From: Carl Laning

Subject: Third letter in Enloe/Laning dialogue
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 13:51:18
To: Jesse Enloe 'jen346@airmail.net'

Mr.Enloe,

I hope all is well with you and yours. Sorry for the delay in responding. I won't go into details but suffice it to say that technology is wonderful!

I would like to begin by rebutting several points made by you in your last letter and explaining or expounding on others. I have also prepared a separate letter regarding your organizations proposal for a return to specie.

I mentioned the Compromise of 1850 as an example of Texans acceptance of union with the U.S. The word compromise comes into play because the part affecting Texas was one of I believe six different acts and there was some tradeoffs affecting other parts of the deal in the U.S. Congress. There was some compromise on Texas' part of this omnibus bill. Texas had racked up huge debts during its nationhood. The U.S. had taken on the state debts of the original 13 states when the union was formed. Texas wanted the same deal. The sticking point was the fact that these debts arose during Texas' nationhood.

The compromise was that Texas release claims to "Santa Fe County" (now New Mexico and never part of Texas historically) which was a source of unhappiness to the residents of "Santa Fe County" in exchange for payment of debt owed by the Republic of Texas. You inferred that this is an example of Texans unhappiness with union. I disagree. Texas wanted their debts paid and "Santa Fe County" wanted the illegal claims to it dropped. Each side got what it wanted. It was a deal that pleased all considered, a very popular act as evidenced by the vote in support of it. There is no evidence of any serious dissension with this decision is what I perhaps should have said.

Again, the point is that Texas freely accepted and approved a deal brokered by the U.S. on its behalf. I used the 1876 state constitution as an example of Texas acceptance of U.S. law. You said that that constitution is invalid because it was imposed at the point of a gun. Your statement is historically incorrect. By 1876 military rule was in name only. In 1873 the reconstruction government was defeated at the polls and a Democratic legislature and governor were elected.

Of course Texas was occupied immediately after the war. There were vigilante reprisals on all sides, Indian raids, and the threat of war with French troops in Mexico. Most of the troops sent to Texas were put along the Rio Grande because of Maximillian in Mexico. By 1873 the number of federal troops in Texas was less than 5,000 and they were engaged full bore in indian wars. There plate was full! The day to day operation of the state government was fully in civilian hands elected by the citizens of the state.

The 1876 Constitution did away with all the Radical Republican provisions of the 1869 Constitution. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, anywhere, of any form, that this was coerced at the point of a gun. ALL THE GUNS WERE POINTED AT THE INDIANS! Either way, Texas and its elected state officials had the option of continuing the war and chose not to. Popular sovereignty afterall. To claim invalidity due to coercion sounds like sour grapes.

Furthermore, I see a logical flaw in your argument. Though history shows that the 1876 Constitution was not coerced at the point of a gun as you argue, I will accept your postulation to show you the logical flaw. If, by your reasoning, coersion at the point of a gun invalidates any agreement then Texas is still part of Mexico. When a peace agreement was reached with Mexico's leader Santa Anna in 1836 he was in the custody of the Texas army.

This would certainly be coercion by force of arms and by your reasoning would invalidate any agreement for cessation of hostilities and recognition of Texas independence. The same reasoning would have to be applied to the agreements that ended World War One, World War Two, and most every other war. So, by your own reasoning, the treaty with Mexico granting Texas independence is void since Santa Anna was being held hostage! I think the logical flaw is evident. Besides the fact that there is NO historical evidence that the Constitution of 1876 was forced. It is a simple case of popular sovereignty in action, the state government carrying out the will of the people. Resuming the war was always an option but was not desired.

Either way, in any form or fashion you care to frame it, popular sovereignty, the very issue your organization touts, was carried out. To deny the validity of the Constitution of 1876 is to deny popular sovereignty.

