Here is the story of the Slaughter of our Rights and the overthrow of our government in a case called, appropriately enough, the Slaughterhouse Cases 83 U.S. 36.

If you think I am pulling your chain on this story, go and see for yourself. I am going to tell you the story just as the United States Supreme Court told me. All I will be doing is telling you the story in my own way. When I finished telling you the story you can read the Slaughterhouse Cases for yourself. Then, ask yourself: Why didn't I know this? I went to school.

If you've heard the story of Dred Scott, then you know how important it is to be a Citizen of a State and thereby a Citizen of the United States. At one time both meant the same thing. It meant that you were a King, ruling by Divine Right over your property. The legal equal of any king in all the world.

The United States Supreme Court told me, and I told you. If you checked, you found that I had told you truly.

The United States Supreme Court told you that we had made every man a King over a small kingdom. His kingdom is his property. With such a small kingdom invasion is a real threat.

At first the Kings, to speak with one voice and to manage the common property of the Kings, created 13 Nation States. These 13 Nation States banded together and declared that we are Kings, we own this land and we will fight anyone that says differently. Later, the Kings in all of the Nation States banded together. Each King swore allegiance to every other King not only in his nation State, but in all of the Nation States. Attack one King and you attack us all.

To speak with one voice and to manage the common property of the Kings, a limited federal government was set up.

To protect such small kingdoms from invasion we set up court systems where property disputes between kings could be settled without the usual war that goes with disputes between kings. Feuding Kings will appear before 12 unbiased Kings and a professional referee and tell their story. The 12 Kings will decide the dispute. There were courts for feuds between Kings of the same nation State. There were Courts for feuds between kings of different Nation States. There were even courts for feuds between a King and the property managers elected by a majority of Kings. Each King had the might of all Kings. No more does might make right. Disputes will be settled by a jury of 12, Kings themselves. Kings will decide the fate of Kings as is fitting.

The United States Supreme Court told you that we had started 13 Sovereign Nation States. The common property of all of the Kings in that Nation State. Each Nation State was the legal equal of any other Nation State in the world. Each King in that Nation State was the legal equal of any other King in the world.

The United States Supreme Court also told you that there were other people in the country who were not Kings. There were people from other nations, like the Indians and there were Africans, whether slaves or freed, that could be kings in some Nation States but were not Kings in all of the United Nation States.

There is an old adage that says that History is written by the winner. This story and the few that follow are going to show you that the Civil War did not free the Slaves, it enslaved the free.

In this Story the United States Supreme Court will tell us that our system of government has fundamentally changed. You have had your birthright to freedom stolen. You are no longer born a King. You are born a freed slave until such time, if ever, that you can claim you kingdom.

First, let's put this into context. At the time that this decision was written we had just finished the Civil war. The United States has been effectively overthrown and the conspirators are in control of the Southern States and the Army of the North.

The Supreme Court will tell you the story of the overthrow of the United States is as strong a language as they can considering that the Conspirators are in control of the Country and the Justices could go the same way Lincoln went.

Stay with me the Conspirators will confess later. This story, as told by the United States Supreme Court is more easily verified. I've told you the Story of Dred Scott, the slave that dared to be King. If you checked up on me you know that I wasn't making up that story either. Let me tell you this story and then go and make sure the United States Supreme Court really said that. Go and make sure that I have told you the story accurately.

This is the story of the Fall of Kings.

Mr. Justice MILLER, now, April 14th, 1873, delivered the opinion of the court.

These cases arise out of the efforts of the butchers of New Orleans to resist the Crescent City Livestock Landing and Slaughter-House Company in the exercise of certain powers conferred by the charter which created it, and which was granted by the legislature of that State.

In essence a group of former kings were trying to use their power to take over the butchered meat industry with the help of the conquering army.

Here's what happened.

For the health and safety of the People, the Legislature decided that all meat should come to one dock. At that dock there would be buildings built where the meat would be butchered. All livestock comes to this dock, and will be butchered in the buildings here. And, we're going to start a corporation to run everything.

Sounds great doesn't it. No more smell everywhere. Everything sanitary and inspected.

Here's the problem. The area it dealt with was huge. And, we are talking about the 1870's. Travel was not diesel trucks and highways.

