"All the world's a stage we pass through." - R. Ayana

Friday, August 31, 2012

The Old World Order

The Old World Order

http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac23/benfranklinronzio/Traitors%20Tyrants/154414_1482393784577_1375800934_31101378_1188240_n.jpg


We resist two groups - the Old World Order and the group that stands behind them. For the time being, we shall say nothing more about the organisation that hides behind the curtain. The Old World Order are dupes, but they are unaware of it. Their game is the oldest one of all - power. How to get it and how to maintain it. These are the key points about the OWO:

1) The OWO is a global network of dynastic families.

2) Their mission is to maintain the power and wealth of their dynasties in perpetuity.

3) Others are admitted to the charmed circle only if they can assist the interests of the OWO.

4) The OWO do not care about the welfare of ordinary citizens. Ordinary people simply do not show up on their radar as long as they go about their humdrum lives in the expected way.

5) The OWO have no plans to build concentration camps, or slave encampments or anything else. Such measures would consume vast resources, create unnecessary trouble and serve no useful function. The OWO can sedate the people by use of TV, Hollywood, computer games, porn, music, alcohol, recreational drugs, sport etc. All of these diversions ensure that the people will never rise up. While mindless mass entertainment exists, the OWO need no concentration camps to control the people.

6) The Bush family is the quintessence of the OWO. Father and son belonged to Yale's Skull and Bones secret society and both became presidents. Another son is a former Governor of Florida and a potential future president. How can one family in a so-called democracy have achieved this degree of power?

7) The Bush family illustrates the workings of the OWO perfectly: very rich, very powerful, very connected, and likely to bestride the American political scene for generations.

8) The OWO do not obsessively control every aspect of life. What they do is take active steps to massively increase the likelihood that they and theirs will have vastly better chances in life than anyone else. George Bush, with his limited abilities, would have achieved nothing significant in life were his name not Bush. Yet because that is his name, he is an American president. The OWO always put family above talent. This is practically enshrined as an American principle, and enjoys huge popular support, yet its inevitable consequence is that it creates unmeritocratic family dynasties that endure for millennia - you can be certain the Bush family will be such a dynasty.

9) Most people are familiar with America's great dynastic families: they are associated with oil, banking, entertainment, media, military, the intelligence services and politics.

10) The OWO are international. American dynastic patriarchs have much more in common with Russian oligarchs than they do with ordinary Americans.

11) The Old World Order's models are the Roman Empire at the time of Augustus Caesar, and the English monarchy at the time of Henry VIII.

12) The OWO are advocates of dynastic rule. Look at America: George Bush, father and son - both American presidents; the Kennedys - could have been in power for decades had they not broken the rules of the OWO and paid the price; the Clintons - husband was president and wife still could be. Daughter might be in the future. Dynastic presidencies have become de rigueur in modern America. How did this come about? By accident or design?

13) The Roman Emperors advocated "Panem et circenses" - bread and circuses. As long as citizens have fast food and cheap entertainment to pacify them, they will not cause serious trouble. Revolutions occur when the ordinary people are starving and have nothing to distract them from their suffering. Can a revolution be launched in the absence of these factors?

14) The Romans had a patrician class (the wealthy and powerful) and a plebeian class (the ordinary people). Isn't it the same in America? The super rich, the Ivy League brigade, spoiled heiresses, the political, media, military, business, banking and legal elites. They are the American patrician class. Everyone else is a plebeian.

15) Roman gladiators were worshipped by the plebeians. What do the Americans have? - super-celebrities from Hollywood, TV, rock 'n' roll and sport, worshipped by legions of American plebeians.

16) In Ancient Rome, artists and intellectuals were a joke. They were usually Greek slaves. Look at artists and intellectuals in America. They are not at the forefront of the national consciousness. The OWO despise intelligence amongst plebeians and do their utmost to ensure that plebeians are poorly educated. They advocate and encourage 'dumbing down'.

17) The Roman Empire was founded on slavery. So was America. The ordinary American people are still slaves. The only difference is that the oppression they suffer is not overt.

18) Look at the British Royal family. The Queen refers to the British people as her 'subjects'. She can't be removed as head of state. Her crown, her status, her wealth and power will be transmitted to her son. No one else is eligible. Merit in Britain is effectively illegal since the head of state is never at any stage subjected to any meritocratic criterion. Britain remains one of the most class divided societies in the world.