You suggest that I inferred the secessionists "changed their minds" and decided to normalize relations. I meant nothing of the sort. As I stated in my last letter, regardless of any rhetoric otherwise, the issue in the Civil War was slavery. Call it property rights or states rights or whatever you like, the root issue was slavery. The secessionists initiated hostile action against the government and the people to secure the existence of slavery in their states. The secessionists might not have changed their minds about their goal, slavery, but they chose a course of action freely. Which is again I say very odd in that in 1861 when the secessionists initiated hostilities slavery was perfectly legal and had been supported at every turn by the Congress of the U.S. and the Supreme Court. It was more firmly established than ever due to the Dredd Scott case which encompassed the Fugitive Slave act and other provisions. The government, it seems, nearly went out of its way to appease the South yet the South still fired on Fort Sumter and Texas attacked its neighbors.

All I see is a fear of popular sovereignty as the majority of Americans its end. Lincoln, in prosecution of the war, simply carried out his sworn duty to "preserve" the union. Yes, I agree with you, it was an "illegal" war. The South committed the infraction. Lincoln stated on several occasions that he was interested only in union. If he could save the union by freeing all the slaves he would, if he could save the union by freeing none of the slaves he would, if he could save the union by freeing some slaves and leaving others he would do that too.

As to U.S. law being "supreme" in the land. I mean just that. All state constitutions must agree with the U.S. Constitution in principle and U.S. law takes precedence over state law when there is any conflict. This is why the Constitution was written and has the stated goal of forming a "more perfect union." Instead of U.S. rule a more accurate term would be "union with the U.S." in the context I used it in my last letter. I apologize for any confusion.

I stated in previous correspondence that acceptance of troops for frontier defense and monetary aid for highway construction etc. constitutes acceptance of union with the U.S. by common law. On page 2 the first paragraph of your last letter you state that only 13% of all dollars leaving Texas were returned to Texas in the form of aid. This is flagrantly preposterous. Before 1913 a small part of this federal aid was "Texas" dollars, it came from tariffs and duties paid by all Americans on foreign goods. Since then a large portion of this aid comes in the form of matching funds again, paid by all Americans. I do not mean to say that 100% of all dollars leaving Texas and going to Washington D.C. are returned to Texas but to think that this could ever be is very simplistic and unrealistic. There are certain things that are for the "national good" that are paid by all Americans. National defense, the space program, medical research, improvements in farming and ranching techniques etc. that benefit all the people. By what source do you arrive at 13%?

Again though you split hairs, any way you cut it Texas acted as a part of the union and therefore the evidence supports my argument. Defacto, Texas is and has been, a part of the union. Your main argument against my defacto evidence of union seems to be a claim of deception of the people. Do you honestly believe that a government whose most secret military tool of the recent past, the Stealth fighter and bomber, was copied almost exactly by a toy model maker 3 years before the military admitted that it even existed is capable of keeping such a secret of a "deception" on such a mass scale and for so long? In one breath you argue the ineptness of our government and then turn around and credit that same government with the greatest deception known to man.

Your reasoning is inconsistent to say the least here. It would seem to put me into the impossible position of proving a negative. I cannot prove the Santa Clause doesn't exist. Just as it is impossible to prove that some mass conspiracy doesn't exist. It is of course enviable to have such an argument on your side since it is impossible to disprove a negative. This would explain the popularity of conspiracy theories to the more paranoid part of the public, it is appealing and difficult to debunk. It is also at best a semantic trick. Lincoln once said something about fooling all of the people all of the time. Apparently you don't seem to think it is a difficult as he did.

As far as defacto evidence, I have given 4 specific examples of Texans' will, intent, and actual action as a state of the union. I have given numerous other examples of Texas accepting union in matters of defense, aid, and monetary system etc. As I pointed out, President Lincoln made a good point about fooling all the people all of the time. Furthermore, if we the people are so stupid then it seems that popular sovereignty would scare you to death.

