Cryptsy offers $400,000 dollar reward to recover 6.7 million in lost funds https

Bitcoin Exchange Cryptsy, a company owned by Project Investors Inc. out of Delrey Beach, FL offers a 1,000 bitcoin (BTC) bounty for any information leading to the recovery in over 6.7 Million dollars in stolen funds. The theft occurred on July 7th, 2014 and Cryptsy, after years of silence has released the news of the theft on their blog post dated January 14th, 2016. Cryptsy has ceased operations, although the site is still running. This is very reminiscent of the Mt. Gox scandal of 2014 in which the Japanese based company lost 850,000 BTC claiming they were “lost” or likely stolen, in fact these events occurred in the same year, but both were handled very differently.

Since the theft in 2014, Cryptsy has attempted to turn all of it’s profits to restoring the massive loss of funds, which worked for sometime. However when a BTC blog called CoinFire made an article in October of 2015 claiming that Cryptsy was under federal investigation, users panicked and attempted to withdraw funds and the exchange was left insolvent. Cryptsy attempted for over three months to remain stable by disabling withdraws of BTC and several other currencies such as Litecoin (LTC) and Darkcoin, which of course caused greater panic. For over three months the currencies that could be withdrawn inflated to over 130% of their value, as users panicked and took heavy losses just to avoid losing all of their money.

For three months Cryptsy remained silent, saying little more than the wallets would be back online soon. However on January 12th, hackers presumably unrelated to the theft, got control of Cryptsy’s email and emailed all of Cryptsy’s users in a large phishing attempt, to gain users login information. In the email was a link, directing users to a site they had set up to phish users information, as they attempted to login to the new “refund” site.

BigVern as he is called in the BTC world, is the main representative of the company and was forced to come out of hiding to inform users of the phishing attempt that was sent from their own support email, before larger issues occurred. The site immediately disabled all withdraws, and announced to users to change their passwords if they had opened the emails, in this announcement BigVern also stated he would be coming forth in the following days to explain what had occurred over the last few months. On the 14th of January Cryptsy announced for the first time the massive theft theft that occurred two years earlier. They set up a bounty for anyone that can give them information leading to the recovery of these funds. The announcement was shocking, an astounding 13,000 BTC and 300,000 LTC, which amounts to an impressive 6.7 million dollars in value. In the announcement a reward of 1,000 BTC was offered to anyone that could provide information leading to the funds recovery, and Cryptsy even offered to the culprits that if the funds were returned to them they would pursue the issue no longer.

After attempting to acquire the help of the Miami FBI whom referred them to their website, ignored Cryptsy’s plea for help. So Cryptsy has turned to the BTC community or anyone that can help locate the funds a handsome 1,000 BTC reward has an approximate value of $430,000. Due to the nature of BTC Cryptsy can see the “wallet” that the funds are located in and can see that they have not been moved since the incident. Although they know the wallet id and can watch these funds even if they are moved, BTC wallet owners are largely anonymous and it can be hard to track them down. However still there stands a much better chance of earning this reward than to the one in 292 million chances of winning the Powerball. Cryptsy has posted all information they have regarding the possible cause of the attack, stating that a wallet developer of an eCurrency coin called Lucky7Coin, and states that the found a “backdoor” in their code which acted like a trojan virus just waiting to strike.

Following the announcement Cryptsy, closed the sites Chat box where users can communicate with others and staff. Cryptsy has announced that if the funds can not be recovered with the bounty, users will have to recover funds through bankruptcy. This is one of many scandals in the developing “wild-west” like world of BTC and decentralized currency. This is perhaps one of the closest hitting to home however, as Cryptsy is a Florida based company, that does the best it can to follow all laws of both the US and each state as well. There is a lot of room for crime with BTC, but there is also a strong community looking to do the right thing. There is a good chance that these funds will be recovered, but til then there will be many people across the globe unable to access their money and waiting for a hero, to step up and help the community recover the money and to show that this developing economy can survive.

January 15th 2016

by Douglas Dedrick

The cleansing & health benefits of lemon

I need to start using lemons daily again!

ByzantineFlowers

Did you know the Ancient Egyptians believed that eating lemons and drinking lemon juice was an effective protection against a variety of poisons, and that recent research has confirmed this belief? There are many health benefits of lemons that have been known for centuries. The two biggest are lemons’ strong antibacterial, antiviral, and immune-boosting powers and their use as a weight loss aid because lemon juice is a digestive aid and liver cleanser. Lemons contain many substances–notably citric acid, calcium, magnesium, vitamin C, bioflavonoids, pectin, and limonene–that promote immunity and fight infection. These are well-known health facts about lemons. But there’s so much more to this little yellow fruit. Here are 25 that I’ll bet you didn’t know. Whether you use them in the form of juice, teas, drinks, dressing, poultices or in the bath, take advantage of lemons’ natural healing power.

1. Lemon being a citrus fruit, fights against infection. It helps in…

View original post 1,401 more words

Religion — Personal Interpretation

What does Religion mean in the context of Freedom of Religion?