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/aa-Dees-Bohemian-Grove.jpg 

19) Look at British politicians. Tony Blair, from a highly privileged background, was a recent prime minister, and now his children are being groomed to follow in his footsteps. The leader of the British Conservative Party is one of the richest men in the nation. He is an old Etonian and was a member of the super elite Bullingdon Club at Oxford University. His closest colleagues all come from similarly privileged backgrounds. The Mayor of London and the shadow Chancellor both attended the Bullingdon Club with Cameron.

20) As of October 2008, America has had forty-three presidents and two of them have been the father and son team of the Bush's. What are the odds?

21) Three of the forty-three presidents have been members of the tiny, elite secret society Skull and Bones. What are the odds? John Kerry, the Democratic candidate in 2004, was a member of Skull and Bones. In other words, no matter if you voted Democrat or Republican in 2004, you would still get a Skull and Bones man in the White House. And you think you have a choice? Choice is an illusion in so-called democracies. Democracy is an instrument used to control the people and make them vote for their OWO oppressors. You are much less likely to oppose someone for whom you have voted. You have bought into their mind control system. What good is a vote if you can only vote for the two people they decide to put in front of you? In order for them to be permanently in charge, they simply need to ensure that they control the process by which the presidential candidates are chosen. Then, when you vote, you are invariably voting for one of their people, not one of yours.

22) No doubt there are more Bush's, more Kennedys, more Skull and Bones members being lined up for future high political office.

23) If you're not one of the patricians, you're a nobody. People could choose to stand up and do something about it but they don't because they have been stupefied by the rhetoric and propaganda of the patrician class, they have got their bread and circuses that keep them endlessly distracted, they have their gladiator heroes to worship, their army of imperial conquest to support, their conspiracy theorists to mock, and their 'freedom and democracy' to trumpet.

24) The symbolic head of the Old World Order is the Queen of England. When she parades through the streets, legions of people wave flags and cheer. They are ecstatic about being her subjects - her acknowledged inferiors in every way. That shows you the power of the tyrants. Now imagine a hereditary monarchy with executive power. That's what the Old World Order seek. They dream of dynastic marriages. Imagine a future where the Prince of America marries the Princess of China. That's what's coming if the Old World Order achieves its full ambition.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/moneymisterymagick12.jpg

The Old World Order is all about establishing a permanent patrician class. It looks to the mediaeval concept of the monarch appointed by 'divine right' and able to pass the crown down the family line forever.

The Old World Order has in fact already achieved about 90% of its agenda. Ordinary people don't get a look in when it comes to genuine power and the best jobs. They're not in the game. They're plebeians. What's worse, they deserve to be. They have it within our power to overthrow the patricians at any time. Instead they let them rule. There are no excuses.

The movie The Matrix is an excellent metaphor for the workings of the OWO. The controllers of the Matrix are the OWO. Most people are oblivious to the truth. Only a handful care, and only they see 'reality'. Mr Smith and his fellow super agents are the OWO's enforcers who will deal with anyone showing any signs of resistance. But they don't need to intervene too much because hardly anyone causes any trouble. Even some who have tasted the truth (like 'Cypher') decide that they would prefer to go back to the world of enslavement (made delightful by the power of fantasy - the taste of 'real' steak).

Are you happy to be a compliant citizen of the Matrix, or are you prepared to join the resistance? Wake up. Stop voting for the OWO. Stop supporting them. Stop making their lives easy. Stop bowing down to them simply because they are wealthy. Their wealth was gained through manipulation, not merit. If you are a slave to money then you are a pawn of the OWO. They control wealth and hence they control all those who buy into the wealth system. 

Dick Fuld, former chief executive officer of the failed Lehman Brothers investment bank, made $500 million dollars while he was at the helm. A half a billion dollars for the man who presided over one of history's greatest financial catastrophes! The bank no longer exists. Fuld is not in jail, is not being prosecuted, is not being pursued by state agencies to surrender his earnings that are now seen to be the profits of breathtaking speculation and incompetence that destroyed the bank.

Many people have paid the price of the collapse of Lehman Brothers. One person who did not was the man most responsible. That is the way the Old World Order operates. Everyone suffers except them. Isn't it time to wake up and smell the coffee? There are still enough truth seekers in the world to make a difference. The flame of resistance has not yet been extinguished. And never forget - behind the Old World Order stands something much worse. But that is the subject of The Soul Camera.