In my previous letter I used the analogy of a common law marriage to illustrate the point that since both Texas and the U.S. have acted for 154 years as if Texas is a part of the union then "dejure" it is. You say that a common law marriage is dejure, and you are correct. You also make my point for me. Texas is dejure a part of the union just as dejure people who "act" married are in fact married. In your second sentence of the same paragraph you ask, "Where did the people give the authority to the government to require their permission to form that particular union?" The answer is simple. The people don't require their permission. Any 2 consenting adults can form this union of their own accord. Benefit of clergy or civil action is simply a societal formality to be considered "acceptable" by society at large. One could substitute the word clergy for government in the sentence of yours I quoted above. Furthermore, nowhere, in any body of law (specifically the Constitution of the U.S.) does it state specifically that a treaty is required to "consumate" a union between sovereign entities.

The point is this: the people of Texas and the United States expressed their will through their duly elected representatives for union. The people of Texas and the U.S. have acted, for 154 years, as a union. Again, nowhere, in any body of law that I know of, does it state that a treaty is the only way to consumate this. I gave you examples of this in our last communication (Lend-Lease specifically and any number of aid, exchange, cooperation programs). By your own reasoning, show me where the people gave the government the authority to require their permission to form this union. Both parties stated their will and the peoples will was acted upon. The people accepted this. Popular sovereignty has spoken loud and clear.

In my second letter I made 3 points concerning international law, U.S. law, and Texas law concerning the legality of union. You only addressed the point on U.S. law. I stated that Article 4 Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution gives to Congress the power to "admit new states to the union." You asked where the Constitution gives Congress the power to annex anything. Admittance to anything implies a desire to be admitted (enter). Did Texas not state this will in 1836, 1845, and 1876? Of course Texas did. To annex can imply force or unwillingness on the part of one party. There was no unwillingness, therefore Texas was admitted. Am I to assume you grant my arguments concerning international and Texas law since you did not address them?

You state in the last paragraph of page 2 of your last letter that you couldn't find the word RESOLUTION in Article 1 Section 7 Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. LOOK AGAIN! Resolution is the third word of the clause. You are of course right in that there is a difference between a bill and a resolution. A bill (law) is generally prohibitive while a resolution is a statement of action or policy. However, a joint resolution is presented by the President to Congress, voted on by both houses, and signed by the President. It is an official statement of a course of action to be taken and as far as how government operates, carries force of law. Therefore, the U.S. stated that it officially will accept and treat Texas as a state if Texas accepts. Texas did. The past 154 years is consumation by common law (my previous point). One country can't pass a law on another and the U.S. didn't in the case of Texas. Texas willingly joined the union of its own accord.

I made a point of questioning the legality of the 1861 secession vote taken in Texas. You said my argument is like saying ".. all elections are void because not everyone voted." You are incorrect. The analogy you use doesn't work. You are making an apples-oranges analogy. Only 1/3 of registered voters taking part in an election is not odd, unfortunately, and certainly doesn't invalidate an election. To choose not to choose is still to make a choice. What I said was that 27 of 81 COUNTIES then in existence reported NO FIGURES. Do you honestly believe that no one, not one person, in 1/3 of the counties in the state voted? You can't tell me that when 1/3 of the county totals aren't counted at all that it doesn't scream fraud. Especially when everyone of them just happened to be pro-union and were among the most populous. Sounds to me like the secessionists were afraid of an honest vote, afraid of popular sovereignty. Does this secessionist government sound like servants of ALL the people to you? Or just those who vote "correctly"?

I don't think the point is whether or not 1/3 of Texas counties vote not being tallied would change the outcome of the vote overall. The point is that the secessionists were NOT acting out of any concern for self-determination but quite simply fear of popular sovereignty. I haven't been able to find a single election in the history of this country that match those taken by several of the southern states, Texas included, in their "irregularities". We may never know just how many southerners were truly for secession.

