Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 3:46 pm Post subject: Canadian democracy suspended by Governor General & PM
Canada's Governor General & PM shut down Parliament
Crisis as Canada's PM shuts down Parliament
Unprecedented move by Harper in attempt to hang on to power
Canada's Prime Minister Stephen Harper, center, arrives at Rideau Hall in Ottawa on Thursday to meet with Governor General Michaelle Jean.
updated 2:33 p.m. ET, Thurs., Dec. 4, 2008
OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper shut down Parliament on Thursday in an unprecedented attempt to keep his government in power, fending off a no-confidence vote he was all but certain to lose.
Less than two months after winning re-election, Harper successfully asked the unelected representative of the head of state for the authority to close down Parliament until Jan. 26, hoping to buy enough time to develop a stimulus package that could prop up the economy.
"Today's decision will give us an opportunity — I'm talking about all the parties — to focus on the economy and work together," Harper said after the private meeting.
Governor General Michaelle Jean, who represents Britain's Queen Elizabeth II as head of state, granted the unusual request to suspend parliament. Had she refused, Harper would have had two choices: step down or face a no-confidence vote Monday he was sure to lose.
Harper would not offer details on their conversation.
Three opposition parties united against Harper, charging he has failed to insulate Canada from the global financial crisis. The credit crisis and a global selloff of commodities have slowed Canada's resource-rich economy, and the finance minister said last week he expects a recession.
"For the first time in the history of Canada the prime minister is running away from the parliament of Canada," said Liberal leader Stephane Dion, who headed up the opposition movement against Harper.
He said the coalition would seek to oust Harper unless he makes a "monumental change" in dealing with the economy and the opposition.
Sad day for Canada
The opposition was also outraged by a government proposal to scrap public subsidies for political parties, something the opposition groups rely on more than the Conservatives. Although that proposal was withdrawn, the opposition has continued to seek Harper's ouster, saying he has lost the trust and confidence of Parliament.
Opposition New Democrat leader Jack Layton called it a sad day.
"He's trying to lock the door of Parliament so that the elected people cannot speak," Layton said. "He's trying to save his job."
Layton said the shutdown only delays Harper's inevitable defeat.
"You can run but you can't hide," said Liberal legislator Bob Rae, predicting the opposition would bring down Harper early next year over the budget.
Harper's Conservative Party was re-elected Oct. 14 with a strengthened minority government, but still must rely on the opposition to pass legislation.
The Liberals, New Democrats and Bloc Quebecois, which together control a majority of parliament's 308 seats, had signed a pact agreeing to vote this coming Monday to oust Harper and setting the structure for their proposed coalition government.
Unprecedented move
A governor general has never been asked to suspend parliament to delay an ouster vote when it was clear the government didn't have the confidence of a majority of legislators.
"There is no precedent whatsoever in Canada and probably in the Commonwealth," constitutional scholar and Queen's University political scientist Ned Franks said, referring to the organization of English-speaking nations. "We are in uncharted territory."
Nelson Wiseman, an associate professor at the University of Toronto, said he expected Harper to resign immediately had Jean turned him down.
"He's got no business asking for it," Wiseman said. "This is an obvious attempt to avoid and evade Parliament."
More on Stephen Harper
Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28053048/ _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:12 pm Post subject:
The PM was elected by Bilderberg so you can imagine who's pulling the strings behind this. Bilderberg provides the direct link to the financial crisis and the British Royal family.
Condi Rice meets Canadian Governor General Michaëlle Jean at her official residence, Rideau Hall.
Everybody wants to know who gave Michaëlle her orders?
Quote:
HARPER NEW BILDERBERG BOY
Bilderbergers Nervous About Canada's PM
By James P. Tucker Jr.
Bilderbergers are nervous about their host for this year's secret meeting near Ottawa, Canada.
But this is not the first time the new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been part of this elite group of secret world leaders. Harper was photographed at the 2003 meeting in Versailles, France.....
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/harper_new_bilderberg_boy.html
Solidarity with Canadian Republicans!!!!
Don't take orders from some archaic zombified emmisary from Windsor Castle.
Quote:
Canada Governor-General Michaelle Jean saves PM Stephen Harper from ousting
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24757346-2703,00.ht ml
THE unelected Governor-General of Canada agreed to order an unprecedented suspension of parliament yesterday to save the Conservative minority Government from almost certain defeat in a no-confidence vote.
Newly re-elected Prime Minister Stephen Harper persuaded Governor-General Michaelle Jean to shut the House of Commons until January 26, in a political storm that has echoes of Australia's constitutional crisis in 1975.
The decision by the Governor-General allows time for the Harper Government to draw up a budget that responds to the global financial crisis before facing a no-confidence vote sought by three Opposition parties. The Opposition Liberals and New Democratic Party joined the separatist Bloc Quebecois in trying to topple the Harper Government.
Following the intervention of the Governor-General, the Opposition parties yesterday vowed to oust the Government next month, but infighting among one of the parties cast doubt on whether the Opposition coalition would hold.
The Prime Minister, whose Conservative party won re-election just two months ago, said a budget would be the first order of business when parliament resumed. The credit crisis and a global sell-off of commodities have slowed Canada's resource-rich economy, and the Finance Minister said last week that he expected a recession.........