Definition and Interpretation of Religion

Various interpretations of religion exist, “the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.” or “a particular system of faith and worship.”, but to me these definitions only partially cover the meaning of religion. Religion in it’s truest sense is the devotion to moral rights and the study and obedience to the highest laws, being the laws of nature and of nature’s God. This was written to define religion especially as it applies to the rights of the People, although inspired by the Vaccination Pandemic of January 2015, this interpretation serves to define religion in a broader sense.

Under what principles is religion to be defined?

Religion is a very individualistic idea that varies from one person to the next, but without a moral code backing such beliefs they could hardly be considered religious. Religious beliefs must therefore be backed by morals and doing what is right. Without a moral principle what purpose could religion serve? None that I can bare witness to. The second principle under which religion must be defined is an obedience to a higher authority, whether this be god, the creator, nature itself or just natural laws, in order for a belief to be religious it must be obedient to the highest laws. Third, religious beliefs must also be constant, one can’t believe in a religion at his or her convenience, one must live by their conviction daily. Of course individual beliefs change and evolve over time and as such ones interpretation of religion is certainly subject to change. The three most important principles; are a moral principle, obedience to the highest law, and consistency. Without all three aspects it can be difficult to have a religion and in this process many of our natural born rights are sacrificed.

Freedom of Religion

I have been inspired to research and define my religion in the recent discovery that there have been several court cases that have stated that vaccination is not subject to vaccination and is purely to the decided at the whim of the state. But the State is a creature of the People and the people are the creator of the state. Thus the state knows not the laws of the most high and can not determine what is or is not a religious principle. Vaccinations are certainly subject to the religious beliefs of the individual people and not to be left to the interpretation of a state, government or even another person. What my religion means to me may not be what it means to you, and that is ok, we can both have our own moral standards. It is not ok however when ones religion, lack of religion or interpretation of religion subjects another to loss their rights secured by law. Some claim that not being vaccinated endangers the population as a whole, but this is not a legitimate concern. Although statutes exist, no law can ultimately govern the religious beliefs of one who does not get vaccinated, any more so than the state can say that three or more people may not gather on a sidewalk in a way that is annoying to others, as was decided by the supreme court in Coates v. City of Cincinnati. I know why it is not in my religion to get vaccinated and I need not explain why to anyone, my religion is my own private experience, and is to be shared at my discretion alone. To insinuate that a belief of religion can not exempt one from vaccination is to take away from the rights of another person, and this is one of the most high offenses one can commit.

All in all, a religion is a private experience, that may be shared, and is protected by an obedience to the highest laws and authority, back with a strong moral code that does not interfere with the rights of another, and is a constant part of ones everyday practices, although it may change over time. The government national or state can not serve to define or interpret religion any more than one person can interpret anthers religion.  An attempt to define or limit or impose your religion or lack of on another human is breaking the law of the most highs, and is subject to severe punishment, at the discretion of the violated.  You may chose to share your religious views or personal views with others, but you may not force someone to adopt the views you hold for any reason, although you may punish them if they have violated your rights in a court of law.

A Summary View of the Rights of British America

Set Forth in Some Resolutions Intended for the 

Inspection of the Present Delegates of the 

People of Virginia 

Now in Convention. 

By a NATIVE and MEMBER of the HOUSE of BURGESSES

by Thomas Jefferson

Transcript from the original work

Resolved, that it be an instruction to the said deputies, when assembled in general congress with the deputies from the other states of British America, to propose to said congress that an humble and dutiful address be presented to his majesty, begging leave to lay before him, as chief magistrate of the British empire, the united complaints of his majesty’s subjects in America; complaints which are excited by many unwarrantable encroachments and usurpations, attempted to be made by the legislature of one part of the empire, upon those rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all. To represent to his majesty that these his states have often individually made humble application to his imperial throne to obtain. Through its intervention, some redress of their injured rights, to none of which was ever even an answer condescended; humbly to hop that this their joint address, penned in the language of truth, and divested of those expressions of servility which would persuade his majesty that we are asking favours, and not rights, shall obtain from his majesty a more respectful acceptance. And this his majesty will think we have reason to expect when he reflects that he is no more than the chief officer of the people, appointed by the laws, and circumscribed with definitive power, to assist in working the great machine of the government, erected for their use, and consequently subject to their superintendence. And in order that these our rights, as well as the invasions of them, may be laid more fully before his majesty, to take a view of them from the origin and first of these countries.