Even today, to travel from where the Slaughterhouse was to the fringes of the territory the law covered takes about 2 hours one way by car, on highways. In the 1870's travel was by horse and wagon where 20 miles a day was considered a good day.

This means that if a farmer on the fringe of this area wants to sell a cow to the butcher in town they have to travel 2 to 4 days down to the approved area where the cow can be sold. Then the butcher has to hire one of the stalls that the corporation provides and butcher the cow there. The butcher then has to take the butchered meat and travel back to his butcher shop, 2 to 4 days away.

The butcher used to own all of the facilities and equipment he needed to buy and butcher the meat. Now, by law, he couldn't use them anymore.

Of course, if you were starting an assembly line type butcher business, things couldn't be better. You have a nice big central facility. You have made the other butchers loose their facility and are now forced to use yours. You have the butchers loosing all of that time in travel and getting back with old meat while you can distribute your product to local outlets.

There is no doubt about it. It was a blatant grab to take over the butchered meat business in a large part of Louisiana. This is in the carpetbagger days after the war. Looting the South was the biggest rage.

Well, the butchers got understandably mad. They took it to court. There were bushels of cases and the Louisiana Supreme Court said they were all wrong. Sure the State could do this.

Not so many butchers took the case to the United States Supreme Court. Before it got before the U.S. Supreme court, some butchers settled out of court. The rest of the Butchers joined together under one case. That's why it's called the Slaughterhouse Cases. There were a lot of cases against the Slaughterhouse Corporation and the Supreme Court ruled once.

The court noticed that the butchers had claimed all along that the creation of the slaughterhouse company was was a violation of the most important provisions of the thirteenth and fourteenth articles of amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The butchers claimed that the start of this corporation is the start a monopoly and that it denies to butchers the right to be butchers.

The Supreme Court Said, we don't find that it deprives the butchers of the right to be butchers. The statute does not forbid slaughtering. It just designates where the slaughtering shall be done. Slaughtering will be done in this location in the corporation's buildings and nowhere else.

Under police power the State government has the right to impose regulations for the good of all. No man should be able to use his rights to trample on another's rights.

You have a right to own and use your jack hammer, but police power can stop you from using it at 2 in the morning. Your neighbor has rights too.

Moving smelly, noisy, slaughterhouses to one area sounds like a good idea. And, all the animals waiting to be slaughtered, they moved them out there too. Sounds like a classic case of police power.

As for giving this exclusive power to a corporation, New Orleans itself is a corporation, would anyone have screamed if the States had given the City of New Orleans this exclusive power? One corporation or another what's the difference?

I guess the court didn't notice that we can get rid of the managers of Cities. How do you get rid of the owners of a corporation?

Unless it can be proved that the exclusive privilege granted by this charter to the corporation is beyond the power of the legislature of Louisiana, you can't claim the statute is bad.

The question comes down to: can any exclusive privileges be granted to any of its citizens, or to a corporation, by the legislature of a State?

The lawyer for the Butchers says that this creates a monopoly and gave us a lot of examples from England and other European States. His knowledge of monopolies is as big as his damnation of them.

But these were Kings doing this to peasants. Here we are all Kings. The representatives of the Kings said that this is what the kings wanted to do. If the Kings didn't like what their representatives did they should have stopped them and found better representatives. We don't pass judgment over whether the Kings, through their representatives, did a wise thing or not. We're just here if someone broke the rules. Unless you can show me what rule they broke, they can do that. Everything that the legislature does is presumed to be legal until someone can prove that it's not legal.

If it is not legal by the Louisiana State Constitution then the Supreme Court of the States of Louisiana has already ruled on that and what they say goes there.

If it is not legal by the United States Constitution, then show us where.

Well, the lawyer for the butchers says that it creates an involuntary servitude forbidden by the thirteenth article of amendment; That it abridges the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States; That it denies to the plaintiffs the equal protection of the laws; and, That it deprives them of their property without due process of law, contrary to the provisions of the first section of the fourteenth article of amendment.

Since this is the first time this has come up, the United States Supreme Court is going to tell you about these Constitutional amendments that were just ratified.