Boy! If I were Canadian I'd be angry about this! I hope there's plenty of criticism on this side of the pond for this fascistic decisio which will have been approved by HRHs Lizzie the Lacklustre and Philip the Unfair.
This report goes in depth into how and why this happened, sounds quite deliberate to me.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 2:32 am Post subject:
Harper runs a wrecking crew, not a government
by Frances Russell
Global Research, December 10, 2008
www.winnipegfreepress.com
The fear, loathing and demagoguery unleashed on Parliament Hill last week could create a dangerous constitutional precedent and cripple a necessary evolution in Canadian parliamentary democracy.
The nationwide hysteria whipped up by that fear, loathing and demagoguery may be dampened by the prorogation of Parliament until the end of January.
But at what price? An Ipsos Reid poll found that it left 75 per cent of Canadians "truly scared" for the future of their country. And a political scientist warns it gives future prime ministers the right to escape defeat on non-confidence motions simply by shutting down Parliament and locking its doors.
"Parliamentary democracy as it has been practised in Canada has been compromised," University of Toronto political scientist Nelson Wiseman says. "The precedent established means that under no conditions will the Governor General ever deny a prorogation to sitting prime ministers, no matter what the circumstances."
The Governor General grants prorogations by precedent. But every situation is fact-specific, he says.
This time there was a fact that had never existed before but it did not bear on her decision.
"We've never been in a situation where you've had a request for a prorogation and the Governor General was informed there was an alternative government that did have support of a majority of the members. In that context, I thought that it was reasonable for her to dismiss her first minister."
Wiseman has further fears. "You've basically debased the legislative branch and its checks on the executive branch. The whole idea of responsible government is that the executive is responsible to Parliament. (The prorogation) has given the executive more arbitrary control over Parliament. The government already controls the business of Parliament. Now the government controls the very existence of a session of Parliament."
Canada is divided linguistically and regionally, with multiple political parties and a parliamentary, not a presidential system. Coalition governments are becoming the only option to avoid political instability and multiple elections. Recent history proves the point. Since 2004, Canada has had three minority governments and three elections and may now be facing a fourth election and government in the new year.
But the hysteria whipped up by the fear, loathing and demagoguery of the past week has made it all but impossible for parties to attempt working arrangements, let alone coalitions, in the foreseeable future.
While coalition governments have been rare in Canada, experience around the world -- including in other Commonwealth countries -- proves they are hardly dangerous. The British tradition of two parties hasn't existed here since the early years of the last century.
For almost 100 years, Canada has had at least three parties. Now it has five. Not only are parliamentary majorities increasingly unlikely, but a minority party trying to operate as if it has a majority is indefensible.
What's to fear from a coalition, from involving more parties and perspectives in government? The greater the participation, the greater the expansion of democracy. More Canadians might even be encouraged to vote.
Engaging the sovereignist Bloc Québécois in supporting a federal coalition could bolster Canadian unity by re-engaging Quebec sovereigntists in Canada. "Separatist" is as inflammatory a label in Quebec as it is in English Canada, because many Québécois migrate back and forth across secessionist, nationalist and federalist lines.
Canadians do not elect a government, let alone a prime minister. They elect 308 MPs, who then choose the government and the prime minister. The government and the prime minister govern only so long as they retain the confidence of a majority of those 308 MPs. A party with a plurality of seats must negotiate and compromise with the opposition parties, not poke them in the eye with a sharp stick.
The Oct. 14 election gave the Tories 143 seats, 22 fewer than the 165 seats held by the combined opposition.
The Conservatives' deliberate demonization of the coalition as "socialists" and "separatists" as "treasonous" is the equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theatre. It is shameful. It is also dishonest.
The public record shows that Harper as opposition leader in 2004 did exactly what the Liberals and NDP did last week with exactly the same objective.
He undertook serious negotiations with the parties he now chooses to deride as "traitors" so that he could take office should the Liberal minority government fall.
Dust off his 2000 Alberta "firewall" letter. Harper runs a wrecking crew, not a government. Parliament's well is poisoned and separatist fires in Quebec and Alberta are stoked. Harper is prepared to use anything -- lies, vicious attack ads and even mob rule (Transport Minister John Baird boasting about "going over the heads of the Governor General and Parliament to the people" -- to get his way).
Peace, order and good government are out. Rage, ideology and raw power are in.
Frances Russell is a Winnipeg-based freelance journalist and author.
The federal police force in Canada is called the ROYAL Canadian Mounties...
Public lands are called CROWN lands...
Before a bill can become a law in Canada it must receive what's called a ROYAL Assent...
This language is not a quaint historical remnant.
When it really counts and the people behind the Queen of England don't like like what's going on in Canada (or in any other Commonwealth Realm), they can suspend Parliament and veto laws by simple decree of the Queen-appointed Governor General.
Welcome to the Commonwealth Realm, a group of "former" British colonies that think they are independent countries...until they do something that ruffles feathers back in London.
Does all this sound to far-fetched to be true in the 21st century?
Go to wikipedia and research terms like "Commonwealth realms", "monarchy of Canada" and "Governor General of Canada."
Hint: The real owners of Canada - and the other Commonwealth realms - are not the citizens of those countries, a reality that it obscured 99.9% of the time...unless of course, you look at a $20 bill.
Queen Elizabeth is not on there for "sentimental" reasons.
