THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TOLD ME.

This Law Review has a wealth of information and I took the liberty of downloading the jpg's into one PDF
and the OCR-ing it for word searching or highlighting if you have the Acrobat Software for same. This
information was provided by a list member and the link to original homepage is at the bottom.
Ralph Winterwood

Dated 2-6-2010

I have found another confession to the overthrow of the United States. This one comes from the
South Carolina Law Quarterly. Here is the preamble I have written the full document can be found at the
KingsBeacon.org. How much proof must I provide?
There is a little preamble needed to this confession instead of a translation.

The person confessing is a thrice certified overseer of the Negroes (member of three lodges if you will.)
He is not concerned that they have betrayed us, overthrown our government and stolen our unalienable
rights, he is concerned that the Treason may be repeated and the current dynasty will be overthrown.

At the outset he tells you that "this article is not motivated by a dissatisfaction evidenced in some
quarters with the recent rulings of the Supreme Court of the United States." He is referring to the rulings
of the Supreme Court of the United States which were declaring that black Negroes had the same rights
as white Negroes. This was why The Dubious Origins of the 14th amendment. [translation], among
others, was written. The sworn associates of the Bar were, in no uncertain terms, telling the Supreme
Court of the United States that if you keep ruling that black citizens of the United States (Negroes) have
the same rights as white citizens of the United States (Negroes) then we are going to spill the beans
about the overthrow of the United States. Well, he is not doing this as blackmail. He is a loyal subject of
the master. He is writing this out of concern that the master will be overthrown and be replaced with
another Hitler.

He is also not advocating any effort to have the 14th Amendment declared invalid, although he deplores
the means that were employed to obtain the end. So, as a thrice certified overseer, he doesn't mind that
the lawyers have betrayed you, stolen your unalienable rights and reconstructed you into a sub-human
Negro, he just thinks that they could have done it another way.

He is not concerned with the overthrow of the United States, he is just concerned that the United States
will be overthrown again and a tyrant worse than themselves will come to power by the same means.
He is just concerned with the preservation of the current tyrant from which he derives his power. He is
saying let us close the legal loop hole before what we have done unto others gets done unto us.

After this comes a pretty straight forward accounting of the overthrow of the United States which
matches the account given in The Dubious Origins of the 14th amendment. [translation].

Notice carefully the section entitled "Attempts to Obtain a Decision of the Supreme Court."

Here he will tell you that the traitors in control of Congress passed a law which took away the
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide that type of case.

1
When Congress was overthrown they ceased to be the valid congress. Then these traitors made a rule
that the Supreme Court can not say that the overthrow of the United States was illegal. (An action of
Congress is presumed to be legal until it is ruled otherwise. They only remember the rules they like while
they pretend that they are just following the rules. But, what the hell, you don't know when they are
cheating.) A valid Congress has no more right to do this than it had to free the slaves in the territories.

Remember, in the Dred Scott case. [translation] (Scott v. Sandford) the Supreme Court said that
Congress could not free the slaves in the territories. They had just ruled on the validity of an act of
Congress.

When the Supreme Court ceased to do its job they betrayed us. They became Traitors themselves and
the overthrow of the United States was complete. In fact, this article and the Dubious Origins of the
14th Amendment quite plainly say that had the Supreme Court not betrayed us, the overthrow of the
United States would have failed.

You can see it in operation in my cases. The Clerk keeps telling us that they can only hear cases in
accordance with federal law. Federal law says this court can not rule that the overthrow of the United
States was illegal. They will betray us and pretend that they are just following the rules. The rules of the
new tyrant that is. (U.S. Supreme Court betrays us all, again.)

This document confirms it. There is nothing wrong with the form of my submissions, it is the controversy
that is not in accordance with federal law.

There is no more doubt. The supreme Court of our Constitution is DEAD. The sworn associates of the Bar
have betrayed us and will continue to betray us.