It is the duty of the court to tell you what happened. We thought about it a lot and we have no choice, we have to tell you what happened. Noting has happened this big in any of our lifetimes. It affects the way all of government works and your relation to that government. This is a huge deal.

Think that I'm pulling your chain? Let me give you the direct quote.

"We do not conceal from ourselves the great responsibility which this duty devolves upon us. No questions so far-reaching and pervading in their consequences, so profoundly interesting to the people of this country, and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States, of the several States to each other, and to the citizens of the States and of the United States, have been before this court during the official life of any of its present members. We have given every opportunity for a full hearing at the bar; we have discussed it freely and compared views among ourselves; we have taken ample time for careful deliberation, and we now propose to announce the judgments which we have formed in the construction of those articles, so far as we have found them necessary to the decision of the cases before us, and beyond that, we have neither the inclination nor the right to go."

Strong words. Of course. They are about to tell you about the overthrow of the United States of America.

No questions so far-reaching and pervading in their consequences, so profoundly interesting to the people of this country and so important in their bearing upon the relations of the United States, of the several States to each other, and to the citizens of the States and of the United States, have been before this court during the official life of any of its present members.

Curious that you didn't hear of this case in school.

When our country started there was a Constitution and so soon afterward there were 12 amendments added. They first 12 Amendments happened so quickly after the Constitution that they can all be considered of the same age.

Lately we added three more amendments that show a unity of purpose that can't be denied. They are tied to the history of the time and since we just lived it, we remember that history well. Let us tell you about it.

There has always been slavery. When the country started there was slavery. Slaves were not as economically efficient in the North as in the Southern States. In the Northern States immigrants were a lot more economical than slaves.

Some people wanted slavery abolished. Some wanted the right to own slaves better protected.

No matter what else was going on behind the scenes of the Civil War, most people agree that this argument over slavery started the Civil War.

The people that wanted to free the slaves wanted the people in the Southern States to just free the slaves and eat the loss of their investment. Slaves are expensive.

The Southern States knew that the slave was, at the time, a necessary part of the infrastructure. Farm labor is not like factory labor where you can just plug in another immigrant when one wears out like you can in the factories. Farm labor required skilled workers. Slaves worked best.

Congress was even passing unconstitutional laws to try to make the Southern States free the slaves and just eat the loss.

It seems like, at even at that early time people didn't understand or didn't know how the government worked. With all of those immigrants coming in, they were used to being under a king, not being the king. For the federal government to dictate just seemed natural.

It seems like they didn't understand that the Federal Government was supposed to be subject to the Kings to manage the common property of all States and to referee disputes between Kings of different Nation States.

The United States Supreme Court had just told everyone that we were composed of Sovereign Nations States inhabited by Kings, and if you take a slave to a Free State there wasn't anything that anyone could do about it, they would be free. But only if they weren't too ignorant to take advantage of the law. Dred Scott could have just walked away from his master in Illinois and been free as long as he stayed in Illinois. In Dred's case ignorance was slavery. The Supreme Court told us that in the Dred Scott story.

That's what people were doing. Bands of Rustlers had formed and were stealing the property of southerners. They weren't offering to buy the slaves and then set them free. They were just stealing them. It's easy to take the high road if it's not going to cost you anything or you won't be inconvenienced.

It seems to be a failing of man that rather than clean our own house, we try to force someone else to clean theirs.

You still see it all of the time. These are bad kings, I'm not one of them, they deserve to suffer. We did it to cigarette smokers, pot smokers, alcohol drinkers, financially strapped fathers and we are starting on overweight people. I don't do that. We ought to make them stop or suffer.

It's like some organization had decided that plow horses were being treated unfairly and were running all over the South stealing them. It doesn't matter whether you believe in Slavery or not, it was the law of the land and had been practiced since the dawn of man and government.

If you don't like it, change the law. There are ways of taking private property for the public good, but it requires that the owner of the property be paid a fair price for the property taken.

The Federal Government was trying to take over. They were trying to tell the Kings, in their own Nation State, what they could and could not do. They were trying to grab more power than we gave them.