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Tue Dec 23, 2008 1:35 pm Post subject:
Could Canada be the first NATO zone country to be officially trying to boot out the 9/11 Lies in the political arena?
Libby Davies MP there has been pretty full on in attacking the present Masonic/Zionist/Bilderberg government over the issue.
Could that be why the parliament has been officially closed. Why so little fuss about the destruction of Canadian democracy????
Is the fact that one of the world's news sites, globalresearch.ca is also Canadian?
Quote:
While Mr. Cuzner said the trust was lost as soon as the government tabled the economic update with partisan attacks rather than an economic stimulus package, Mr. Comartin said for him it was the Conservatives' move to eliminate pay equity complaints at the Human Rights Commission. "It was listening to the finance minister slam the pay equity issue. I listened to him, watched his body language, the tone of his voice and the words he used," Mr. Comartin said. "For him to treat them [women] that way, that was the final straw for me. Everybody talks about the opposition snapping, that's when I snapped. I just said, 'These people cannot be allowed to govern this country.'"
http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_index.php?display=story&full_pat h=/2008/december/15/pm_reach_out/&c=1
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:34 pm Post subject:
Canadian Oligarch 'saved Canada by suspending parliament' or so she says.
Canadians should be 'realistic' about 2009, says governor general
The Canadian Press, OTTAWA
The governor general herself prevented the government's collapse by accepting a recommendation from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to prorogue Parliament..........
Quote:
Canadians should be 'realistic' about 2009, says governor general
5 hours ago
OTTAWA — There is every reason for Canadians to hope for a bright new year, but they should also be aware of the considerable challenges they face in 2009, says Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean.
Canada is not immune to the global recession, she says in her year-end message, and its inhabitants must be aware of what lies ahead. "Let us be realistic," she says in the pre-recorded message.
"The challenges are considerable and have caused a great deal of anxiety."
As part of her message, Jean also made a brief mention of the unprecedented political crisis that the country faced in late 2008 that saw the minority federal Conservative government reach the brink of collapse.
The Tories had faced a confidence vote they were sure to lose after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered an economic update in November that included a number of measures that soured the political atmosphere in Ottawa, but did not include stimulus for the economy that critics had demanded.
At the centre of the outrage over the statement was a plan to cut off taxpayer funding to political parties that could have bankrupted the Opposition.
The governor general herself prevented the government's collapse by accepting a recommendation from Prime Minister Stephen Harper to prorogue Parliament until late January.
Jean also lamented the escalating number of deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, which surpassed the 100 mark in early December.
Those deaths, along with the looming recession and political upheaval, have shown how important it is for everyone to work together to make the country and the world a better place, she said.
"What these recent events bring to light is how important it is for us to work together - nations, governments, societies, businesses, organizations, individuals, side-by-side," she said.
"The fend-for-yourself mentality has no place in an interdependent world, where the decisions of some have a profound impact on the lives of others."
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Mon Dec 29, 2008 3:45 pm Post subject:
Quote:
.......We do not elect a prime minister; that is the United States; they elect a president. We elect a parliament, and then the Governor General appoints the prime minister from the majority in parliament. In the present situation, that means the Liberal/NDP/BQ coalition.
Harper does not have a majority of seats in parliament, nor did he get a majority of the total vote. If he cannot form a coalition with at least one other party, he has no right to govern. That is how it works in every country in the world which uses a parliamentary system of democratic government...........
Racoon is the nom-de-plume
of an Alberta born life long trouble maker and useless eater now living
on a disability pension in central Toronto.
Posted: Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:03 am Post subject: Harper is Despised in Canada
I am from Canada, and nobody could believe what had happened when Harper closed down parliament. I think one critic said it was akin to when Hitler closed down Germany's respective body of Government.
Harper is despised here. When you think about it, it's pretty pathetic having to go whine to the queen about losing.
Anyway, all this started decades ago when Mike Harris pretty well destroyed Ontario's social support system and ignored the pleas from the poor, who were mostly women and their children. We still have 1 in 6 children living in poverty in Canada; something that the government said they would do something about years ago and hasn't. I have a relative who taught Mike Harris's developmentally delayed son. I was surprised to hear he had one considering it was never brought up in the news. In addition, Mike Harris hated teachers, although he had also been a teacher himself. When he was having the affair with his secretary, his wife found out and probably threatened to leave him. He then started totally reconstructing the social net in Ontario. It was completely insane. He made divorced or single mothers on social assistance start having to declare their income every single month on a form that had abbreviations such as IRS and CIA on it. Of course it didn't involve the real IRS or CIA but it served as a reminder to the mothers that big brother was there. He set up a fraud hotline for anyone (usually angered landlords) to call if they believed the mother was committing welfare fraud. Harris cut welfare to amounts that could not sustain a family, ei. $500 shelter costs for a family of 3. If the mother complained to Social Assistance about not being able to meet bills such as electricity, then Social Assistance called in The Children's Aid Society, who threatened to take her children away. Harper is another buddy of Harris, and the Conservatives should not be in power, but they are. The reason why they closed parliament is because other parties such as the Liberals and the NDP were planning on a coalition, which would surely topple the Conservatives from power. I find it interesting that parliament was suspended until after Obama was inaugerated.