"Misprision of treason. The bare knowledge and concealment of an act of treason or treasonable plot,
that is, without any assent or participation therein, for if the latter elements be present the party
becomes a principal. 4 Bl. Comm. 120; Pen.Code Cal. § 38" Black's Law Dictionary Pg. 1194

"Misprision of treason. is the concealment of treason by being merely passive. Act of Congress of April
30, 1790, R.S. § 5333; 1 East, Pl. ?Cr.139. If any assistance be given to the traitor, it makes the party a
principal, as there are no accessories in treason." Bouviers Law Dictionary Vol II Pg 810

A scary question you could ask now is: Could this have happened while Lincoln was alive? Or, on a more
frightening note, was the takeover of the United States a crime of opportunity or was our Civil War
engineered to raise the army needed to overthrow the United States? In either case, in a supreme act of
ignorance and stupidity, we overthrew ourselves? Can there be any doubt that your ignorance of law is
no accident or oversight? As we are so often told by our betrayers, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

As a small side note, my condolences to historians who believe they can know the history of any culture
without a sound understanding of law. Law shapes everything in a culture. It is as ridiculous as believing
that you can understand the bible without a sound understanding of Astrology. But, then again, we were
all fooled. After all, why ask why?

Here are the thoughts of the founders of our once great nation on the subject.

2
"The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited constitution. By a
limited constitution I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative
authority; such for instance as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like.
Limitations of this kind can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of the
courts of justice; whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the
constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to
nothing." Publius, The Federalist No. 78.

"There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority,
contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act therefore
contrary to the constitution can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than
his principle; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to
the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not
authorize, but what they forbid." Publius, The Federalist No. 78.

"It is not otherwise to be supposed that the constitution could intend to enable the representatives of
the people to substitute their will to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose that the
courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order,
among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of
the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts, A constitution is in fact, and must be,
regarded by the judges as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning as
well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to
be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought
of course to be preferred; or in other words, the constitution ought to be preferred to the stature, the
intention of the people to the intention of their agents.

Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power, It
only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature
declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people declared in the constitution, the
judges ought to be governed by the latter, rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions
by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental." Publius, The Federalist No.
78.

One last point. Notice in the section entitled "Danger to Our Form of Government" he gives the scenario
for the rise of the dictator of the United States.

As a small side note to this point, a lesson in translating legalese. Notice the title "Danger to Our Form of
Government." To what form of government is he referring? Remember, he likes being an overseer. He
just doesn't want it to end. In New Orleans our police cars bear the motto; "To Protect and to Serve." To
Protect and to Serve whom? Now you know that it is the occupational government they are protecting
and serving. It surely isn't you. After all, why ask why?

When the true history of the United States becomes common knowledge this tyranny will end and our
freedom and unalienable rights will be restored. Our government will, once again, be the servant of We,
The People and not our master. Remember, it is our fellow Sovereigns and sworn allies staffing the
police and military. They, their families and children were betrayed just as surely as you were.

3
Now, let the traitor confess.
(The document with this preamble can be found here - kingsbeacon.org/06a-threat_of_14.php)
(The document without this preamble can be found here - kingsbeacon.org/14th-sclq.jpg.php)

1) THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT TOLD ME.

I'm going to tell you a story. It's a history story. I didn't make this story up. The United States Supreme
Court told me the story. I am just going to tell you what they told me. This is the story of the overthrow
of the United States of America. No, not the coming overthrow of the United States. The United States
of America was overthrown in 1868. Sounds crazy doesn't it? Well, if the United States Supreme Court is
crazy, then we are all in trouble.

Like I said, I am going to tell you the story of the overthrow of the United States of America. Do I expect
you to believe me? No. Quite frankly, I don't want you to believe me. What I do want you to do is let me
tell you the story. Then I want you to go and see for yourself. It won't be hard to do. I will provide you
with all of the proof that you need, The only thing that you will have to do is check to make sure I
haven't supplied you with false proof. All you will have to do is compare my documents with the
originals. The ones you really need are on the Internet or in any decent Law library.

The United States Supreme Court told me the story of the overthrow of the United States. I am just
going to translate the story from Legalese to colloquial English, You know, everyday English. They are
two very different languages. Each has its own dictionary. At home you have a Colloquial English
Dictionary. Lawyers use a legal dictionary. They are very different.

Let me tell you the story of the overthrow of the United States of America and then you can go and see
if I have told the story accurately. No, I am not talking about the coming overthrow of the United States
of America, the United States of America was partially overthrown in 1868 and has since been
completely overthrown. At this time I am only going to deal with the overthrow of the Southern States
and a partial overthrow of the Northern States. It's the quickest to prove. I'll take you a lot further than
that, but, it's kind of hard to believe that everything you think you know about this country is wrong
without proof up front.

The United States Supreme Court told me, I have no choice but to believe them. I am just going to
translate what they said and tell you the story. Once you've heard the translation it will be obvious that
it is indeed what they said. I have accurately retold the story as the United States Supreme Court told it.
Then go and ask yourself; Why didn't I know this?