To Remind them that our ancestors, before their emigration to America, were free inhabitants of the British dominions in Europe, and possessed a right which nature has given all men, of departing from the country which chance, not choice, has placed them, of going on a quest of new habitations, and of establishing new societies, under such laws and regulations as to them shall seem most likely to promote public happiness. That their Saxon ancestors had, under this universal law, in a manner left their native wilds and woods in the north of Europe, and possessed themselves of the island of Britain, then less charged with inhabitants , and had established there system of laws which has long since been the glory and protection of that country. Nor was ever any claim of superiority or dependence asserted over them by that mother country from which they had migrated; and were such a claim made, it is believed that his majesty’s subjects in Great Britain have too firm a feeling of the rights derived to them from their ancestors, to bow down to the sovereignty of their state before such visionary pretensions. And it is thought that no circumstance has occurred to distinguish materially the British from the Saxon emigration. America was concurred, and their settlements made, and firmly established, at the expense of individually, and not of the British public. Their own blood was spilt in acquiring lands for their settlement, their own fortunes expended in making that settlement effectual; for themselves they fought, for themselves they conquered, and for themselves alone they have a right to hold. No shilling was ever issued from the public treasuries of his majesties, or his ancestors, for the assistance, till of very late times, after the colonies has become established on a firm and permanent footing. That then, indeed, having become valuable to Great Britain for her commercial purpose, his parliament was pleased to lend to them assistance against an enemy, who would said have drawn to herself the benefits of their commerce, to the aggrandizement of herself, and danger of Great Britain. Such assistance of herself, and danger of Great Britain. Such assistance, and in such circumstances, they had often before given to other allied states, with whom they never supposed, that by calling in her aid, they thereby submitted themselves to her sovereignty. Had such terms been proposed, they would have rejected them with disdain and trusted for better to the moderation of their enemies, or to a vigorous exertion of their own force. We do not however mean to under-rate those aids, which to us were doubtless valuable, on whatever principles granted; but we would shew that they cannot give a title to that authority which the british parliament would arrogate us, and that they may amply be repaid by our giving to the inhabitants of Great Britain such exclusive privileges in trade as may be advantageous to them, and at the same time not to restrictive to ourselves. That settlements having been thus effected in the wilds of America, the emigrants thought proper to adopt that system of laws under which they had hitherto lived in the mother country, and to continue their union with her by submitting themselves to the same common sovereign, who was thereby made the central link connecting the several parts of the empire thus newly multiplied.

But that not long were they permitted, however far they thought themselves removed from the hand of oppression, to hold undisturbed the rights thus acquired, at the hazard of their lives, and loss of their fortunes. A family of princes was then on the British throne, whose treasonable crimes against their people brought them afterwards the exertion of those sacred and sovereign rights of punishment reserved in the hands of the people for cases of extreme necessity, and judged by the constitution unsafe to be delegated to any other judicature. While every day brought for the new and unjustifiable exertion of power over their subjects on that side the water, it was not to be expected that those here, much less able at that time to oppose the designs of despotism, should be exempted from injury.

Accordingly that country, which had been acquired by the lives, the labours, and the fortunes, of individual adventurers, was by these princes, at several times, parted out and distributed amoung the favourites * and followers of their fortunes, and, by an assumed right of the crown alone, was erected into distinct and independent governments; a measure which it is believed his majesty’s prudence and understanding would prevent him from imitating at this day, as no exercise of such a power, of dividing and dismembering a country, has ever occurred in his majesties realm of England, though now of very antient standing; nor could it be justified or acquiesced under there, or in any other part of his majesty’s empire.

That exercise of free trade with all parts of the world, possessed by the American colonists, as of natural Right, and which no law of their own had encroachment. Some of the colonies having thought proper to continue the administration of their government in the name and under the authority of his ]majesty king Charles the fifth, whom, notwithstanding his late deposition by the commonwealth of England, they continued in the sovereignty of their state; the parliament for the commonwealth took the same in high offense, and assumed upon themselves the power of prohibiting their trade with other parts of the world, except the island of Great Britain. This arbitrary act, however, they soon recalled, and by solemn treaty, entered into oh the 12th day of March, 1651, between the said commonwealth by their commissioners, and the colony of Virginia by their house of burgesses, it was expressly stipulated, by the 8th article of the said treaty, that they should have “free trade as the people of England do enjoy to all the places and with all nations, according to the laws of that commonwealth.” But that, upon the restoration of his majesty king Charles the second, their rights of free commerce fell once more a victim to arbitrary power; and by several acts ** of his reign, as well as some of his successors, the trade of the colonies was laid under such restrictions, as shew what hopes they might form from the justice of British parliament, were its uncontrouled power admitted over these states. History has informed us that the bodies of men, as well as individuals, are susceptible of the spirit of tyranny. A view of these acts of parliament for regulation, as it has been affectedly called, of the American trade, if all other evidence were removed out of the cafe, would undeniably evince the truth of this observation. Besides the duties they impose on our articles of export and import, they prohibit our going to any markets northward of Cape Finesterre. In the kingdom of Spain, for the sale of commodities which Great Britain will not take from us, and for the purchase of others, with which she cannot supply us, and that for no other than the arbitrary purpose of purchasing for themselves, by a sacrifice of our rights and interests, certain privileges in their commerce with an allied state, who in confidence that their exclusive trade with America will be continued, while the principles and power of the British parliament be the same, have indulged themselves in every exorbitance which their avarice could dictate, or our necessitates extort; have t the double and treble of what they sold for before such exclusive privileges were given to them, and of what better commodities of the same kind would cost us elsewhere, and at the same time give us much less for what for what we carry thither than might be had at more convenient ports. That these acts prohibit us from carrying in quest of other purchases the surplus of our tobaccos remaining after the consumption of Great Britain is supplied; so that we must leave them with the British merchant for whatever he will please to allow us, to be by him reshipped to foreign markets, where he will reap the benefits of making sale of them for full value. That to heighten still the idea of parliamentary justice, and to shew with what moderation they are like to exercise power, where themselves are to feel no part of its weight, we take leave to mention to his majesty certain other acts of British Parliament, by which they would prohibit us from manufacturing for our own use the articles we raise on our own lands with our own labour. By an act *** passed in the 5th year of the reign of his late majesty king George the second, an american subject is forbidden to make a hat for himself of the fur which he has taken perhaps on his own soil; an instance of despotism to which no parallel can be produced in the most arbitrary ages of British history. By one other act, * passed in the 23rd year of the same reign, the iron which we make we are forbidden to manufacture, and heavy as that article is, and necessary in every branch of husbandry, besides commission and influence, we are to pay freight for it to Great Britain, and freight for it back again, for the purpose of supporting not men, but machines, in the island of Great Britain. In the same spirit of equal and impartial legislation is to be viewed the act of parliament, ** passed in the 5th year of the same reign, by which American lands are made subject to the demands of British creditors, while their own lands were still continued unanswerable for their debts; from which one of these conclusions must necessarily follow, either that justice is not the same in America as in Britain, o else that the British Parliament Pay less regard to it here than there. But that we do not point to his majesty the injustice of these acts, with intent to rest on that principle the cause of their nullity; but to shew that experience confirms the propriety of those political principles which exempt us from the jurisdiction of the British parliament. The true ground on which we declare these acts void is, that the British parliament has no right to exercise authority over us.