Shows that through TV and Media people are easily fooled into believing they have democracy. _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2009 7:40 pm Post subject: No surprise now
I am no longer surprised that parliament was suspended until after Obama's inauguration because I just read that the Coalition would have protected any refuge from militarism.
The US soldier seeking refuge here, Teske, was ordered by a judge in Vancouver to be deported from Canada on January 19th - the day before the inauguration and 7 days before parliament reopens. What does this mean? It means a precedent has been set. Harper is the last iraq supporter and what the judge did sealed it. It will be very difficult for the Coalition to change the precedent of this ruling. Not to mention the effects on the public when the other US soldiers currently seeking refuge have to go back. Keywords to think about: Martial law and North American Union
Joined: 25 Jul 2005 Posts: 18335 Location: St. Pauls, Bristol, England
Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2009 1:02 am Post subject: Canada parliament prepares to resume
Canada parliament prepares to resume
Election concerns revive as Canada parliament prepares to resume
www.chinaview.cn 2009-01-23 04:16:20
by Xinhua writer Zhao Qing
OTTAWA, Jan. 22 (Xinhua) -- As Canada's parliament prepares to resume next week after a 55-day suspension, concerns have reemerged among the Canadians as to how long the minority Conservative government will remain in power.
An imminent election is still possible as the government faces the risk of getting toppled over its budget early next month. The Canadians will then have to go to the polls again, the fourth time in a short span of just four years.
ECONOMY REMAINS CORE DISPUTE
The issue at the core of partisan disputes is the economy, which almost cost the Conservative Party its ruling status in December. The oppositions threatened to topple Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government and replace it with a coalition, and Harper had to resort to suspension of the parliament to avoid being defeated by a non-confidence motion back then.
Harper has promised to consult the oppositions' advice and fulfill their demands of tabling a detailed stimulus package in the federal budget, which will be presented one day after Parliament resumes on Jan. 26 and go to a Parliament confidence vote a few days later.
While both sides acknowledge the necessity and urgency of saving the economy, disputes remain on how to save it. Two of the three opposition parties, the Bloc Quebecois and the New Democratic Party (NDP), have indicated to reject the budget in any case, while the third one, the official opposition Liberal Party, insists on defeating the budget if finding it not satisfactory.
Therefore, whether there will be an election or not is largely decided by the Liberal Party, the only opposition with the potential to rule, as only the combined votes of all three oppositions can topple the government........
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-01/23/content_10705033.htm _________________ www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org www.rethink911.org www.patriotsquestion911.com www.actorsandartistsfor911truth.org www.mediafor911truth.org www.pilotsfor911truth.org www.mp911truth.org www.ae911truth.org www.rl911truth.org www.stj911.org www.v911t.org www.thisweek.org.uk www.abolishwar.org.uk www.elementary.org.uk www.radio4all.net/index.php/contributor/2149 http://utangente.free.fr/2003/media2003.pdf
"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
https://37.220.108.147/members/www.bilderberg.org/phpBB2/
The Queen Owns 'Personally' 6.66 Billion Acres, 1/6 of the Earth's Surface
“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.”
Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres of land, one sixth of the earth’s non ocean surface.
She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory. This land ownership is separate from her role as head of state and is different from other monarchies where no such claim is made – Norway, Belgium, Denmark etc.
The value of her land holding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx).
This makes her the richest individual on earth. However, there is no way easily to value her real estate. There is no current market in the land of entire countries. At a rough estimate of $5,000 an acre, and based on the sale of Alaska to the USA by the Tsar, and of Louisiana to the USA by France, the Queen’s land holding is worth a notional $33,000,000,000,000 (Thirty three trillion dollars or about £17,600,000,000,000). Her holding is based on the laws of the countries she owns and her land title is valid in all the countries she owns. Her main holdings are Canada, the 2nd largest country on earth, with 2,467 million acres, Australia, the 7th largest country on earth with 1,900 million acres, the Papua New Guinea with114 million acres, New Zealand with 66 million acres and the UK with 60 million acres.
She is the world’s largest landowner by a significant margin. The next largest landowner is the Russian state, with an overall ownership of 4,219 million acres, and a direct ownership comparable with the Queen’s land holding of 2,447 million acres. The 3rd largest landowner is the Chinese state, which claims all of Chinese land, about 2,365 million acres. The 4th largest landowner on earth is the Federal Government of the United States, which owns about one third of the land of the USA, 760 million acres. The fifth largest landowner on earth is the King of Saudi Arabia with 553 million acres
Largest five personal landowners on Earh
Queen Elizabeth II 6,600 million acres
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 553 million acres
King Bhumibol of Thailand 126 million acres
King Mohammed IV of Morocco 113 million acres
Sultan Quaboos of Oman 76 million acres
“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” - Google Search
1. MINA Breaking News - Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth
"Internet News Agency with daily news from Macedonia, the Balkans and Around the world. Information on Health, Economy, Politics, Environment, Sports."
macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6280/53/
2. MINA Breaking News - MAT, JAT sign agreement on debt payment
"Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth · Somali pirates hijack U.S. ship with 20 aboard. Odd News. German motorist has three accidents in 1 hour ..."
macedoniaonline.eu/content/view/6287/1/
3. Who Owns the World » Largest Landowner
"“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, ..."
www.whoownstheworld.com/about-the-book/largest-landowner/
4. “Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.”
"Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.”"
iraqwar.mirror-world.ru/article/194293
5. Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth
"Discussion about Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth at the GodlikeProductions Conspiracy Forum. Our topics include Conspiracy ..."
www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message766535/pg1
6. “Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” - Wu-Tang ...
"Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” Know The Ledge."
www.wutang-corp.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1542519
7. Who Owns the World? “Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on ...
"“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” | Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, ..."
www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/8aeow/who_owns_the_world_queen_el izabeth_ii_the_largest/.mobile
8. Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth - alt.conspiracy ...
"hotmail.com (-). Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:22:47 GMT. Local: Fri, Apr 10 2009 11 :22 am. Subject: Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth ..."
groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy/browse_thread/thread/1efa026b11 5807dc
9. Newsalert: Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth
"Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth · Who Owns the World. Posted by Steve Bartin. Bookmark and Share. at 8:16 AM · Older Post Home ..."
nalert.blogspot.com/2009/04/queen-elizabeth-ii-largest-landowner-on.ht ml
10. Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth
""
www.einnews.com/news.php?wid=223111137
11. FIREFLYFANS.NET
"Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and ..."
fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=37718
12. Revelations - It's Happening Forums
"Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, ..."
wincoast.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1439248
13. War Without End :: View topic - Common Purpose NWO Fifth Column ...
"Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth. Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and ..."
www.itszone.co.uk/zone0/viewtopic.php?t=93689&start=10&sid=98c0df0d8fc 0db76ed19be72c648f858
14. NEW EARTH SUMMIT - NWO and Powers That Be
"“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and ..."
newearthsummit.org/forum/index.php?topic=574.msg4044
15. royalty - Plymouth News - iHerald Message Board - The voice of ...
"“Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of 31 other states and territories, ..."
community.thisisplymouth.co.uk/service/displayDiscussionThreads.kickAc tion?as=72100&w=191411&d=185691
16. Free Iraq: Baghdad - City of Walls
"Who Owns the World: Largest Landowner: “Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” Queen Elizabeth II, head of state of the United Kingdom and of ..."
abutamam.blogspot.com/2009/04/baghdad-city-of-walls.html
17. Twitter / nobuko saito: Queen Elizabeth II the lar ...
"Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth http://www.whoownstheworld.... about 1 hour ago from web. Mypicture_bigger · NOBUkosaito. nobuko saito ..."
twitter.com/nobukosaito/statuses/1461740011
18. Twitter / nobuko saito: Queen Elizabeth II the lar ...
"Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth http://www.whoownstheworld.... about 2 hours ago from web. Mypicture_bigger · NOBUkosaito. nobuko saito ..."
twitter.com/NOBUkosaito/status/1461740011
19. who owns the world? - Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums
"who owns the world?, “Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” Options V. The Silver Thong · View Member Profile ..."
www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=151122&st=30&s tart=30
20. who owns the world? - Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums
"who owns the world?, “Queen Elizabeth II the largest landowner on Earth.” Options V. expandmymind · View Member Profile. post ..."
www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=151122&st=45&s tart=45 _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows:
S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security ( United States of America) Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997. At the Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her Majesty an pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is please, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:
"This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997."
Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice stating in court that he takes his orders from England? This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law.
Remember, King George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America." See: Treaty of Peace (1738) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large. Great Britain which is the agent for the Pope, is in charge of the USA 'plantation.'
What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers and King George were working hand-n-hand to bring the people of America to there knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)
Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.
On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. Is this not incredible the King funded both sides of the War. But there was more work that needed to be done. Now the Articles of Confederation which was declared in force March 1, 1781 States in Article 12 " All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed,and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."
Now after losing the Revolutionary War, even though the War was nothing more than a move to turn the people into debtors for the King, they were not done yet.
Now the loans were coming due and so a meeting was convened in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the economic instability of the country under the Articles of Confederation. Only five States come to the meeting, but there is a call for another meeting to take place in Philadelphia the following year with the express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation
On February 21, 1787 Congress gave approval of the meeting to take place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of confederation. Something had to be done about the mounting debt. Little did the people know that the so called founding fathers were acutely going to reorganize the United States because it was Bankrupt.
On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve the Constitution. The States have now become Constitutors. Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote On August 4th, 1790 an Act was passed which was Titled.-An Act making provision for the payment of the Debt of the United States. This can be found at 1 U.S. Statutes at Large pages 138-178. This Act for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don't believe it look it up. The Act set up Federal Districts, here in Pennsylvania we got two. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments which most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional identity and it is synonymous with subject.
What you think is a state is in reality a corporation, in other words, a Person.
"Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Person." 9 F. Supp 272 "Word "person" does not include state. 12 Op Atty Gen 176.
There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction.
Now before we go any further let us examine a few things in the Constitution.
Article six section one keeps the loans from the King valid it states; All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this constitution, as under the Confederation.
Another interesting tidbit can be found at Article One Section Eight clause Two which states that Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. This was needed so the United States (Which went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money and then because the States were a party to the Constitution they would also be liable for it.