The United States Supreme Court told me. As the highest court in the land I have no choice but to
believe them. No, the Masons didn't do it. Though some are Masons. We all know who did, but it is just
too hard to believe. They're our Mothers, Fathers, Sisters, Brothers, Aunts and Uncles, friends and
neighbors. The lawyers overthrew the United States of America. The United States Supreme Court told
me. I'm just repeating the story. Later, I'll show you that the lawyers themselves have even confessed
that these stories are true.

Is it any harder to believe than the Masons, or the Jews, or whoever group that you want to blame. The
United States Supreme Court told me. Go and see for yourself. They'll tell you too.

4
Don't you find it odd that in twelve to twenty years in school the only thing they didn't teach you were
the rules of the game. How many classes in law did you have? If you don't know the rules, how do you
know who's cheating? If you don't know what your rights are, how do you know if one has been stolen?
How do you vote for laws? I keep hearing about Tort reform. What is a Tort and why do we want to
change it? What do we want to reform it into. You might vote on the change. Did you make things better
or worse with your vote? Politicians wouldn't lie to you, would they? Do you think that Hitler took over
Germany all by himself? He talked them into submission. A country not long ago declared martial law
and arrested all of the lawyers. Is it really so hard to believe that the lawyers have taken over our
country?

We all know that something is wrong with this country. We all know that what we believe to be our
rights don't match with what we can see around us. Look what happened to that religious community in
Texas. An anonymous tip that proved to be a fraud, said that a 13 year old girl was pregnant by force in
the community. The government went in and took all of the children in the community. What if the next
anonymous tip claims that there is a pregnant 13 year old girl in Seattle? Are we going to go in and take
all the children from Seattle? Legally, where is the difference? Legally, there is no difference.

I was told that living in a polygamist environment was abusive to the children, yet I am told that
homosexuality is just a different lifestyle. I may have my history mixed up but I think that polygamy has a
far more illustrious and socially acceptable history than homosexuality. As far back in history as you
want to go. In fact, since we've killed so many males in war and it now takes two incomes to raise a
family maybe polygamy is the future of marriage? Is the government going to go in and take all the
children away from homosexuals? After all, anyone can make the claim that they believe that the
situation is abusive. Polygamy seems to be abusive to children. Even an anonymous phone call. We'll
take all of the children until you prove us wrong. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? Just
who's children are they?

If a polygamist lifestyle is abusive, just what is polygamy. The married man who has a mistress in an
apartment. Is he a polygamist? Was Bill Clinton a polygamist? The politicians that rent women by the
hour, are they polygamists? Should we take their children until they prove that the situation is not
abusive?

I was told that they took all of the children for the good of the children. It's better to be safe than sorry
when it comes to children. They may be traumatized for life if this alleged abuse continues for another
instant. If there is indeed abuse going on. We won't know until we investigate. So, for the good of the
child the government is going to take the children away from their home and parents and put them in a
football stadium with strangers. The government of strangers is going to interrogate the children and
keep them prisoner. Then the government is going to place them all over the State is foster care and
boot camp style facilities and forbid contact with their families. This, however is not abusive. This will
not traumatize a child at all. After all, we are doing it for the good of the child. What will those mothers
confess to if they believe that it will reunite them with their children. I heard them say that they are
willing to comply with whatever requirement the State has. They just want their children back. What
would you agree to for the return of your kidnapped child?

Call me an alarmist if you like. but didn't Hitler do the same thing with German children? Let's not forget
what Hitler did with the Jewish children. Again, call me an alarmist if you like but isn't a mandatory
evacuation what Hitler did to the Jews. I saw what happened when the faulty levies flooded New
Orleans. Bridges were closed by armed police with orders to shoot anyone who tried to flee for his life.

5
Aid was refused. Flotillas of private rescue boats were turned away. FEMA even tried to cut the phone
lines in and out of the area. The very things I now hear are being done by that oppressive regime in
Myanmar or Burma.

We all know that this country is broken. But, what can I do. Well, you can't fix anything until you know
what broke. Actually, fixing the problem isn't tough. The most important part is fixing it correctly. In
order to fix it correctly you have to know the rules. Once you know the rules, it's easy to see how you're
being cheated.

