference to the Treaty of Peace, this same court stated:     Finally, in Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Peters) 99, 120-122 (1830), the question squarely arose as to whether Americans are "subjects of the crown," a proposition flatly rejected by the Court: In support of the rule set forth in this case, the court cited an English case to demonstrate that the English courts had already decided that Americans were not subjects of the crown: (Note: the linked copies of these cases highlight the important parts of these opinions for your convenience).

    Notwithstanding the fact that English and American courts long ago rejected this argument, I still encounter e-mail from parties who contend that this argument is correct. For example, just recently I ran across this note which stated:

"In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private property of the King... This means that any profit or gain anyone experienced by a bank/thrift and loan/employee credit union ?? any regulated financial institution carries with it ?? as an operation of law ?? the identical same full force and effect as if the King himself created the gain. So as an operation of law, anyone who has a depository relationship, or a credit relationship, with a bank, such as checking, savings, CD's, charge cards, car loans, real estate mortgages, etc., are experiencing profit and gain created by the King ?? so says the Supreme Court. At the present time, Mr. Condo, you have bank accounts (because you accept checks as payment for books and subscriptions), and you are very much in an EQUITY RELATIONSHIP with the King."
This note also alleged that George Mercier, who wrote an article apparently popular among those who believe the "contract theory" of government, was a retired judge, which is false. Just because you read it on the Net does not make it true.

    One of the advocates of this flaky idea is David Gould ("Goul") who has a web site named "The Amazing Vision of David Gould," where he promotes this trash. In the summer of 1999, Goul joined a couple of e-mail lists which I receive and started blasting this theory in a series of e-mail notes. According to Goul, one of the reasons "we are Brits" is because the King of England via a treaty in 1782 loaned the United States funds to engage in the war against him (8 Stat. 614); Goul maintains that the fact that the King was loaning money to us to fight him really shows that even today we are still subjects of the Crown. In reply, I pointed out that the treaty he mentions was really a French loan agreement where the United States borrowed money for the Revolution from the King of France, not the King Great Britain. I sent out a series of e-mail notes which refuted everything that Goul declared and it did not take long before Goul stopped his nonsense.

    However, my belief that I had corrected Goul and educated him about an incorrect legal argument proved erroneous. I have examined his web site recently and he has only become more virulent in his argument that we are Brits. Clearly, Goul is not only crazy and a fit candidate for the "nut-house", but he is also deliberately lying to people; he is a "liaryer." What makes him particularly dangerous is the fact that he blends religion with his arguments. I absolutely dislike people who combine Christianity with false legal arguments; I dislike people who hold my religious faith up to disrepute by associating it with nutty ideas.

Aug. 17, 2002:

    The "we are Brits" advocates offer the social security treaty between the United States and England as "proof" of their contention. But simply examining that treaty disproves this point.

    Citizens of different countries work around the world and are subjected to a wide variety of social security taxes. These treaties, "totalization agreements," address this problem of double or multiple taxation and benefits, and this is explained at the Social Insecurity web site. For example, here the following statement is made:

The United States has bilateral Social Security agreements with 19 countries.  The agreements eliminate dual Social Security coverage and taxes for multinational companies and expatriate workers.  They also improve benefit protection for workers who have divided their careers between the United States and another country.
And here, the SSA states:
International Social Security agreements, often called "Totalization agreements," have two main purposes. First, they eliminate dual Social Security taxation, the situation that occurs when a worker from one country works in another country and is required to pay Social Security taxes to both countries on the same earnings. Second, the agreements help fill gaps in benefit protection for workers who have divided their careers between the United States and another country.
That treaty contention is utterly baseless.

    I have one final note regarding this issue. Recently, the US Supremes in JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Traffic Stream (BVI) Infrastructure Ltd, 536 U.S. 88 (June 2002)("United States law is not governed by United Kingdom law") rendered its decision in this case and any reading of it should permanently gut this "we are Brits" insanity.

August 20, 2002:

    The primary promoter of the "we are Brits" wrote the following to me:

Larry not only is your quote out of context, it does not say what you try to imply, quite to the contrary, it does not even deal with the subject matter of the case. How can a lawyer in America, with enough intelligence to pass the bar, have the audacity to say or suggest as you do with your out of context quote from this case, that our laws in America did not come from England??  Larry, don't you realize you damage your your supposed creditability, by twisting facts through unbelievable contortions, trying to support your frivolous position.

Thanks Larry for your good work in finding this case, this case further proves what the Informer and I have declared for years. The Crown retains it's right to govern it's Corporations, even today.  I wish I had time to point out more in this case, but I came in for just a few minutes and have to get back to work.

Thanks again Larry.


When the argument they invent falls apart, advocates like these descend to name calling.

Jan. 30, 2003:

From: Big Al <bigal123@ncol.net>
To: Roland Croteau <tower@ptsi.net>
Cc: James Montgomery <monjamf@NorthState.Net>
Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:29 AM

Sorry but 1871 was NOT when the corporation was formed.  It was formed 1787.  I have documents to that effect and I also have the corporation papers going back to 1824 and 1836 when the US took over the corporations of Washington, Alexandria and Georgetown, District of Columbia.  You see the corporation was created way before 1787 when the 1873 treaty was done wherein in the Crown dictated the terms of the treaty.  We never did win the war. The only thing is the Crown set up the US as a corporation controlled by the Crown..  Nothing really did change but the names of the actors.  Hard pill to swallow but true. Truly as Lysander Spooner said, it was a constitution of no authority and the people themselves where not obligated or bound by it.  That's why Patrick Henry stated "I smell a Rat."

 Big Al

Relevant Statutes regarding War of 1812:

1 Stat. 415, ch. 20, Sec. 3: After the Revolutionary War, it was made difficult for a British subject to become a naturalized citizen of the United States.

2 Stat. 755, ch. 102: Here is the declaration of war for the War of 1812.

2 Stat. 777, ch. 128: Provisions were made for prisoners of war.

2 Stat. 778, ch. 129: There was even an act regarding trading with the enemy.

2 Stat. 816, ch. 47: Privateering was encouraged.

2 Stat. 818, ch. 51: Prizes were awarded.

2 Stat. 830 and 2 Stat. 831: Resolutions were adopted praising several ship captains.

8 Stat. 218: There was a peace treaty which ended that war.

  Return to: Destroyed Arguments