The next underhanded move was the creation of The United States Bank in 1791. This was a private Bank of which there were 25,000 shares issued of which 18,000 were held by those in England. The Bank loaned the United States money in exchange for Securities of the United States
Now the creditors of the United States which included the King wanted paid the Interest on the loans that were given to the United States. So Alexander Hamilton came up with the great idea of taxing alcohol.The people resisted so George Washington sent out the militia to collect the tax which they did. This has become known as the Whiskey rebellion. It is the Militia's duty to collect taxes. How did the United States collect taxes off of the people if the people are not a party to the Constitution? I'll tell you how. The people are slaves! The United States belongs to the floundering fathers and their posterity and Great Britain. America is nothing more than a Plantation. It always has been. How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells him he can't. It is because you are not a party to it. We are SLAVES!!!!!!! If you don't believe read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah.
14 Georgia 438, 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."
Now back to the Militia. Just read Article One Section Eight clause (15) which states that it is the militia's job to execute the laws of the Union. Now read Clause (16) Which states that Congress has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States.... the Militia is not there to protect you and me, it is their to collect our substance.
As you can plainly see all the Constitution did is set up a Military Government to guard the King's commerce and make us slaves.
If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large 116-132 you will find "The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation. This Treaty was signed on November 19th, 1794 which was twelve years after the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states that the King's Troops were still occupying the United States. Being the nice King that he was , he decided that the troops would return to England by June 1st, 1796. The troops were still on American soil because, quite frankly the King wanted them here.
Here is the key to were this started:
Many people tend to blame the Jews for our problems. Jewish Law governs the entire world, as found in Jewish Law by MENACHEM ELON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL, to wit:
"Everything in the Babylonian Talmud is binding on all Israel. Every town and country must follow all customs, give effect to the decrees, and carry out the enactment's of the Talmudic sages, because the entire Jewish people accepted everything contained in Talmud. The sages who adopted the enactment's and decrees, instituted the practices, rendered the decisions, and derived the laws, constituted all or most of the Sages of Israel. It is they who received the tradition of the fundamentals of the entire Torah in unbroken succession going back to Moses, our teacher."
We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon. As written in the subject Index, Mammon is defined as ("Civil law and procedure").
Now turn to the "The Shetars Effect on English Law" -- A Law of the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land, found in "The George Town Law Journal, Vol 71: pages 1179-1200." It is clearly stated in the Law Review that the Jews are the property of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings. It also explains that the Talmud is the law of the land. It explains how the Babylonian Talmud became the law of the land, which is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. The written credit agreement -- the Jewish shetar is a lien on all property (realty) and today it's called the mortgage! The treatise also explains that the Jews are owned by Great Britain and the Jews are in charge of the Baking system.
We are living under the Babylonian Talmud, it is were all of our problems come from. It was brought into England in 1066 and has been enforced by the Pope, Kings and the Christian churches ever since. It is total and relentless mind control, people are taught to believe in things that do not exist.
Now before you scream that the UCC is unconstitutional I'm sorry people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520
You have to understand that Great Britain,(Article six Section one) the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution not you. Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why ? Bec
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Sworn Oath- The Oath Of Allegiance To The Queen Of Canada [HQ]
"The oath to the Queen is fundamental to the administration of the law in this country. It signifies that, here in Canada... justice is done – not in the name of the Prime Minister, or the Mayor, or the Police Chief, as in totalitarian nations – but by the people, in t...he NAME of the Queen. The Queen Of Canada! The Oath of Allegiance was implemented to secure the supremacy of the reigning monarch of Canada.. The Queen is the Queen OF Canada; more importantly, what the Queen does is CARRY THE CROWN. The Crown is another thing entirely than just the Queen. There is no provision in Canadian law requiring that the King or Queen of Canada must be the same person as the King or Queen of the United Kingdom. The Idea of dumping the Canadian Monarchy and The Queen Herself is just what Elizabeth II and her globalist friends want! They need to dismantle Canada's Crown before an North American Union or World Government could advance any further. The Queen of Canada is an impediment!
Length:9:58 _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
The NSW Coat of Arms (The State Arms),
granted in 1906
The Royal Coat of Arms used in England and Wales,
and in NSW until 2004 (The Royal Arms)
Quote:
Heritage Council roles and responsibilities
In NSW there have been recent legislative changes that impact on how we display our official symbols and emblems. The State Arms, Symbols and Emblems Act 2004 requires all Royal Coats of Arms to be replaced by the State Coat of Arms or a State symbol where they are used for any official purpose. All Royal Coats of Arms in state-owned buildings (including courthouses, parliament, and government offices) are to be replaced by the State Coat of Arms "as soon as practicable", and all Royal Coats of Arms on seals, documents or other objects are to be replaced by the State Coat of Arms within three years.
The Heritage Council has responsibilities under the new legislation so that significant coats of arms are conserved. The Heritage Council can advise the Premier when it considers a Royal Coat of Arms to be part of our heritage.
The directive to replace all Royal Coats of Arms does not apply when the Premier, after consultation with the Heritage Council, determines that the Royal Coat of Arms "form an integral part of an item of environmental heritage of the State". However, if the building or place continues to be used for official purposes, the State Coat of Arms must be displayed "in a prominent position" along with the Royal Coat of Arms.
If Royal Coats of Arms are removed (this refers to those coats of arms in any durable form such as sculpted, carved, etc) they should be housed in such a manner as the Premier, after consultation with the Heritage Council, may direct. The Heritage Council has 60 days to provide any such advice to the Premier once requested. In practice, this means that removed coats of arms are to be appropriately conserved, interpreted and displayed as "part of the constitutional, legal, cultural and artistic heritage of the State".