—————————————————————————-

Footnote 1-

*See original document here.

**12. c. 2. c. 18. 15. c. 2. c. 11. 25. c. 2. c. 7. 7. 8. W. M. C. 22. 11. W. 3. 4. Anne. 6. G. 2. c. 13.

***5, G, 2,

*G. 2. c. 29.

**G. 2. 270.

—————————————————————————-

That these exercises of usurped power have not been confined to instances alone, but they have also intermeddled with the regulation of the internal affairs of the colonies. The act of the 9th of Anne for establishing a postoffice in America seems to have had little connection with the British convenience, except that of accommodating his majesty’s ministers and favourites with the sale of a lucrative and easy office.

That thus have we hastened through the reigns which preceded his majesty’s, during which the violations of our right were less alarming, because repeated at more distant intervals than that rapid and bold succession of injuries which is likely to distinguish the present from all other periods pf American story. Scarcely have our minds been able to emerge from the astonishment into which one stroke of parliamentary thunder has involved us, before another more heavy, and more alarming, is fallen on us. Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of the day; but a series of oppressions, begun as a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.

That the act * passed in the 4th year of his majesty’s reign, intitled “An act for granting certain duties in the British colonies and plantations in America, &c.”

One other act ** passed in the 5th year of his reign, intitled “ An act for granting and applying certain stamp duties and other duties in the British colonies and plantations in American, &c.”

One other act ***, passed in the 6th year of his reign, intituled “An act for the better securing the dependency of his majesty’s dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain;” and one other act *, Passed in the 7th year of his reign, intituled “An act for granting duties on paper, tea, &c.” form that connected chain of parliamentary usurpation, which has already been the subject of frequent applications of his majesty, and the houses of lords and commons of Great Britain; and no answers having yet been condescended to any of these, we shall not trouble his majesty with a repetition of the matters they contained.

But that one other act **, passed in the same 7th tear of his reign, having been a peculiar attempt, must ever require peculiar mention;; it is intituled “An act for suspending the legislature of New York.” One free and independent legislature hereby takes upon itself to suspend the powers of another, free and independent as itself; thus exhibiting a phenomenon unknown in nature, the creator and creature of its own power. Not only the principles of common sense, but the feelings of human nature, must be surrendered up before his majesty’s subjects here can be persuaded to believe that they hold their political existence at the will of a British parliament shall these governments be dissolved, their property annihilated, and their people reduced to a state of nature, at the imperious breath of a body of men, whom they never saw, in whom they never considered, and over whom they have no powers of punishment or removal, let their crimes against the American public be ever so great? Can any one reason be assigned why 160,000 electors in the island of Great Britain should give law to four millions in the states of America, every individual whom is equal to every individual of them, in virtue, in understanding, and in bodily strength? Were this to be admitted, instead of being a free people, as we have to hitherto supposed, and mean to continue ourselves, we should suddenly be found the slaves, not of one, but of 160,000 tyrants, distinguished too from all others by this singular circumstance, that they are removed from the reach of fear, the only restraining motive which may withhold the hand of a tyrant.

—————————————————————————-

Footnote 2-

*4. G. 3. c. 15.

**5. G. 3. c. 12.

***6. G. 3. c. 12.

*7. G. 3.

