Post 145: Happy Anniversary - 9.23.2025
- charitycolleencrouse
- Sep 23
- 6 min read
Was it actually in accordance with the construction of the Virginia Declaration of Rights – insofar as he knew about that which Rush had also written – that the original certificates that were provided to the colonials in accordance with their contributions to the war effort were defrauded out of them by “lawyers” who imposed themselves as the first “congress” and purchased [them] from the colonials – and first Americans at a discount – [that] which they intended to be availed [of] through personal interest garnered in connection with proposing and passing the original bill authorizing the “Bank of the United States?”
More than that, by refusing to accord the dissent contained within that which is known as the “Antifederalist Papers” the same consideration of “authority” regarding upholding the Constitution as that which was known as the “[F]ederalist Papers” then there was an additional – and assumedly secret – provision of documents upon which to speculate personal interests in connection with stock issues – as well as early and then later bond issues – with those who purchased the “stock?” I contend it does. Not only that, I contend that after John Adams obtained the credit from the first banking house based out of Europe (The Netherlands) to support the “Americans” following Washington’s victory at Valley Forge, then there was an additional consideration of interests as regards whether there would be a continued process of undermining the sovereignty and safety of the United States based on “financial interests” that were determined from beyond the U.S. borders (inclusive of how they were expanded during later administrations) and that Jefferson specifically included reference to primary documents of succession that would also compel contention with other documents that were to be considered, including the original “draft” of the Declaration of Independence.
The “game” has been that “slave owners” knew this and pretended themselves to have legitimate interests in remanding to “secret” and allegedly “private” proceedings their treasonous intents, as well as their intents to deal in bad faith with the official institutions of government in order to mete out their personal interests. The reference to the XIIth Amendment – insofar as one contends that it refers to the Virginia Declaration of Rights and is a specific challenge to those alleging that their “state’s rights” accord them exception to upholding the Constitution – is to make manifest what regards succession, as well as inheritance.
Then too is the matter pertaining to and understanding of the fact that three of the first five Presidents of the United States died on July Fourth (2, 3, 5). The first two died on the same day; between the three of them there would have been both fifty- and sixty-year terms between when the Declaration of Independence was first authored and when it was finalized. The sixth President of the United States “fell unconscious” in his “office” but “died” two days later “in the Speaker’s Room” (meaning, in “session” and active as a Congressman). They did not “remove” him to a “hospital” or to his “private home.” Regardless of whether or not “foul play” (or actual murder) was involved in the deaths of the three of the first five, and whether or not their deaths and/or the death of John Quincy Adams were “literal,” the implication is that they “paid” the price that was set at the level of the President, including what the “President” does after he “retires” from service in the White House. Did Richard Nixon know this? I contend he did…and that many others did as well.
What, however, this ALSO means, I contend, is that Jefferson never ceded on his indictment of either slavery (including insofar as it was presented to the British Crown or to future Americans) and neither did several others. It is noted that Washington “freed his slaves” after he died as part of his will including “slaves” that served meritoriously in battle during the Revolutionary War and would “otherwise” have been accorded full benefits – which would have included land – that other Revolutionary War veterans were accorded, including Neg[r]oes. But, not only due to the nefarious actions of those “wedded” to “slavery” as well as their co-conspirators in Britain – and it would seem even Spain and France – that a direct approach at the time had to allow for an understanding that the first generation was the first and meant to last many subsequent generations. Did the “3/5th” of the first Presidents “retire” on July 4th as a means by which to assure that their “estates” vested with the People, including understanding that the “private property” they owned and had rights to bestow would also be rights that all People had as well?
Please recall that both Jefferson and Franklin also authored publicly distributed and considered treatises on money and coinage, and what Jefferson said about the “Spanish coinage” as opposed to “British coinage” system. That “Sixth President” after the “three-fifths” on the first five was intentional. Would you accord that specific implication of intent to the British? It would seem that many did attempt just that. How many proceedings were engaged in order to adjudge Jefferson, for instance, of crimes connected to “owning slaves” that intended to compel people after Jefferson’s death to continue defining themselves as “slaves” of Jefferson? How many of them were given “lawyers” that were supposed to be “paid” for their work on their alleged behalf? With what were their “clients” to pay?
This is not so dissimilar from what the British did when Africans and Negroes who had come to the colonies attempted to do in the period preceding the American Revolution by virtue of attempting to bring petitions on their behalf before British Courts. These cases were brought in periods of time that contained substantial turmoil WITHIN Britain – as well as Sco[t]land, Wales and Ireland – and included the deposing of the King, assassination of the King, and a military coup. They also correlated with time frames and individuals that had to contend with more than a decade of British rule without a King, and comparatively, without a Parliament as it had been dissolved by the King and refused reconstitution under his rule for some time. The “British” would have had a vested interest in establishing their own “claims” to “slaves” based upon ascribing them as propertied interests by British subjects, including individual “British subjects” that retained loyalties to the King while holding themselves out as “Americans.” This “dual loyalty” is not unprecedented in history, if it is more piqued in the example of the United States. It would also speak directly to controversies both among the British and the Americans when it came to how both regarded the French Revolution of the late 18th century.
It is important to understand that when the French repudiated the three American envoys that were sent as some of the first official state representatives of the United States of America to other nations – nations which themselves were to be regarded as states – that among them were who would be the first Chief Justice of the United States to serve a concurrent role – as Secretary of State. He not only served as the Secretary of State, but he also served as both a representative of a state legislature as well as the House of Representatives of the United States of America. This is not only relevant as a matter of the consideration of both rights to inheritance and lineage concerning succession to office, but also as regards the authority of the People as vested in the respective office through which it is exercised.
From Head and the Coinage Information…
10:57 am CST
Sept. 23, 2024
Co-President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse
_____________________________________________
The original writing of this document was preceded in the text by the following with citation information:
So there are two references each
James Mason’s Declaration of Rights:
2 on the same page: https://edu.lva.virginia.gov/dbva/items/show/184
Both of which are appearing as scans of the original. See Ira Corn[, Jr.] book.
I also found a version of the earlier from the University of Virginia. See Samuelson and Kroos book. (For the record, I no more allow for “Sam” to say “Samuelson” was his than “Kroos” is my clitoris.)
_______________________________
Reposted on this site at 10:08 am CST on Sept. 23, 2025.
10:08 am CST
Sept. 23, 2025
Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse
Comments