Obama

Barack Hussein Obama is a lightweight, Facebook politician who has done little in his life other than study and regurgitate the speeches of Martin Luther King. Is he a stooge of the Old World Order?

http://www.poundmag.com/files/9112/9185/9272/nowecant.png


No you can't 

Obama has benefited from being the multi-cultural candidate par excellence: half black, half white, half Christian, half Muslim, half professor, half celebrity, half intellectual, half man of the people, half activist, half preacher, half establishment figure, half civil rights campaigner. He is a man for all seasons, a rainbow canvas upon which the masses can project any image they like. He will be a disastrous president. Nothing significant will change under him. The people who were wealthy and powerful at the start of his term of office will be wealthy and powerful at the end of it. Those who were impoverished and powerless at the start will be exactly the same at the end.

People wonder how the Old World Order could allow such a person to become President. If they are so powerful, why didn't they stop him? The Old World Order are expert players. They know when to rein back. The degree of unpopularity of George W Bush was becoming a serious problem, and beginning to undermine the foundations of democracy. Since the Old World Order rely on democracy as their political vehicle for manipulating the sedated masses, they saw the need to do a democracy makeover. New ingredients had to be injected to reinvigorate it. Who better to turn to than an unchallenging, charismatic black man? He poses no threat to the Old World Order's agenda, yet he gives hope of change to hundreds of millions. At a stroke, the Old World Order have saved their necks. What they fear most is revolution: the sort of Illuminati-inspired uprisings that overturned the decadent French monarchy in 1789 and the arrogant Russian imperial family in 1917. Democracy provides the stable political base from which they can extend their power. If democracy is threatened, so is the Old World Order.

Obama is style over substance, soundbites over meaningful change. He talks the talk but won't walk the walk. In fact, his hands are tied. Rhetoric is the last resort of the man of no action. Obama provides the illusion of hope, but does not deliver. But who cares? Democracy has been rescued for the next few years.

The problem for the Old World Order is where they go next. Once Obama fails, people's disillusionment will be much higher than before. Once the first black president is seen to be as ineffectual as the Masonic white presidents, what then? Even the most gullible supporter of democracy will wise up. And once the Old World Order's political base is lost, everything is up for grabs.

The sorry tale of New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina reveals the real America. The world was horrified when it saw the conditions in which many Americans live. As many commentators observed, this was more like a third world country than the planet's hyper power.

The media poodle controlled by the Old World Order do not usually show the astonishing poverty endured by so many Americans, their lack of the most rudimentary health care, their long hours working for a pittance. No, the media choose to focus on cretinous distractions such as celebrity culture. Endless items on Britney Spears and Paris Hilton; nothing on the third world underbelly of the USA. The media tell "feel-good" stories, tales of heroism, tales of success, tales of the American Dream coming to life. They never tell the truth about America: an Old World Order tyranny where tens of millions live in dire conditions with no hope of ever escaping.

Nothing will change under President Obama. He made his way to the top of the pile because he knew how to play the game i.e. he knew how to secure the support of the Old World Order. He will do nothing to deliver poor Americans from their eternal bondage. And then what?



Members of the anti-NWO movement have described Obama as the Antichrist prophesied in the Book of Revelation. Yet this was the man who fluffed his lines when swearing his oath of office, and delivered an uninspiring inaugural address Is this what Antichrists are made of these days?




http://www.theglobalistreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/old-world-order-and-new-world-ordr.jpg

THE FALLACY 


Here is some material from a website called "Illuminati News". Ironically, we find ourselves in agreement with much of what is said here. The reason we are drawing attention to it is that we wish to highlight the central fallacy that, in the end, makes sites such as these counterproductive.

Read the article and then our response.

POSTSCRIPT: The webmaster of Illuminati News has been in touch with us in the name of his search for the truth no matter where it leads him. We applaud him for taking this step and we recommend the new page on his site: http://www.illuminati-news.com/00392.html All those who are interested in the truth should reflect on this article. The Illuminati are not the enemy. You have been deceived by the Old World Order if you believe that the Illuminati are on the side of tyranny.