**7. G. 3. c. 59.

—————————————————————————-

That by “an act* to discontinue in such manner and for such time as are therein mentioned the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandize, at the town within the harbour of Boston, in the province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America,” which was passed at the last session of the British Parliament: a large and populous town, whose trade was their sole subsistence, was deprived of that trade, and involved in utter ruin. Let us for a while suppose the question of the right suspended, in order to examine this act on principles of justice: An act of parliament had bee passed imposing duties on teas, to be paid in America, against which act the Americans had protested as inauthoritative. The East India company, who till that time had never sent a pound of tea to America on their own account, step forth on that occasion the assertors of parliamentary right, and fend hither many ship loads of that obnoxious commodity. The masters of their several vessels, however, on the arrival in America, wisely attended to admonition, and returned with their cargoes. In the province of Massachusetts alone the remonstrances of the people were disregarded, and a compliance, after many days waited for, was flatly refused. Whether in this the master of the vessel was governed by his obstinacy, or his instructions, let those who know, say. There are extraordinary interposition. An exasperated people, who fee that they posses power, are not easily restrained within the limits strictly regular. A number of them assembled in the town of Boston, threw the tea in the ocean, and dispersed without doing any other act of violence. If in this they did wrong, they were known and were amenable to the laws of the land, against which it could not be objected that they had ever, in any instance, been obstructed or diverted from their regular course in favour of popular offenders. They should therefore not have been distrusted on this occasion. But that ill fated colony had formerly been bold in their enmities against the house of Stuart, and were now devoted to ruin by that unseen hand which governs the momentous affairs of this great empire. On the partial representations of a few worthless ministerial dependents, whose constant office it has been keep that government embroiled, and who, by their treacheries, hop to obtain the dignity of the British knighthood, without calling for a party accused, without asking for proof, without attempting a distinction between the guilty and the innocent, the whole of that antient and wealthy town is in a moment reduces fro, opulence to beggary. Men who had spent their live in extending the British commerce, who had invested in that place the wealth their honest endeavors had merited, found themselves and their families thrown at once on the world for subsistence by its charities. Not the hundredth part of the inhabitants of that town had been concerned in the act complained of ; many of them were Great Britain and in other parts beyond sea; yet all were involved in one indiscriminate ruin, by a new executive power, unheard of till then, that of a British parliament. A property, of the value of many millions of money, was sacrificed to revenge, not repay, the lots of a few thousands. This is administering justice with a heavy hand indeed! and when is this tempest to be arrested in its course? Two wharfs are to be opened again when his majesty shall think proper. The residue which lined the extensive shores of the bay of Boston are forever interdicted the exercise of commerce. This little exception seems to have been thrown in for no other purpose that that of setting precedent for investing his majesty with legislative powers. If he pulse of his people shall beat calmly under this experiment, another and another will be tried, till an insult on common sense to restore its commerce to that great town. The trade which cannot be received at two wharfs alone must of necessity be transferred to some other place; to which it will soon be followed by that of the two wharfs. Considered in this light, it would be an insolent and cruel mockery at the annihilation of the town of Boston.

By the act ** for the suppression of riots and tumults in the town of Boston, passe also in the last session of parliament, a murder committed there is, if the governor pleases, to be tried in the court of the King’s Bench, in the island of Great Britain, by a jury of Middlefex. The witnesses, too, on receipt of such a sum as the governor shall think it reasonable to expend, are to enter into recognize to appear at the trail. This is, in other words, taxing them without the account of their recognizance, and that amount may be whatever the governor pleases; for who does his majesty think can be prevailed on to cross the Atlantic for the sole purpose of bearing evidence to a fact? His expenses are to be borne, indeed as they shall be estimated by a governor; but who are to feed the wife and children whom he leaves behind, and who have had no other substance but his daily labour/ Those epidemical disorders, too, so terrible in a foreign climate, is the cure of them to be estimated amoung the articles of expense, and their danger to be warded off by having almighty power of parliament? And the wretched criminal, if he happen to have offended on the American side, stripped of his privilege of trial by peers of his vicinage, removed from the place where alone full evidence could be obtained, without money, without counsel, without friends, without exculpatory proof, is tried before judges predetermined to condemn. The cowards who would suffer a countryman to be torn from the bowels of their society, in order to be thus offered a sacrifice to parliamentary tyranny, would merit that everlasting infamy now fixed on the authors of the act! A clause *** for a familiar purpose had been introduced into an act, passes in the 12th year of his majesty’s reign, intitled “An act for the better securing and preserving his majesty’s dockyards, magazines, ships, ammunition and stores;” against which, as meriting the same censures, the several colonies have already protected.

—————————————————————————-

Footnote 3-

*14. G. 3.

**14. G. 3.

***12. G. 3. c. 24.

—————————————————————————-

That these are the acts of power, assumed by a body of me, foreign to our constitutions, and unacknowledged by our laws, against which we do, on behalf of the inhabitants of British America, enter this our solemn and determined protest; and we do earnestly entreat his majesty, as yet the only mediatory power between the several states of the British empire, to recommend to his parliament of Great Britain the total revocation of these acts, which, however nugatory they be, may yet prove the cause of further discontents and jealousies amoung us.