Finally the Southern States rebelled against the loss of their livelihood, their investment and their freedom to run their own nation States. They rebelled. They told the Federal Government that if they were not going to protect our property rights, and our Sovereignty then you have broken our agreement. We are sovereign Nation States. We, as Sovereign Nations States we are now backing out of our agreement and we will start our own country. If you don't like it, we'll have to fight about it.

Remember, that's how we started this country in the first place.

Well, after the civil war was over. The Federal Government had asserted its authority by force.

Lincoln had declared Slavery abolished. But, as president he did not have the authority to carry it out. Each State was forced to abolish Slavery.

Well, we changed the Constitution too. We ratified the current 13^th Amendment which abolished Slavery of every kind. Not only the kind that we usually think of as Slavery, but also all of the little word games that go on trying to get around calling it slavery.

You know, he's not a Slave, he's a lifelong apprentice. He's not a Slave, he's a surf or a subject.

Well, President Johnson sold the congress on the idea that even though the slaves were free, they were actually worse off then they were before. The owners had taken better care of them then the government. In fact they were now the victims of bad men. They had no owner to protect them and the government wouldn't or couldn't protect them.

We're not going to say that President Johnson was lying. But the Northern Senators bought the story and decided to pass the 14^th Amendment.

They also illegally forced the Southern States to ratify the 14^th Amendment. But, before we look at the 14^th Amendment lets finish the history lesson.

The people that wrote the 13^th and 14^th Amendments decided that the Africans were still no better off than they had been. Since they couldn't vote and they were so easy to spot they were still harassed by laws which only white people could vote for. So they wrote the 15^th Amendment to give them the right to vote.

They made the Negro a citizen of the United States in the 14^th Amendment and they gave them the right to vote in the 15^th Amendment.

To understand what these amendments mean, you have to understand the history and intent of the amendments. True, only the 15^th Amendments mentions Negroes by mentioning his color and his former slavery, but there can be no doubt that these three article were meant for Negroes.

This doesn't mean that others can't share in their protection. If a State steps on someone's rights where these amendments apply. That protection will apply whether they are Negroes or not.

So, to understand these Amendments 13, 14 and 15 we have to remember what they were designed to do. The spirit of them all and the evil which they were designed to remedy.

Well, the first thing we noticed is that the 14^th Amendment opens with a definition of citizenship -- not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States.

We didn't have a definition of a citizen of the United States before this. Congress had not made one. Sure the courts had discussed it a time or two.

It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. Therefore, those people living in the District of Columbia or in the Territories, though within the United States, were not citizens. You had to be a Citizen of a State.

Whether this was a good idea or not had never been judicially decided.

In fact in the Dred Scott case we decided that a man of African descent, slave or not, was not and could not be a Citizen of a State or of the United States.

Many people pitched a fit about our decision, but it still stands. It has been accepted as the rule that Negroes could not be Citizens. Didn't matter if they were free or not. Those were the rules. The only thing that could change that was a constitutional amendment.

Well, we really didn't want to free the slaves. If we had wanted to do that, the amendment would have just said that the phrase "All men created equal" shall include men of every color. Poof, end of slavery. A Citizen of any color is a king in any State.

Obviously congress didn't really want to free the slaves. What they really wanted to do was to overthrow all of the Kings.

Well, now we have a definition of two types of Citizenship. There is now a definition of a Citizen of a State and there is a definition of a citizen of the United States and they are different.

Now you are no longer born a Citizen of a State entitled to your kingdom as your birthright. Now you are not born a King but a subject. And, a subject of what King? The United States. No, not the United States formed to manage the common property of the Kings of the Sovereign Nation States. This is the United States that is now the Central Government that has dethroned all of the Kings.

If you remember we told you that you were the Kings. The State and Federal Governments were managers of the common property and subject to the Kings jurisdiction. Now, you are subject to the federal government's jurisdiction. Sure it doesn't cover foreigners that have babies here, but it covers everyone else.

We created a class of citizenship for the Negro and now you are born one of them until you can get a residence in a State.

It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States, and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other, and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.

We think this distinction and its explicit recognition in this amendment of great weight in this argument, because the next paragraph of this same section, which is the one mainly relied on by the butchers, speaks only of privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, and does not speak of those of citizens of the several States. The argument, however, in favor of the plaintiffs rests wholly on the assumption that the citizenship is the same, and the privileges and immunities guaranteed by the clause are the same.