The Heritage Council's State Heritage Management Guide pdf http://www.heritage.nsw.gov.au/03_index.htm#stateagency contains requirements for the identification and management of official coats of arms under the care, control or management of a atate agency.
_________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
Eh can this be verified or is it lies like half the rest of the site?
Queen E-lizard-beth Has Amended U.S. Social Security
As Follows: - S.I. 1997 NO.1778 -
(The Social Security United States of America Order 1997
made 22nd of July 1997) coming into force the 1st of Sept. 1997.
http://hardtruth.navhost.com/sslies.html
Queen E-lizard-beth Has Amended U.S. Social Security As Follows:
S.I. 1997 NO.1778 (The Social Security United States of America Order 1997 made 22nd of July 1997) coming into force the 1st of September 1997. At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her Majesty in pursuance of section 179 (a) and
(2) of the Social Security Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows: "This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997."
Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice stating in court that he takes his orders from England? This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law.
Remember, King George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States of America." See Treaty of Peace (1738) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large. Great Britain, which is the agent for the Pope, is in charge of the USA 'plantation.' What people do not know is that the so-called "Founding Fathers" and King George were working hand-in-hand to bring the people of America to their knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off, you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war.
See Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15).
Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England. He was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace (1738) *U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.
On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received, dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money, which is due January 1, 1788 from King George, via France. Is this not incredible that the King funded "both sides" of the War! But there was more work that needed to be done. Now the Articles of Confederation, which were declared in force March 1, 1781 states in Article 12 "All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction, whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."
After losing the Revolutionary War, even though the war was nothing more than a move to turn the people into debtors for the King, they were not done yet.
The loans were coming due, so a meeting was convened in Annapolis, Maryland to discuss the economic instability of the country, under the Articles of Confederation. Only five States came to the meeting, but there is a call for another meeting to take place in Philadelphia the following year, with the express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation.
On February 21, 1787 Congress gave approval of the meeting to take place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of Confederation.
Something had to be done about the mounting debt. Little did the people know that the so-called "founding fathers" were acutely going to reorganize the United States, because it was bankrupt!
On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approved the Constitution. The States have now become Constitutors. Constitutor In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed. The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not because they were not a party to the Constitution because it was never put to them for a vote. On August 4th, 1790 an Act was passed which was titled - An Act making provision for the payment of the Debt of the United States. This can be found at 1 U.S. Statutes at Large, pages 138-178. This Act, for all intents and purposes, abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don't believe it, look it up. The Act set up Federal Districts. Here in Pennsylvania, we have two. In this Act, each District was assigned a portion of the debt.
The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments, which most did in 1790. This had to be done because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote, thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided and ipso facto a citizen of the United States.
A citizen is a member of a fictional entity and it is synonymous with subject. What you think is a state is in reality a corporation. In other words, a Person. "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Person." 9 F. Supp 272". The Word "person" does not include state. 12 Op Atty Gen 176.
There Are No States - Just Corporations.
All Corporations Are Fictitious Entities.
They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property, and give our children to a fiction.
Before we go any further let us examine a few things in the Constitution:
Article Six, Section One keeps the loans from the King valid. It states; "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
Another interesting tidbit can be found at Article One, Section Eight, Clause Two, which states that "Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States." This was needed so the United States (which went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money, and then because the States were a party to the Constitution, they would also be liable for it.
The next underhanded move was the creation of The United States Bank in 1791. This was a private Bank (just like the Federal Reserve Bank) of which there were 25,000 shares issued, of which 18,000 were held by those in England. The Bank loaned the United States money in exchange for Securities of the United States.
Now the creditors of the United States, which included the King, wanted to be paid the Interest on the loans that were given to the United States. So Alexander Hamilton came up with the great idea of taxing alcohol. The people resisted, so George Washington sent out the militia to collect the tax, which they did. This has become known as the Whiskey Rebellion.
It is the Militia's duty to collect taxes. How did the United States collect taxes off of the people, if the people are not a party to the Constitution?
I'll tell you how. The people are slaves!! The United States belongs to the founding (floundering) fathers and their posterity and Great Britain!
America is nothing more than a Plantation. It always has been. How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and the Judge tells him that he can't. It is because you are not a party to it.
We are SLAVES!!! If you don't believe it, read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438, 520, which states "But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it."
Now back to the Militia. Just read Article One, Section Eight, Clause 15, which states that it is the militia's job to execute the laws of the Union.
Now read Clause 16, which states that Congress has the power to provide for "organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States." The Militia is not there to protect you and me. It is there to collect our substance.
As you can plainly see, all the Constitution did is set up a Military Government to guard the King's commerce and make us slaves.
If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large, 116-132, you will find "The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation." This Treaty was signed on November 19th, 1794, which was twelve years *after* the War. Article 2 of the Treaty states that the King's Troops were still occupying the United States. Being the nice King that he was, he decided that the troops would return to England by June 1st, 1796. The troops were still on American soil, because quite frankly, the King wanted them here. Here is the key to were this started. Many people tend to blame the Jews for our problems. Jewish Law governs the entire world, as found in Jewish Law, by MENACHEM ELON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL. To wit, "Everything in the Babylonian Talmud is binding on all Israel." Every town and country must follow all customs, give effect to the decrees and carry out the enactments of the Talmudic sages, because the entire Jewish people accepted everything contained in Talmud. The sages who adopted the enactments and decrees, instituted the practices, rendered the decisions and derived the laws constituted all or most of the Sages of Israel.