That we next proceed to consider the conduct of his majesty, as holding the executive powers of the laws of these states, and mark out his deviations from the line of duty: By the constitution of Great Britain, as well as of the several American states, his majesty possesses the power of refusing to pass into a law any bill which has already passed the other two branches of legislator. His majesty, however, and his ancestors, conscious of the impropriety of opposing their single opinion to the united wisdom of the two houses of parliament, while their proceedings were unbiased by interested principles, for several ages past have modestly declined the exercise of this power in that part have modestly declined the exercise of his power in that part of his empire called Great Britain. But by change of circumstances, other principles than those of justice simply have obtained an influence on their determinations; the addition of new states to the British empire has produced an addition of new, and sometimes opposite interests. It is now, therefore, the great office of his majesty, to resume the exercise of his negative power, and to prevent the passage of laws by any one legislature of the empire, which might bear injuriously on he rights and interests of another. Yet this will not excuse the wanton exercise of this power which we have seen his majesty practice on the laws of the American legislatures, For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejects laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty’s negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few British corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice. Nay, the single interposition of an interested individual against a law scarcely ever known to fail to success, though in opposite scale were placed the interests of a whole country. That this is so shameful an abuse of a power trusted with his majesty for other purposes, as if not reformed, would call for some legal restrictions.

With equal inattention to the necessities of his people here has his majesty permitted our laws to lie neglected in England for years, neither confirming them by his assent, nor annulling them by his negative; so that such of them as have no suspending clause we hold on the most precarious of all tenures, his majesty’s will, and such of them as suspend themselves till his majesty’s assent be obtained, we have feared, might be called into existence at some future and distant period, when time, and change of circumstances, shall have rendered them destructive to his people here. And to render this grievance still more oppressive, his majesty by his instructions has laid his governors under such restrictions that they can pass no law pf any moment unless it have such suspending clause; so that, however immediate may be the call for legislative interposition, the law cannot be executed till it has twice crossed the atlantic, by which time the evil may spent its whole force.

But in what terms, reconcilable to majesty, and at the same time to truth shall we speak pf a late instructions to the governor of the colony of Virginia, by which he is forbidden to assent to any law for the division of a country, unless the new county will consent to have no representation in assembly? That colony has as yet fixed no boundary to the westward. Their western counties, therefore, are of indefinite extent; some of them are actually seated many hundred miles from their eastern limits. Is it possible, then, that his majesty can have bestowed a single thought on the situation of those people, who, in order to obtain justice for injuries, however great or small, must, by the laws of the colony, attend their county court, at such a distance, with all their witnesses, monthly, till their litigation be determined? Or does his majesty seriously with, and publish it to the world, that his subjects should give up the glorious right of representation, with all the benefits derived from that, and submit themselves the absolute slaves of his sovereign will? Or is it rather meant to confine the legislative body to their present numbers, that they may be the cheaper bargain whenever they shall become worth a purchase.

One of the articles of impeachment against Trefilian, and the other judges of Westminister Hall, in the reign of Richard the second, for which they suffered death, as traitors to their country, was, that they had advised the king that he might dissolve his parliament at any time; and succeeding kings have adopted the opinion of these unjust judges. Since the reign of the second William however however, under whom the British constitution, was settled, on its free and antient principles, neither his majesty, nor his ancestors, have exercised such a power of dissolution in the island of Great Britain; and when his majesty was petitioned, by the united voice of his people there, to dissolve the present parliament, who had become obnoxious to them, his ministers were heard to declare, in open parliament, that his majesty possessed no such power by the constitution * (*Since this period the king has several times dissolved the parliament a few weeks before it’s expiration, merely as an assertion of the right). But how different their language and his practice here! To declare, as their duty required, the known rights of their country, to oppose the usurpations of every foreign judicature, to disregard the imperious mandates of a minister or governor, have been the avowed causes of dissolving houses of representative in America. But if such powers be really vested in his majesty, can he suppose they are there placed to awe members from such purposes as these? When the representative body have lost the confidence of their constituents, when they have notoriously made sale of their most valuable rights, when they have assumed to themselves powers which the people never put into their hands, then indeed their continuing in office becomes dangerous to the state, and calls for an exercise of power of dissolution. Such begin the causes for which the representative body should, and should not, be dissolved, will it not appear strange to an unbiased observer, that that of Great Britain was not dissolved, while those of the colonies have repeatedly incurred that sentence?

But your majesty, or your governors, have carried this power beyond every limit known, or provided for, by the laws: After dissolving one house of representatives, they have refused to call another, so that for a great length of time, the legislature provided by the laws has been out of existence. From the nature of things, very society must at all times possess whiten itself the sovereign powers of legislation. The feelings of human nature revolt against the supposition of a state so situated as that it ay not in any emergency provide against dangers which perhaps threaten immediate ruin. While those bodies are existence to whom the people have delegated the powers of legislation, they alone possess and may exercise those powers; but when they are dissolved by the lopping off one or more of their branches, the power reverts to the people, who may exercise it to unlimited extent, either assembling together in person, sending deputies, or in any other way they may think proper *(*insert ‘and the frame of government thus dissolved should the people take upon them to lay the throne of your majesty prostrate, or discontinue their connection with the British empire, none will be so bold as to decide against the right or the efficacy of such avulsion.’). We forbear to trace consequences further; the dangers are conspicuous with which this practice is replete.