Boy, the lawyer for the butchers really botched that one. The rights of a Citizen of a State and a citizen of the United States are not the same. The Rights of a King and the rights of a freed Slave are not the same. The lawyer for the butchers is claiming that the butchers are freed slaves and should be treated as freed slaves.

The language is, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States." It is a little remarkable, if this clause was intended as a protection to the citizen of a State against the legislative power of his own State, that the word citizen of the State should be left out when it is so carefully used, and used in contradistinction to citizens of the United States in the very sentence which precedes it. It is too clear for argument that the change in phraseology was adopted understandingly and, with a purpose.

What the differences are between the rights of a Citizen of a State and the rights of a citizen of the United States will be handled shortly.

Here is the difference between a Citizen of a State, a King, and a citizen of the United States, a freed slave.

Citizens of the United States, freed slaves, are placed, by this clause, under the PROTECTION of the Federal Constitution. Kings don't need any more protection from the Federal Constitution. We just want to point out right now that a Citizen of a State has all of the rights that he had before. A Citizen of a State is still a King. This amendment only deals with citizens of the United States. You know that class of Citizenship that we created instead of really freeing the Slaves.

Since there is a difference between the rights of a Citizen of a State and the rights of a citizen of the United States you better keep your papers straight. A King in a State has rights under the Constitution and the first 12 amendments. The rights of a citizen of the United States starts at 13.

As a side note, go and look at the amendments to the Constitution. You'll notice that the latter amendments specifically mention citizens of the United States, freed slaves. Did you register to vote for the president as a citizen of the United States, a freed slave?

Just what are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States? Well, we've looked at this before way back in 1823. There the court said that they are the rights that are fundamental to any King and have been enjoyed by every king since they became free, independent and Sovereign.

There are so many rights that it's hard to tell them all. But, they may be classed under the following divisions. Protection by the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the government may prescribe for the general good of the whole.

They are those rights which are fundamental, and they are the rights belonging to an individual as a Citizen of a State. The rights of a King.

What are the privileges and immunities of Citizens of a State well, it showed up in the Articles of Confederation, and it shows up in the Constitution when it says.

"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of the several States."

In all the cases since then we have always said they are the rights belonging to the individual as a citizen of a State. And they have always been held to be the class of rights which the State governments were created to establish and secure.

That section of the constitution didn't create the rights of Citizens of a State. Nor did it put any control over State laws. It just says that the king of any State will be treated like a king in your State. A king in another State has just as much right to be a King in your State as you do.

Up until the time that added the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments nobody even imagined that the right to be King and how kings should act in their own nation State was a matter for the federal government. It's such a given that we are not even going to try to prove it.

Sure we put some limitations on what a State government could do. They had to honor contracts, they couldn't mortgage property or create a law that went back in time and make something legal or illegal. The Kings had put very few limitations on what kings could agree to do in their Nation State. They were Nation States and they wanted to remain nation States. The Federal Government had no business butting in.

Surely, no one would believe that just because the 14^th amendment says that no State should make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States, that they meant to transfer the security and protection of all the civil rights which we have mentioned, from the States to the Federal government?

And where it is declared that Congress Shall have the power to enforce that article, was it intended to bring within the power of Congress the entire domain of civil rights heretofore belonging exclusively to the States?

If we believe that moron that's calling himself a lawyer when he says that the rights of freed slaves, citizens of the United States, are the same as Kings. Then, we would have to believe that the Kings, speaking in their common voice as Nation States have agreed to give up their right to be Kings in their Nation States and have agreed to be subjects of the federal Government.

That would mean that the whole system of government has been turned upside down. Kings would no longer be kings. The Nation States claimed by the kings would be lost. All would be under the thumb of the new king, the federal government and subject to its jurisdiction.

We're convinced that no one intended to do that. No one intended to really free the slaves.

However, we have lost our right to be born a King. Now everyone is born a freed slave.

Let's do a recap of argument put forth by the lawyer representing the butchers.

He came into this court claiming that his clients, the Butchers, have a right to be treated as freed slaves. Didn't he claim that the butchers had rights under the 14^th amendment? Well, that amendment was written for the freed slaves, not Kings. If you are going to tell us that you have a right as a freed slave, then you must be a freed slave and we will have to treat you as a freed slave and not a King.