You know that you lost your rights, you just don't know where and when you lost them. The United
States Supreme Court told me where and when I lost my rights. I am going to tell you. Once enough
people know what our rights are and where and when our rights were taken, fixing the problem is
relatively easy. You'll understand that your ignorance of law was not an accident. Ignorance is not bliss,
it's expensive and can often be fatal. In this case ignorance is slavery. Luckily, knowledge cures ignorance
every time.

Let me tell you the stories that the United States Supreme Court told me. Then go and see if the United
States Supreme Court really said that. Then, ask yourself; Why didn't I know that? If you see for yourself
that I am right. That my translation was accurate. Copy this and give it to someone else. If I have
convinced you, let me convince someone that you know. Later I will also prove to you that fixing the
problem is as easy as that. Copy the information and give it to someone else. The Louisiana State
Supreme Court told me that. Don't believe me. Go see for yourself. Let me show you where to look and
what to look for.

We all know something is wrong with this country. Let me first tell you the story of what went wrong
and why. Then you will see that it is only our ignorance of what went wrong and why that keeps the
system in place. We are literally one gavel blow from getting this oppressive, out of control government
off of our backs. Let me prove it to you.

The United States Supreme Court told me what went wrong, how it went wrong and why it went wrong.
Lawyers know this story, The United States Supreme Court told me. Now, let me tell you.

First I will tell you the Dred Scott story as told to me by the United States Supreme Court. It is officially
called Scott v. Sandford. In that story, the United States Supreme Court will tell you about the founding
of this country. The Supreme Court will tell you about our new form of government where every man is
a King. They will tell you about the difference between being a King and a Slave.

What did you think they meant when they told you that, in this country, all men are created equally. We
were all born Kings. Not like England where some are born kings, princes or lords, and most are born
commoners. In this country all men are born kings, or used to be before the overthrow of our
government.

Then I will tell you the Story of the Louisiana Butchers called the Slaughterhouse Cases. There the United
States Supreme Court tells us about how the 14th Amendment took your right to be a King and made
you no better than a freed Slave.

6
Then I will tell you the Story of Hans as told by the United States Supreme Court. There the Supreme
Court tells us about the total dethroning of all of the Kings of the Southern States. It shows that they
weren't kidding you about the dethroning of the Kings by the 14th amendment.

Then I will tell you the story of the 14th amendment. This story is told to me by the Tulane Law Review. I
am just retelling that story. It is the story of the actual overthrow of the United States of America. There
are other law journals that tell the same story, but I will tell the story as told by the Tulane Law Review.

The United States Supreme Court knows these stories. Lawyers know these stories. Why don't you?

I promise you a history lesson that you didn't get in school. When I am finished with these stories you
will understand why what you believe to be your rights don't match with what you see around you.
You'll understand why what you see around you looks more like a German occupation movie than the
freest country on the face of the Earth.

Again, don't believe me. Go see for yourself. When you find out that I am right, copy this information
and give it to someone else. Once you understand what happened to our rights you will realize that to
get our rights back it's just that easy. Copy this information and give it to someone else. When everyone
knows the story that the lawyers know, it will change. The whole system is balanced on your ignorance.
Knowledge cures ignorance every time.

Before I go on let me get rid of a pet peeve about 13.

There were 13 colonies under the king of England. When they won their independence from England
there were 13 States. That is why there are so many thirteens on the Dollar. Unless there were 14
colonies and people destroyed one to make it thirteen or if there were only eleven colonies and people
started two more to make it thirteen, that, at least, was not a plot. There were just 13 colonies and then
13 States independent and united. Hence, thirteen arrows in the eagle's claw and all of the other 13's.
Actually the number 13 has gotten a bad deal. The number 13 in astrology is a new beginning. Once
around the circle of 12, the 13th step brings you back to one, a new beginning. In the Tarot cards 13 is
the death card, it means the end of one thing and the start of something new. What they started was
completely new. It was indeed the death of an old way and the start of something new.

At the end of the Revolutionary War, we had 13 Sovereign Nation States. Each one of the 13 Sovereign
Nation Stares is on equal footing with England, France, Spain, Germany or any other Sovereign Nation.
But, we didn't just trade an oppressive king for an oppressive State. Not only were these 13 Sovereign
Nation States on equal footing with all other Sovereign Nation States but, each person in the Sovereign
Nation State was a King. On equal footing with all other kings of all other Sovereign Nation States. We
are each a King. Not in service to the State. The State is in service to all of the Kings, We, the People. Talk
about something new! Every man a King. It's good to be the King.