Chew On This…

2/3rds of the way down…

And this…




16 comments to Chew On This…

  • vfxag

    read a little further…

    Representation of the Crown is translated in our system to representation of the People thus, serving the public interest is established as the paramount obligation of the Attorney General.

  • vfxag

    not to say I don’t find the language revolting. I most certainly do!

  • Silver Shield

    Then why did they not say the “people” or the Constitution?

    In official documents, words are chosen very specifically.

  • vfxag

    I think they were referencing existing statute or derivative law in interpreting the case law in this situation, they used the original text in this article. Since the statutory law was derived from law based on the monarchy that existed before, they cited it.

    I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the citizens of Illinois are bound to the “Crown” of England. Like it or not, many of the laws this country has on the books, both good and bad, are derived from a time when we were still beholden to the “Crown” of England.

    I still find the concept of a monarchy offensive though, so either way, I agree. I think what you found here is the method by which the powers of the Attorney General was interpreted and established.

    That said, many lives have been unjustly ruined in the name of the “Public Interest” which when abused is really a socialist, collectivist phrase.

    I’m not arguing the merits of a monarchy, just trying to clarify, so that someone doesn’t jump to a conclusion that fealty to the queen of england is part of Illinois state law.

  • Silver Shield

    I know you are not defending the Monarchy but the wording is not referencing it is stating.

    I think it would be interesting what the Attorney General has to say about this?

    The more I go down this road the more I like physical silver.

  • vfxag

    I too like my physical silver more every day… The point remains however. I don’t think you’re really reading the article thoroughly enough.

    Here is a another direct quote:

    In considering the powers of the Attorney General, the supreme court, in Fergus v. Russel, noted:

    ” * * *

    * * * Under our form of government all of the prerogatives which pertain to the crown in England under the common law are here vested in the people, and if the Attorney General is vested by the constitution with all the common law powers of that officer and it devolves upon him to perform all the common law duties which were imposed upon that officer, then he becomes the law officer of the people, as represented in the State government, and its only legal representative in the courts, unless by the constitution itself or by some constitutional statute he has been divested of some of these powers and duties.

    * * * ”

    (Fergus, at 337.)

    The court went on to state:

    ” * * *

    * * * By our Constitution we created this office by the common law designation of Attorney General and thus impressed it with all its common law powers and duties. As the Office of the Attorney General is the only office at common law [exercising legal functions] which is thus created by our Constitution, the Attorney General is the chief law officer of the State, and the only officer empowered to represent the people in any suit or proceeding in which the State is the real party in interest * * *.

    This directly states that the powers of the crown are transferred to the people by our Constitution…

  • Scout

    The information presented in this article was brought up previously in the video “Season of Treason” which was originally posted at this site on July 22 in comments under the topic “Constitution Review Day 1”.

    There was some discussion in comments as to the veracity of the facts presented by the person in the video, Kurt Kallenbach, who briefly responded to a query. Reader Dave ultimately requested more facts to substantiate Kurt’s claims. As of this writing there has been no response.

    I, and I am sure others here, am very interested in how the original US Constitution was usurped and where I may verify the information Kurt presents. If this country has indeed been hijacked as it appears, and as Kurt claims, I can understand where one would be driven to withdraw consent to the prevailing deception as Kurt has advocated here:

    Perhaps Kurt will write an article for this forum with links to substantiate his video presentation, or respond to this post.

  • Kelly James


  • Silver Shield

    Our Constitution and Founding Fathers rejected the basis that the Crown had any power over us much less that the power was transferred.

    They are two completely separate forms of government and should have nothing to do with each other.

  • Shawn

    The U.S. Gov. is under the control of Britan. Britan is under the conrol of the family of the man that said ” Allow me to issue and control a nations currency, and I care not who makes your laws”.—Mayer Amschel Bauer Rothchild. DO your research. Battle of Waterloo, Geneva Convention-1930 minutes-You will not find the 1930 minutes for that year. LAwyers are members of the “BAR” Association. BAR , stands for British Accredited Research. The BAR is a franchise of the lawyers guild of Great Britan.

  • vfxag

    Chris, I understand where you are going with this, but I disagree that the article above which is about the history of the attorney general of the state of Illinois, is contradicting you.

    If you summarize the article, and the opinion of the Supreme Court published above, it is stating that under the form of government that our founding fathers fought and died to bring about, that all the powers that the “Crown” took for its self in order to enslave the people were, under the Constitution, transferred back to the People, whom they belonged to as a God-Given right to begin with. It only states that the Attorney General, having been elected by the people as the sole legal representative is appointed to enforce those powers.

    In the time since our founding, subsequent generations have squandered and surrendered any power we once had, as you have wisely shown us in the academy.

    Just because the notion of a Monarchy, constitutional or totalitarian is revolting on all levels to a truly free-minded person, does not negate the fact that they have and do exist. It does not negate that we are a country descended from people once held in bondage to a monarch. There is nothing wrong with stating emphatically that We The People, now hold the power once reserved for the “Crown of England,” and that we elect a representative to enforce those powers. If we don’t like how the powers are being enforced, we throw the bastard out, simple as that… That is IF enough of us agree and make a move to exercise our collective wills…

    At least that’s how it’s supposed to work.

    I will not pretend I think that we still have that kind of power. The institution of government in this country has been corrupted on all levels. I just don’t think this particular article is a cause for alarm.

    • Silver Shield

      Dear Chris,
      Thanks for writing Attorney General Lisa Madigan. I think the text you cited is referring to common law that predates even the founding of the United State’s, but from which our legal system has grown. You will notice in the next paragraph it states:

      Representation of the Crown is translated in our system to representation of the People thus, serving the public interest is established as the paramount obligation of the Attorney General.

      Of course, we operate under a Constitutional form of government in Illinois and the United States. We have no King or Queen.

      Mike Matulis
      Director, Constituent Services
      Illinois Attorney General

  • Kelly James

    Very interesting….

    Note how the word “crown” was only used after the Illinois Constitution of 1870.

    “The Office of Attorney General first came into existence at the admission of the State of Illinois to the Union on December 3, 1818.”

    52 years of history, no crown. Then all of the sudden, “crown”?

    Funny that.

  • Kelly James

    also…I find “people” just as offensive as I find “crown”, if ya really wanna know the truth. The “people” or the “public” is nothing more than a group of individuals; a whole cannot possibly be greater than the sum of it’s parts.

    “Since there is no rational justification for the sacrifice of some men to others, there is no objective criterion by which such a sacrifice can be guided in practice. All “public interest” legislation (and any distribution of money taken by force from some men for the unearned benefit of others) comes down ultimately to the grant of an undefined, undefinable, non-objective, arbitrary power to some government officials.

    The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly. The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity, cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle.” – Ayn Rand

    Therefore, that document from the Illinois AG’s office sucks however it’s interpreted. Far as I’m concerned, we should all take a red pen to every statement that mentions “the crown” OR “the people” and put “the individual” in it’s place.

  • Sean O

    We are endowed by our creator to be sovereign individuals!

Support our fight with a one time donation.


Over 300+ Videos