That we shall at this time also take notice of an error in the nature of our land holdings, which crept in at a very early period of our settlement. The introduction of the feudal tenures into the kingdom of England, though antient, is well enough understood to set this matter in a proper light. In the earlier ages of the Saxon settlement feudal holdings were certainly altogether unknown; and very few, if any, had been introduced at the time of the Norman conquest. Our Saxon ancestors held their lands, as they did their personal property, in absolute dominion, disencumbered with any superior, answering nearly to the nature of those possessions which the fedualists term allodial. William, the Norman, first introduced that system generally. The lands which had belonged to those who fell in the battle of Hastings, and in the subsequent insurrections of his reign, formed a considerable proportion of the lands of the whole kingdom. These he granted out, subject to feudal duties, as did he also those of a great number of his new subjects, who, by persuasions or threats, were induces to surrender them for that purpose. But still much was left in the hands of his Saxon subjects; held no superior, and not subject to feudal conditions. These, therefore, by express laws, enacted to render uniform the system of military duties as if they had been feuds; and the Norman lawyers soon found means to saddle them also with all the other feudal burthens. But still they had not been surrendered to the king, they were not derived from his grant, and therefore they were not holden of him. A general principle, indeed, was introduced, that “all lands in England were held either medially or immediately of the crown,” but this was borrowed from those holdings, which were truly feudal, and only applied to others for the purposes of illustration. Feudal holdings were therefore but exceptions out of the Saxon laws of possession, under which all lands were held in absolute right. These, therefore, still form the basis, or ground-work, of the common law, to prevail whereforever the exceptions have not taken place. America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him, or any of his successors. Possessions there are undoubtably of the allodial nature. Our ancestors, however, who migrated hither, were laborers not lawyers. The fictitious principle that all lands belong originally to the king, they early persuaded to believe real; and accordingly took grants of their own lands from the crown. And while the crown continued to grant for small sums, and on reasonable rents; there was no inducement to arrest the error, and lay it open to public view. But his majesty has lately taken on him tho advance the terms of purchase, and of holding to the double of what they were; by which means the acquisition of lands being rendered difficult, the population of our country is likely to be checked. It is time, therefore for us to lay this matter before his majesty, and to declare that he has no right to grant lands himself. From the nature and purpose of civil institutions, al the lands within the limits which any particular society has circumscribes around itself are assumed by the society, and subject to their allotment only. This may be done by themselves, assembled collectively, or by legislature, to whom they may have delegated sovereign authority; and if they may have delegated sovereign authority; and if they are allotted in neither of there ways, each individual of the society may appropriate to himself such lands as he finds vacant, and occupancy will give him title.

That in order to enforce the arbitrary measures before complained of, his majesty has from time to time sent amoung us large bodies of armed forces, not made up of the people here, nor raised by the authority of our laws: Did his majesty posses such a right as this, it might swallow up all our other rights whenever he should think proper. But his majesty has no right to land a single armed man on our shores, and those whom he sends here are liable to our laws made for the suppression and punishment of riots, routs, and unlawful assemblies; or are hostile bodies, invading us in defiance of law. When in the courts of the late war it became expedient that a body of Hanoverian troops should be brought over for the defense of Great Britain, his majesty’s grandfather, our late sovereign, did not pretend to introduce them under any authority he possessed. Such a measure would have given just alarm to his subjects in Great Britain, whose liberties would not be sale if armed men of another country, and of anouther spirit, might be brought into the realm at any time without the consent of their legislature. He therefore applied to parliament, who passed an act for that purpose, limiting the number to be brought in and the time they were to continue. In like manner is his majesty restrained in every part of the empire. He possesses, indeed the executive power of the laws in every state; but they are the laws of the particular state which he is to administer within that state, and not those of any one within the limits of another. Every state must judge for itself the number of armed men which they may safely trust amoung them, of whom they are to consist, and under what restrictions they shall be laid.

To render these proceedings still more criminal against our laws, instead of subjecting the military to the civil powers, his majesty has expressly made the civil subordinate to the military. But can his majesty thus put down all law under his feet? Can he erect power superior to that which erected himself? He has done it indeed by force; but let him remember that force cannot give right.