I do have a question for you that may be a bit off the subject (Texas and union) but fits well here and may illuminate the subject at hand. How, in your mind, could the secessionists justify their action. Their property rights (i.e.slavery) were fully protected. The government of the U.S. was not denying them their way of life. The government did not attack them, on the contrary, they attacked the government and people that had bent over backwards to protect their "peculiar institution". I have studied this issue a great deal and my opinion is that they feared popular sovereignty. They feared the majority of people would act lawfully to end what the majority of people perceived as a moral wrong. The government did nothing to fascilitate this fear. As I stated, the government bent over backwards to guarantee the rights of the minority. Paranoia comes to mind or perhaps a persecution complex. It strikes me that if peaceful means were eventually resorted to in order to end slavery that the southern states would most likely been compensated for their "loss of property".

Let me now summarize the Texas and union issue as I see. I have presented as evidence 3 plebescites in which Texans directly acknowledged a desire for union with the U.S.(1836, 1845, 1876). I have presented as evidence 1 plebescite in which Texas did this for 154 years, a state of the United States of America.

Something else grabbed my attention in your last communication. I agreed with you that there certainly are faults in our system of government but that I believed that they were correctable by utilizing the system currently in place for the most part. You stated that the "...system cannot be fixed..". This brings a question into mind as to your organizations veracity and intellectual honesty. Have you tried? I see no evidence. Have you ever put up a candidate for office? Have you ever put up a legitimate petition for redress of greivance? Have you ever tried to get some sort of ballot issue instated? I personally don't know of any attempt your organization has made to alter what you see is wrong using the framework that is in place. And I don't mean challenging public officials to debate issues which are commonly accepted as settled (Texas and union for instance). And I don't mean filing lawsuits in "your" courts. Has your organization made any attempt to act within the commonly accepted democratic system here in Texas or the United States? A lack of such action would cast serious doubt on your motives, goals, organizational honesty, as well as the arguments your membership makes.

Thank you for your time and effort in this dialogue. I look forward to your response. Best wishes to you and yours.

Sincerely,

Carl Laning

Date: March 27, 1999

Mr. Laning: Greetings, and thank you for your letter of March 1, 1999.

It seems that the major points of your argument are the same as you have previously presented and I do understand what you are saying. Also, the fact that I have not directly addressed some of the points you have brought up does not mean that I acquiesce or agree. I am attempting to simplify our discussion and not be so lengthy with each exchange. I'm sure somewhere along the line we'll get it all said.

My major point, and you are correct in this, is the deception and lack of lawful procedure that HAS taken place regarding the whole matter. At the risk of being redundant I will attempt to state this once again, hopefully more clearly than before.

As you pointed out in your previous letter, there is a process outlined in the U.S. Constitution by which new states are ADMITTED to the union. You also stated this process was not necessary since Texas was already established as a political entity. I have been giving that a great deal of thought, and have concluded that I believe this statement to be incorrect.

The fact that Texas was already established as a political entity did not and does not relieve the U.S. Government of its responsibility to follow the Constitution, which is the law that the people set forth for it to follow. It is possible that our disagreement on this subject lies in different understandings of the Constitution of the United States and the powers of the federal government.

I contend that the government of the U.S. was given EXPLICIT instructions on how to operate and that they should not act outside those instructions. This is borne out by the wording of the 10^th amendment to the Constitution. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." I believe that this means that the U.S. Government was given ONLY those powers and authorities SPECIFICALLY written into the Constitution.

The United States did not follow its instructions for ADMITTING Texas as a State of the Union. As far as I know there is no historical evidence that there was ever even an attempt to ADMIT Texas as a state. To admit does not have the same meaning as to annex.

So what are the historical facts that exist regarding the joining of Texas to the U.S. as a state of the union?