What is wrong with this world? Why all those civil wars, why all this chaos and disaster? Why can't people just live together in peace? When conflicts arise, why is it so hard for the United Nations and other parties to stop the killing, despite peace negotiators and ambassadors?

Is it that man is basically evil? Is it just human behavior? Lots of questions. When we look around, it may seem like man is basically evil, but that is not true. There is good and evil within us all; it needs to be there for our basic survival. However, the society will eventually reflect the minds of their leaders, and if the leaders are implementing evil, the society will be evil as well, and people affected by a malevolent government will start acting like them. However, WE are the ones who appoint and accept our leaders, so ultimately the responsibility is yours and mine.

All this chaos, genocide, ethnic cleansing and the overall disasters have a genuine purpose. It is all very carefully planned by a few men behind the scenes, high up in the society, above any power structure that the ordinary citizen knows about. It is a planned take-over to create a One World Government with those people on top, making the rest of us into their slaves in a Super Socialist State!

Does this sound incredible and unbelievable? If this is totally new to you, I can truly understand that it sounds that way; especially if you as a habit have been relying on mainstream media for your information. However, if you want to know the real truth, I recommend you to continue reading from this web site, and I am sure this body of information will blow your mind. On a gradient scale, you will start getting the full picture. You will become very aware of what is happening in the world and why.

Take one or a few pages at the time, because it is much to read, but it is vital for all of our survival to be aware of what this website will reveal. And if you are not familiar with the subject at all, I strongly advise you to start with the link called The Secret Order of the Illuminati.

Are you voting for the Democrats or the Republicans? Does it really matter which? Is the difference that big?

I will show you that the outcome, no matter whom you vote for, is already thoroughly outlined and predicted; not by the politicians themselves, but by the real powers, the "Shadow Government", invisible to the general public. The political decisions they make are not in our best interest, but in theirs only. The tax money you are paying to your government so they can work on accomplishing our common goals actually go towards accomplishing their goals, which are very different from ours. What they are planning, and have planned for a long time, is a New World Order and a One World Government with them as the Rulers. Those powerful people are deeply into the occult and black magic, which I also will show on this website. The rituals are practiced within secret societies, such as the Freemasons and the Illuminati (nowadays they call themselves "The Moriah", "Moriah Conquering Wind", or simply "The Brotherhood").

So who are those people I am talking about? They are basically 13 super wealthy families and their off-shots, most of them International Bankers and royalties. Their bloodlines go back in time - way back to old Babylon and further. They are the same families, but under different names, that have influenced history almost since the beginning of time. It is mind-boggling, but hopefully this website will prove my point without any doubts.

This website has four main categories:

· Illuminati News (A thorough research on WHO and WHAT is controlling this world from the shadows,  and what their plans are).
· UFOs and Aliens (Are UFOs and Aliens real, and if so, what are they?)
· Rock 'n 'Roll and Mind Control (Mind control within the music/art and entertainment industries, and how that affects us on a daily basis).
· Spirituality and Spiritual Solutions (Who are we and where are we heading? What are our spiritual potentials?)

My advice is to start with category one and go on from there. There is much to study and much to learn. Still, this website only scratches the surface of what there is to know.

The site is updated on a regular basis. Updates can be found here.

Good luck,

Wes Penre, Webmaster and Researcher

"They must find it difficult...
Those who have taken authority as the truth,
rather than truth as the authority."

-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist


The Response of the Illuminati

Consider these two quotations from the article:

"It is a planned take-over to create a One World Government with those people on top, making the rest of us into their slaves in a Super Socialist State!"

"So who are those people I am talking about? They are basically 13 super wealthy families and their off-shots, most of them International Bankers and royalties."

We, the Illuminati, are entirely opposed to royalty, to super-rich dynastic families and to international bankers. For millennia, we have actively sought their overthrow. We still seek it, more than ever. A one world, meritocratic government is a way in which the power of these tyrants could be shattered forever. Are there any monarchs, or super-rich people in the futuristic, meritocratic, One World Government envisaged by Star Trek?

The real agenda of the Illuminati News, and of most anti-Illuminati campaigners, is revealed in the phrase, "their slaves in a Super Socialist State."