12

That these are our grievances which we have thus laid before his majesty, with that freedom of language and sentiment which becomes a free people claiming their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as a gift of their magistrate: Let those flatter who fear; it is not an American art. To give praise which is not due might be well from venal, but would ill beseem those who are asserting the right of human nature. They know, and will therefore say, that kings are servants, not the protector of people. Open your breath, fire to liberal and expanded thought. Let not the name of George the third be a blot in the page of history. You are surrounded by British counsellors, but remember that they are parties. You have no ministers for American affairs, because you have none taken from amoung us, nor amendable to the laws on which they are to give you advice. It behoves you, therefore, to think and to act for yourself and your people. The great principles of right and wrong are legible to every reader; to pursue them requires not the aid of many counsellors. The whole art of government conflicts in the art of being honest. Only aim to do your duty, and mankind will give you credit where you fail. No longer persevere in sacrificing the rights of one part of the empire to the inordinate desires of another. This is the important post in which fortune has placed you , holding the balance of a great, if a well poised empire. This, fire, is the advice of your great American council, on the observance of which may perhaps depend your felicity and future fame, and the preservation of that harmony which alone can continue both to Great Britain and America the reciprocal advantages of their connection. It is neither our wish, nor our interest, to separate from her. We are willing, on our part, to sacrifice every thing which reason can ask to the restoration of that tranquility for which all must wish. On their part, let them be ready to establish union on a generous plan. Let them name their terms, but let them be just. Accept of every commercial preference it is in our power to give for such things as we can raise for their use, or they make for ours. But let them not think to exclude us from going to other markets to dispose of those commodities which they cannot use, or supply those wants which they cannot supply. Still less let it be proposed that our properties within our own territories shall be taxed or regulated by any power on earth but our own. The God who gave us life gave us liberty at the same time; the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. This, fire, is our las, our determined resolution; and that you will be pleased to interpose with that efficacy which your earnest endeavors may ensure to procure redress of these our great grievances, to quiet the minds of your subjects in British America, against any apprehensions of future encroachment, to establish fraternal love and harmony through the whole empire, and that these may continue to the latest ages of time, is the fervent prayer of all British America!

END

Transcript by Douglas Dedrick

Corporations are Not People, but they are Citizens

The Legal Position of Corporations, and Why Corporations are Citizens in the Eyes of the Law:

There is a lot of confusion going around the internet about corporations and their status in the eyes of the law.  It appears that this recent uproar came about May of 2013 when Hobby Lobby sued over Federal requirements for mandatory healthcare. After searching back through this “news” I have noticed a lot of misunderstanding and misperception in regards to a corporations or buisenss legal statues. The only case where I can find a corporation being considered people is during Mitt Romney’s speeches, and his thoughts on the matter are far from the truth and it all has to do with wording. To comprehend why a business is a citizen but not a people we need to look at some definitions.

Businesses and corporations are citizens, some people are citizens as well, or in fact nowadays most people. A citizen is a a “legally recognized subject or national of a state or commonwealth, either native or naturalized.” A legally recognized subject meaning subject to the jurisdiction of a higher authority, this jurisdiction may be imposed by force or just misinformation.  We can also look at the definition of citizen found in the US Constitution, according to the 14th amendment we see a citizen is a person born or naturalized to the US and is subject to the jurisdiction.  The 14th amendment clearly defines the citizen as being subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

A corporation created by and transacting business in a state is to be deemed an inhabitant of the state, capable of being treated as a citizen for all purposes of suing and being sued, and an averment of the facts of its creation and the place of transacting business is sufficient to give the circuit courts jurisdiction.
Louisville, Cincinnati & Charleston R. Co. v. Letson  43 U.S. 497 (1844)

A corporation or business is seen in the eyes of the law as a citizen or a person, this fact, establishes the governments control or jurisdiction over these entities.  Without the recognition  of a corporation as a citizen the government could hold no authority over them.  Corporations however are not people, the people created the constitution, the government and breath life into the various states. The people command the government on behalf of their state to maintain dominion over the citizens, this includes corporations, business and persons.  Without such limitation of business we would not have nearly as much control over a business that commits public wrongs as we do when they are titled as citizens.

People seem to take the recognition as corporations as citizens to mean that they are above the law or somehow above the people, this is simply untrue.  In fact, quite nearly the opposite is the case, the recognition as an entity as a citizen makes it subject to the jurisdiction of the US government.  Some people also make the claim that corporations are people, but this language is no where to be found because it is not a fact, and is a misinterpretation of the definitions. There is no law claiming a corporation to be a people.

It makes sense that a corporation is a person or citizen, and it also makes sense that they will make actions to acquire rights for themselves similar to those of the people that run them.  A citizen is a subject of the jurisdiction of a higher authority, a US citizen is subject to the authority of the US government. A corporation being recognized as a citizen is a LIMITATION and not a benefit. If a corporation were not a citizen it would not be subject to the jurisdiction of our governments authority.

Corporations are citizens for a very good reason, if they were not citizens it could be more difficult to punish them for the crimes they commit. Look into the law before getting heated about a decision made in a court of law. State courts often violate the rights of the people, however the Supreme Court rarely does so, in fact they usually go above and beyond and ensure that rights are protected that were not even introduced in an individual case.  If someone’s rights appear to be violated or the rights of the people diminished, it is important to study the wording of the law and the definitions of the words, often times a law may not mean what it immediately appears to mean, as some people use emotions to get us involved in the case, yet the emotions conveyed blind us to the truth.