1. In 1844 Secretary of State A. P. Upshur of the U.S. wrote a letter to Minister Van Zandt, suggesting that Texas propose a TREATY to be accepted by the U.S. Senate to accomplish joining the nation of Texas to the United States as a State of the Union. Upshur stated clearly that he considered a Treaty to be the proper form for an arrangement of this kind.
2. When a treaty was presented to the Senate for approval it was called a "Treaty of Annexation." Black's Law Dictionary's definition of annexation states "...the acquisition of territory or land by a nation, state or municipality;..." It defines acquisition as "The act of becoming the owner of certain property..." For the U.S. to become the OWNER of Texas would certainly not be the same thing as Texas becoming a State equal to the other States. However, the "Treaty of Annexation" was defeated in the Senate by a vote of 35 to 16. I believe that the use of the term annexation rather than admission is a major concern. It would mean that Texas "belongs" to the U.S., rather than being a state with standing equal to other states, if the "joining" process were valid.
3. With the Treaty having failed, those that would "take" Texas into U.S. possession employed another tactic. In 1845 the House introduced a "Resolution of Annexation." This simply means that what couldn't be done lawfully or properly would be done another way. The Legislators of the United States acted in a deceptive and fraudulent manner to take possession of Texas even though the treaty had been defeated.

As a point of clarification: The fact that the U.S. passed a resolution is not what was unlawful. They can pass a resolution stating anything they desire, since it only binds them. What is unlawful is passing this off as a lawful procedure to induce the people of both countries to accept the idea that Texas was properly added to the Union. This is a deception and constitutes fraud, which is unlawful in anyone's book. You may see this differently, but I believe that there were those in the government of the U.S. who KNEW that they were making an end run around their proper authority and were willing to use whatever process they could to accomplish their goal, lawful and proper or not.

In summary of our conclusion on this point, let me state emphatically - THE PROCESS OF GETTING TEXAS INTO THE UNITED STATES WAS FLAWED, WAS NOT LAWFUL, WAS NOT PROPER, AND WAS NOT DONE ACCORDING TO THE OPERATING GUIDELINES OF THE GOVERNMENT. This is why we make the statement "Texas was never lawfully joined to the United States."

Now, having restated that argument we can reach a simple conclusion. Bouvier's Law Dictionary, as a definition of fraud states: "2. Fraud voids a contract [agreement], ab initio, both at law and in equity, whether the object be to deceive the public, or third persons, or one party endeavor thereby to cheat the other." I'm sure you know that "ab initio" means "from the beginning." If one accepts that there was no proper process and the people were deceived by fraud, we can understand that even though there was a desire on the part of the people of Texas, and some in the United States, for Texas to be joined to the U.S., lawfully, it never got past the stage of "wanting to." If one does not accept the fact of a lack of lawful and proper process, that is their decision. It is my personal conviction that the process was flawed and was an intentional act of deception to accomplish a desired goal.

You are correct in stating that most of the people have acted for all these years as if Texas were a State of the Union. To disagree with that would be foolish. I understand how you can come to the conclusion that the various happenings in history validate Texas as part of the U.S. but I still disagree with this conclusion. I personally acted as if that were true for the major portion of my life until I began to study this issue. It is my position that the people acting while under deception does not overcome the fact that the process was flawed, and acting while under a deception does not validate the flaw that creates the deception. In other words, the historical facts to which you refer, from 1845 on, reflect what the people believed, not necessarily what they desired.

You referred to this deception by stating that you don't believe that the government is capable of keeping a secret that big for that long from everyone. I understand what you are saying here, but I have never contended that it was or is a secret. I believe that there are many who have understood and agreed with our position all through the years. There are many today who understand. Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating was recently quoted, while speaking of his favoring Bush, that "Texas is a country." I suppose that one could speculate on "what he really meant" but if you take his words at face value, it certainly appears that he believes what we consider to be the truth.

The deception has not been totally complete and affected EVERYONE, but MOST of the people have been deceived. Why? Have you seen our discussion published in the newspaper or reported on TV News? I'm sure you have no way of knowing the tremendous effort we have expended trying to get basic information on this matter into the media. They totally ignore us and continue with what we believe to be the deception. The only press the Republic of Texas gets is regarding former officers who have done something "sensational" or radical. Fortunately those people do not represent us, but the Public doesn't ever get that story, no matter how much we try.