Then he tried to make us believe that freed slaves have the same rights as Kings. This is stupid. Kings are Citizens of a State. Freed slaves are subjects of the United States. You can't be a subject and a King. Your either one or the other.

Of course, if a subject wants to be King all he has to do is have a bona fide residence in a State.

It's not our job to ask if the butchers had a bone fide residence in the State and were entitled to be treated as Kings. Their lawyer claimed that they were freed Slaves, freed slaves they are.

If they are freed slaves then they don't have the rights they think they have and the State of Louisiana had every right to do this to them.

We won't tell you what the privileges an immunities of a freed slave are, which no State can abridge, until some case comes along that makes it necessary for us to tell.

This isn't to say that citizens of the United States don't have any rights as subjects of the United States. We already showed you that they don't have any of the rights of Citizens of a State, A King. But, they do have some rights.

Freed Slaves, citizens of the United States, have the right to come to the seat of government to assert any claim he may have upon that government.

Freed Slaves, citizens of the United States, can transact any business they have with the federal government.

Freed Slaves, citizens of the United States, can seek the protection of the federal government.

Freed Slaves can share in the offices of the federal government and help in administering its functions. You know, an overseer, for the master.

Freed Slaves, citizens of the Unites States has the right of free access to the government's seaports.

He has the right of free access to the sub-treasuries, land offices, and courts of justice in the several States.

Another privilege of a citizen of the United States is to demand the care and protection of the Federal government over his life, liberty, and property when on the high seas or within the jurisdiction of a foreign government.

The right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, are rights of the citizen guaranteed by the Federal Constitution. The right to use the navigable waters of the United States, however they may penetrate the territory of the several States, all rights secured to our citizens by treaties with foreign nations, [p*80] are dependent upon citizenship of the United States, and not citizenship of a State.

One of these privileges is conferred by the very article under consideration. It is that a citizen of the United States can, of his own volition, become a citizen of any State of the Union by a bona fide residence therein,with the same rights as other citizens of that State.

Sure, we used to be born a citizen of a State and a King in every State. Now we are born a freed Slave. But, all it takes is a bona fide residence in the State to be a King. You used to be born that way, but now, at least, you can still buy your way to your Kingdom.

You used to be able to trace the ownership of your rights all the way back to the Creator. Now you can only trace your rights back to a bona fide residence. Now you are born, not a King, but a subject of the United States, the new king.

To these may be added the rights secured by the thirteenth and fifteenth articles of amendment, and by the other clause of the fourteenth, next to be considered.

But it is useless to pursue this branch of the inquiry, since we are of opinion that the rights claimed by the butchers, if they have any existence, are not privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States within the meaning of the clause of the thirteenth amendment under consideration.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of its laws.

They haven't mentioned much that the Slaughterhouse's charter deprives the plaintiffs of their property without due process of law, or that it denies to them the equal protection of the law. The first of these paragraphs has been in the Constitution since the adoption of the fifth amendment, as a restraint upon the Federal power. It is also to be found in some form of expression in the constitutions of nearly all the States as a restraint upon the power of the States. This law, then, has practically been the same as it now is during the existence of the government, except so far as the present amendment may place the restraining power over the States in this matter in the hands of the Federal government.

We are not without judicial interpretation, therefore, both State and National, of the meaning of this clause. And it is sufficient to say that under no construction of that provision that we have ever seen, or any that we deem admissible, can the restraint imposed by the State of Louisiana upon the exercise of their trade by the butchers of New Orleans be held to be a deprivation of property within the meaning of that provision.

Freed slaves have no property. They can only trace their rights to the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments. They are the subjects of the property managers of the Kings. Unfortunately, the Kings have been dethroned by their property managers and are now freed slaves themselves. All they have left to steal is the ability to acquire a bona fide residence in a State.

"Nor shall any State deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Considering that the Negroes have been persecuted by laws meant to discriminate against them. It's easy to see why this section was written. This is a stupid argument too. This will never come before this court. Citizens of the United States can not take a State into court. If Congress finds some discrimination than it has the right to do something about it by proper legislation.