You have to ask yourselves this simple question: since when have socialists been fellow travellers with monarchs, dynastic families and international bankers? Socialism and communism are the polar opposites of right wing capitalism and royalty. The global power elite of the Old World Order despise socialism and communism. Capitalism - the grossly unequal division of money and resources - is the bedrock of their power. But they have learned that when they overreach themselves, they court disaster - as shown by the French and Russian Revolutions. So, they used their intelligence and power and created the "middle class" - their buffer between the working man and their own power elite. The workers aspire to be middle class and the middle class aspire to join the power elite.

Capitalism requires zombified consumers in shopping malls, sedated by junk entertainment, in the thrall of celebrities. The idea that the arch capitalists of the global power elite would kill consumers and build concentration camps for the survivors is mad. Would Microsoft prosper by killing computer users? It's an insane thesis. The power elite want you to consume, not to think, not to rebel against your zombie state that they have created for you. Wake up!!!!!

We, the Illuminati, are not socialists, communists or anarchists - we are meritocrats who believe in the reasonable, but not excessive, rewarding of talent, hard work and good ideas - but, historically, we have often assisted left wing movements in order to aid our attack on the Old World Order (most famously in the cases of the French and Russian Revolutions.) Would a group of monarchs, dynastic families and international bankers ever have any desire to create a "Super Socialist State" when such a state is the precise reverse of everything they stand for? This is nonsense and garbage on a spectacular scale.

The people who say these things are merely compiling a list of their pet hates and shoehorning them all together, no matter how absurdly. They hate socialists, monarchists, Jews, government and laws. They are extreme right wing anarcho-capitalists who believe that the free market and the private sector can solve every problem. The recent financial meltdown of the world economy is a direct product of their way of thinking - unregulated free markets, minimal state interference, the super greedy being allowed to set the rules and shape the economy.

These anti New World Order anarcho-capitalists are, in fact, close allies of the Old World Order. Their interests are frequently aligned. They share many of the same core beliefs. They are as much an obstacle to a better world as the Old World Order themselves. We desperately need a New World Order to save us from these lunatics. The credit crunch is an illustration of how dangerous they are. Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, is the standard bearer of the anti New World Order militant brigades. He is their martyr. Is he any better than the mad Muslims of 9/11?

Here is the anti New World Order agenda:

1)    Destroy Government

2)    Destroy Socialism/Communism

3)    Arm everyone with an assault rifle

4)    Let the free market and the private sector set laws

5)    Worship the materialism inherent in anarcho-capitalism

6)    Maintain a nationalistic, xenophobic attitude towards others

7)    They admire the "Wild West" and see themselves as heroic pioneers, speedy gunslingers and hard working, godfearing people with small businesses that benefit the community. They believe they are the fastest guns in the West and that no one has any right to curb their lynch mob mentality and their delusion that they are in personal contact with "God". They are essentially an American phenomenon and they simultaneously love and hate their own country. They are Luddites and backwoods people who hate modernity, technology and philosophy. Most of them have never set foot outside their state, and many come from Southern, racist Confederate States. They are the people who would become marginalized and irrelevant in a meritocratic future. That's why they fear the future so much and why they cling to the coat tails of their masters in the Old World Order.

Everyone who holds such beliefs is the sworn enemy of the Illuminati and the meritocratic and just New World Order that good and intelligent people have sought for millennia. Our enemies on the far right are overtly or covertly allied with the Old World Order of monarchs, bankers, business bosses, dynastic families, and share their passion for unrestrained capitalism. Far from being the solution to the world's ills, the anti New World Order movement is a central part of the problem.

Isn't it time to follow the righteous path of the Illuminati and start preparing for a glorious New World Order where the dynasties that have ruled for millennia are at last swept aside once and for all? 


The Smokescreen

Confusion surrounds conspiracy theory terminology, especially regarding the Illuminati, the New World Order (NWO), and the Old World Order (OWO).  Who benefits from such confusion? The powers-that-be, those who wish to prevent the various resistance groups coalescing into a single powerful force that will at last challenge the elites that run the world.

One person who is trying to resolve the confusion is Wes Penre, Webmaster and Researcher at "Illuminati News". 

Wes's site, though it contains many articles that, on the face of it, would seem to fuel the confusion, is probably in a good position to bring much-needed clarity. Nevertheless, he has a huge task ahead of him and it will take time. Also, people who think that they have it all worked out may find that they have to confront a whole new reality.