It is they who received the tradition of the fundamentals of the entire Torah in unbroken succession, going back to Moses, our teacher."
We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon.
Mammon is defined as "Civil Law and Procedure".
Turn to the "The Shetars Effect on English Law" -- A Law of the Jews Becomes the Law of the Land, found in "The Georgetown Law Journal, Vol 71, pages 1179-1200." It is clearly stated in the Law Review that the Jews are the property of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings. It also explains that the Talmud is the law of the land. It explains how the Babylonian Talmud became the law of the land, which is now known as the "Uniform Commercial Code" (UCC).
The written credit agreement -- the Jewish Shetar -- is a lien on all property (realty) and today it's called the mortgage! The treatise also explains that the Jews are owned by Great Britain and the Jews are in charge of the Banking system.
We are living under the Babylonian Talmud. It is where all of our problems come from. It was brought into England in 1066 and has been enforced by the Pope, Kings and the Christian churches ever since. It is total and relentless mind control. People are taught to believe in things that do not exist. Now before you scream that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) is unconstitutional, I'm sorry but you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cited below.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." -- Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520.
You have to understand that Great Britain, (Article Six, Section One) the United States, and the States are the parties to the Constitution, not you.
Let me try to explain. If I buy an automobile from a man and that automobile has a warranty and the engine blows up the first day, I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract.
The court then says case dismissed. Why? Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to contract (Constitution) that you are not a party to. You better accept the fact that you are a "Slave". When you try to use the Constitution, you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to.
Then, to make matters worse, you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere "user of your Masters property"! Here are just a couple of examples:
"The primary control and custody of an infant is with the government" -- Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62
"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties - the husband, the wife, and the state" -- Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State. Individual so-called *ownership* is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State." -- Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st Session (Brown v. Welch supra).
You own no Property because you are a slave.
Really, you are worse off than a slave, because you are also a debtor.
"The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government." -- Wynehamer v. The People. 13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481.
Great Britain, to this day, collects taxes from the American people. The IRS is not an Agency of the United States Government. All taxpayers have an Individual Master File, which is in code. By using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid.
Most taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in 6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K.
The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, IRPTA-Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account. The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. The OMB's-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, is where form 8288 is found under OMB number 1545-0902, which says "U.S. withholding tax return for dispositions by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a.
These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn't it INCREDIBLE that a 1040 form is a payment of a tax to the U.K.!! Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the law that makes one liable for the so-called "Income Tax", but it is not in there because it is not a Tax. It is a debt collection through a private contract called the Constitution of the United States, Article Six, Section One and various agreements. Is a cow paying an income tax when the machine gets connected to its udders? The answer is no. I have never known a cow that owns property or has been compensated for its labor.
You own nothing that your labor has ever produced. You don't even own your labor or yourself. Your labor is measured in current credit money. You are allowed to retain a small portion of your labor so that you can have food, clothing, shelter, and most of all, breed more slaves. Did you ever notice how many of the other slaves get upset if you try to retain your labor. You are called an extremist, terrorist, and sometimes even a freeman. They say that you are anti-government.
The truth of the matter is you just don't want to be a slave!! But, you do not have the right to force others to be free, if they want to be a slave. That is entirely up to them. If they want to bow down and worship corporations, let them!
The United States, Great Britain and the Pope are not the problem. It is the other slaves. We would be free if the "want-to-be-slaves" were gone. The United States, Great Britain and the Pope would not even exist, because no one would acknowledge them. I, for a matter of fact, think that those who are in power are also tired of the slaves. All the slaves do is stand around and "MOO" For free health care, free education, free housing, and they beg those who are in power to disarm them. I do agree that a slave should not have access to a firearm. How can you disagree with the government passing out birth control? I hope the breeding of slaves stops, or at the very least, slows down.
You see - we are cows - the IRS is the company who milks the cows - the United States Inc. is the veterinarian who takes care of the herd - and Great Britain is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the Pope.
Now to Rome.
"Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience, which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations." Article (3) Treaty of Varona (1822)
If the Sovereign Pontiff should, nevertheless, insist on his law being observed, he must be obeyed (Bened. XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844). Pontifical laws moreover, become obligatory, without being accepted or confirmed by secular rulers. Syllabus, prop. 28, 29, 44.
Hence, the jus nationale, (Federal Law) or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign Pontiff (Elements of Ecclesiastical Law. Vol. I 53-54). So could this be shown that the Pope rules the world?
The Pope is the ultimate owner of everything in the World (See Treaty of 1213, Papal Bull of 1455 and 1492).
I could go on and on. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Don't let this information scare you, because without it you cannot be free. You have to understand that all slavery and freedom originates in the mind. When your mind allows you to accept and understand that the United States, Great Britain and the Vatican are corporations, which are nothing but fictional entities which have been placed into your mind, you will understand that your slavery was a result of you believing these lies. _________________ 'Come and see the violence inherent in the system.
Help, help, I'm being repressed!'
“The more you tighten your grip, the more Star Systems will slip through your fingers.”
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