That's right, citizens of the United States can not bring a State into court. Only a Citizen of a State can do that. We'll talk about that in the next case.

Ever since we started this government there has been a line between the powers of the Federal Government and the State Governments. The general population doesn't seem to understand it, but it's been there all the time.

When we started this country it is obvious from the first eleven amendments that the main concern was to limit the power of the Federal Government. A Strong federal government was feared.

The people that seek power were jealous and wanted a strong federal government. When they tried to press for more power the Southern States rebelled and were going to break up the union.

Well, the Central Government got all of the Northern States together and kicked their butt. Then, playing on the ignorance of the general population as to just how this country was supposed to run, they instituted a strong federal government.

They took away your birth right to be born a Citizen of a State, a King in any State. You are now born a subject of the Federal Government until you acquired a bona fide residence in a State. Then, and only then, do you become a king.

Now, all they have to do is make it impossible to have a bona fide residence in a State and the overthrow would be complete. No more State Citizens, No more Kings except the dreaded Central government.

But, they had already done that. That's why the lawyer for the butchers didn't claim the butcher's rights as Kings. These were butchers, not vagabonds. Surely they had a shop and a home. To be a King all they needed was a bona fide residence in a State. It's that simple. The Supreme Court told us. If the butchers had a bona fide residence in the State of Louisiana they were Kings. If their residence wasn't bona fide, they were freed slaves. Was their lawyer an incompetent boob or did he already know that the butchers were freed slaves and was trying to find a way that freed slaves could stop the State from treating them like freed slaves? The United States Supreme Court told you flat out that the lawyer had butchered the case. Yet, in the interest of justice, the butchers were treated as freed slaves and were forced to suffer for the incompetence of the lawyer. Or, was this an act of collusion?

Stay with me as odd as it sounds, the lawyers will confess. Do you think I'm making this up? Check up on me. This translation of the Slaughterhouse Cases is virtually a paragraph by paragraph translation. Compare them side by side if you don't believe me. Surely you will believe the United States Supreme Court.

In the Slaughterhouse Cases the United States Supreme Court told you that our government and your relationship to it had fundamentally changed. You were no loner born a King with unalienable rights as a Citizen of a State. Now you are born a freed slave until such time, if ever, that you wanted to be a King and acquired a "bona fide" residence in a State.

The United States Supreme Court told you that the lawyer for the butchers had pled the wrong issues and had pled the butchers as freed slaves. They also told you that if you claim to be a freed slave, they were going to treat you as one.

Isn't it curious that the Supreme Court did not notice that these were butchers and they were complaining that their right to use their butchering facilities were being stolen and that these butchers must have resided somewhere? Or was the matter irrelevant? Did they already know that a bona fide residence was impossible?

If you remember in the Dred Scott case, they looked into the record, found an error and ruled on the error. Yet, here they had to know, as did the lawyer, that a bona fide residence was impossible. They sure knew that the lawyer was an incompetent boob that argued the wrong case. They told you that flat out. But, in the interest of "justice" the butchers lost their businesses.

The last time you went to court, did your lawyer claim that you were a freed slave or a Citizen of the State? Just look at the paperwork. Are you a citizen of the United States or a Citizen of a State. You can't be both. The United States Supreme Court said so.

The United States Supreme Court told you that there is now a clear and distinct difference between being a Citizen of a State, A Sovereign Citizen with the character of a King, and a freed slave, a subject of the United States, with the character of a feed slave. You can't be both. They are clear and distinct from each other.

The United States Supreme Court told you that the slaves hadn't actually been freed we just transferred title from the original owner to the newly empowered United States Government. They were now to be called subjects of the United States Government or, more commonly, citizens of the United States.

The next case will prove that the lawyer knew that the butchers were freed slaves. All parties knew that the right to be born a King had been stolen and a bona fide residence is impossible. The right to be a Sovereign Citizen has been stolen. The lawyer in the next case is going to dance around the issue and the Supreme Court is going to comment on the dance. The issue will be the Character of the person and what rights are attached to that character. Can a citizen of the United States with the character of a freed slave sue a State in the Supreme Court. Remember, Dred Scott had no right to be in that court, freed or not.