People believe what the media tell them. I had a personal experience about 15 years ago, that began to awaken me to the true colors of some in the media. Two other men and myself had formed a company to sell a certain product to consumers. After several months of preparation and organization, we began to market our product. We used telemarketing to generate leads and appointments. The very first customer to purchase our product got cold feet when the salesman left her home. If she had contacted us we would have certainly returned her check. Instead she called a friend of hers who happened to be a professor at a college. He informed her almost immediately, with no investigation whatever, that this must be a scam, simply because he had not heard of it before.

They called a local TV station and reported the "scam" to them. Their "investigative reporters" put together a report to be aired on the 6:00 news on Friday. About 4 hours prior to the scheduled airing I got a message that they had called to get our side of the story and I called them immediately. I talked to the reporter for over an hour and he was absolutely convinced after our talk that what we were doing was NOT a scam. He told me that it was too late, though, because they had already prepared their report to be aired. To my utter disbelief they aired the report calling us "scam artists" and said that we had refused to talk to them. In short they not only reported INCORRECT information, they outright LIED and knew they were doing it.

What do you suppose most people who watched that report believed? They believed what the news report said. Obviously, they had no way of knowing the truth, because it wasn't presented.

My point is that most people - and I mean no disrespect to anyone - simply believe what is presented to them on the surface, without question. For example, Galileo is most famous for being the first scholar to put forth the idea that the earth was not the center of the universe, but revolved around the sun, and for his trouble he was jailed for a time, for heresy! Everyone KNEW the earth was the center of the universe!!

The point is simply this -- just because MOST of the people believe something to be true does not necessarily make it so.

It is quite evident that today most people don't take the time to really understand the law. Most don't have a clue as to what the Constitution says, since they've never read it. I was well into my life before I really read it for the first time. Why should we think that the people of Texas in 1836 or 1845 or 1865 or 1876 truly understood the law and the lawful way things should be done, any better than people do today? Most think that the Government IS the law and whatever it says must be right. Heaven help us!!

You have questioned, in your last paragraph, our veracity and intellectual honesty, because we believe that the current system is too corrupt to be changed. You asked several questions regarding what we have tried to do within the currently accepted system. No, we have not tried to put a candidate up for office. If we stand by our research, which shows that the "government" in place today is nothing more than a corporation, operating for profit and control and shouldn't be here at all, why would we want to be a part of it? You may not understand that, but it makes perfect sense to me. Yes, we have made legitimate petitions for redress of grievance, collectively and individually. All have been completely ignored. If we had not been ignored by government officials and the media, you would have seen evidence of this already.

I have a question regarding your concern about acting within the commonly-accepted democratic system. When did we change from a republican form of government to a democratic system?

Even though my major argument is concerning the flawed process used to make the world believe that Texas was part of the U.S., that certainly is not the entirety of the problem at this point. As I have stated continuously, the most serious problem we face today is the continual loss of our liberties.

For example, I have studied the laws that most believe "require" us to register vehicles and have a driver's license. The result of this study shows that there is no law that requires a natural individual, operating privately, to do any of the things that almost everyone believes we are required to do. The "law" is written so deceptively that a light reading would make a person believe that we are "required", but when you see the definitions, you find out that - once again - we are being deceived. A "motor vehicle" is defined in law as a vehicle engaged in transportation. Transportation is defined as a commercial activity done for hire. Passenger is defined as one who pays to be transported by another. In other words, if I give you a ride somewhere and charge you for it, I would be required to have a license and a registered vehicle. If you and I, on the other hand, are exercising our right to travel for private pleasure or private business (going to work), we are not required to have the permission of the state through licensing or registration. I, for one, do not engage in commercial activity, while traveling in my private automobile and I am not required [by law] to have a registered vehicle or a driver's license.

There are countless court decisions, from the Supreme Court on down, which validate this point. But people keep getting licenses and registering their vehicles and paying the extortion of traffic fines anyway, because they believe that it is the law.

Millions of people getting license and registration does not validate the presumption that there are laws which "require" it. It simply means that the average person does not have the time or inclination to study the law, learn the truth, and fight the issue. They simply believe what "everyone else believes." If you would like to see some of the research on this, please advise me and I will send it to you.

Another example of loss of freedom and property through deception is the federal income tax. Recently, a Special Agent of the Criminal Investigation Division of the IRS, a five year veteran, presented a 90 page report, the result of two years of investigation, to his superiors. The report concluded that:

1. there is no law that requires Americans to file tax returns or pay income tax;
2. the 16th amendment was never ratified, and
3. the U.S. doesn't operate on the money collected as "income tax."

What? Another deception? Yes, and a grand deception it is. A deception of epic proportions. The biggest scam and extortion scheme ever perpetrated! If you have never heard this before, or if you have never looked at the evidence, it does seem unbelievable.

Joseph Bannister, the special agent to whom I was referring, thought so too. In fact his research started so that he could disprove these very ideas and gently usher people back into the system. The problem, however, was that Mr. Bannister is a man of integrity who took his oath very seriously, and found that everything he had come to believe about the "income tax" was incorrect. When he presented his findings to his superiors, asking them to show him where he was wrong, he got a response. The response was, "We are not going to respond, you are immediately on administrative leave, and we will be glad to help you with the paperwork for your resignation."

If he was wrong, why didn't they just show him where he was wrong? He wasn't wrong and he did resign on February 26, 1999. The report [get it here] is now published for every American to read.

The fact that millions of Americans file 1040's and pay tax does not validate the existence of a law requiring them to do so, it merely validates the extent and the success of the deception.

How could deceptions of such magnitude exist? It's really quite simple. A government official issues information to the media that he wants disseminated. The reporters, not being lawyers and believing the official to be honest and knowledgeable, do not question the veracity of the information. They report what the official said. The people, being basically honest people, who believe that the media and the government are honest, believe the report. Parents tell their children "You must obey the law and do what the government has told us to do; you must get a driver's license, a social security number and pay income taxes. You must pay your fair share." Is a child to question the most prominent authority in his life? When my Dad told me these things I had no reason whatsoever to question whether he was right or wrong. I told my kids the same thing. I was wrong. We have all been wrong. We have all, with very few exceptions indeed, been deceived.

Mr. Laning, I ask you not to dismiss what is said here out of hand. Please consider the possibility. Ask yourself, What if this is right? Just begin with the possibility that there might be something to this. It is always a difficult prospect, when information that we have believed all our lives is challenged. It always seems unbelievable. But if we are to be truly intellectually honest, we must consider all the possibilities.

I have offered to send you a copy of Mr. Bannister's 90 page report. However, if you would take the time to access his web site and download the "preliminary report" you can see much of the information he has discovered (first 50 pages of the report). The web site is http://www.freedomabovefortune.com.

Once again, it is my position that the people acting while under deception does not overcome a flawed foundation, and acting while under a deception does not validate the flaw that creates the deception. With the information presented here, you may be able to understand better how I have come to be concerned about the deceptions perpetrated against the people. When looking at overwhelming evidence of how the people are being deceived today, its not a huge leap to see that they have been deceived in the past.

There are several things that you have not addressed from my communications also. In previous messages you asked me to give examples of some of the problems we have with things as they are. Subsequently I listed several problems and today I've repeated some. Somewhere along the line I would like to hear your comments on those.

One last thing for now. If you will notice, I have never questioned your intellectual honesty or integrity. You, on the other hand, have made remarks questioning our honesty and integrity in each of the letters you have written. I trust that you meant nothing derogatory or insulting, but I must say that if we were, in fact, lacking in intellectual honesty and integrity, I doubt seriously that this discussion would be taking place and I would like to suggest that we refrain from such comments.

I, too, appreciate the time you are devoting to this discussion and wish you well.

Sincerely,

Jesse Enloe, President
Provisional Government, Republic of Texas