Below we have quoted a communication from Wes that we fully endorse. We hope that through the efforts of people like Wes we can gradually create an alliance of all the forces that oppose the ruling order and bring about real change. The time to overthrow the Old World Order is coming. It can be by a velvet revolution. It can be by a spiritual transformation. But it must be done.


Communication from Wes Penre ("Illuminati News")

I believe that the current situation is two-fold if we simplify it:

1) Our first step is to have researchers distinguish between the Old World Order and the New World Order and Illuminati vs. the Powers That Be. As long as researchers in general are confused about these terms, everybody else will be too. I was visiting the Armageddon website this morning, and I certainly understand the frustration from the real Illuminati when people like Albert Pike and other notorious OWO people are accused of being members of their secret society, but we have to understand that it's all a misconception. Most serious researchers (who are not OWO plants) are attacking the same people as the Illuminati is. We are all on the same side, but due to that we have fallen into the trap and unintentionally reversed the terms, it looks like we are attacking the real Illuminati, but we're not. When we have said that Pike (I use him as an example) was an Illuminati member, we simply mean member of the OWO.

I'm sure you see what I'm getting at here. As you know, I recently wrote the article which explains the difference between the OWO and the New World Order, and if everybody embrace the truth in that, we have a good start on something new. A huge confusion would be resolved and the masses would more easily understand what's going on, and who is an enemy and who is a friend.

2) The OWO is constantly refining their technology so they more easily can control the masses, and they are good at it. We are very close to the point where it will be almost impossible to reverse their Agenda. I totally agree with what the Illuminati say on their website regarding having the people in power reveal their associations with groups, religion, secret societies etc., but it's a hard thing to accomplish (and they admit to that). The OWO would never give us that information voluntarily, and with the masses dumbed down and mind controlled like they are, I wonder if this is even possible to accomplish in reality. Maybe I'm just pessimistic when comes to this. However, I like the idea and certainly want to promote it and work towards it to see what we can do. Then, the follow-up question would be: if we accomplish this goal and the connections are revealed, would the masses be willing to do something or would they just shrug their shoulders and say, 'oh well, that's too bad. It's a corrupt society, but what can I say?" 

I have pulled my hair out so many times when I've seen and heard people support President Bush despite the results from his actions and the obvious stupidity he is showing in public. It's almost like the masses can identify with his stupidity, so therefore they like him. That part is pretty discouraging.

So what's the solution? Well, I still think that 1) and 2) above should be emphasized and worked on. Education is fundamental! Then, when people realize what's going on, they have to make a choice. Do they want to do something about the situation or continue being slaves? The answer seems obvious, of course, but both you and I know it's not. Many people prefer being slaves than lifting their butts from the couch and do something. If so, that's their choice.

I believe groups like the Illuminati are extremely important, because they counter-act the OWO energy-wise and intellectually. But we both know that the Illuminati have existed for millennia, just like the OWO, and the OWO is still in power. So, when is this going to change? I realize that no group alone can change the world, but is it possible to win the race when the OWO are the ones with all the resources and the masses are asleep?

That's why I think the ultimate solution is spiritual. If everything is energy and energy vibrates with different speed, that's the basic for different densities and spiritual experiences. I can't lay out my whole concept in an email, but it's all on my website. I am not a "New Ager" or suggest this solution to 'escape from reality'. It's just like 'all roads lead to Rome', you know. That's how it's been for me with the spiritual concept.

*****

Why is the idea of a one-world government so terrifying to so many people?


Heaven on Earth?

Most people in the world believe in a creator God, and most believe in a heaven - a paradise where God resides with those of his creations who have attained salvation.

There is no suggestion that heaven is anything other than a one-world order with a single benevolent and infallible leader. So, aren't those believers who oppose a one-world order somewhat perverse? In a religious context, they fully support a one-world order under God, so why not a man-made one-world order? The best human world, many would say, is the one that best approximates heaven, and whose rulers best approximate the role of God, the supreme, benign ruler. Is such a world possible? Can human beings raise themselves towards the divine?

Would the members of the anti New World Order movement oppose God in heaven? They appear to reject all forms of the brotherhood of man. They want to have separate countries, with different languages and different religions, with barriers and boundaries everywhere. They love building walls between themselves and others. Is it any wonder we live in such a divided, hostile, suspicious world when so many people are dedicated to alienating themselves from others? The members of the anti New World Order movement are insular, petty, small-minded, with no grand vision of humanity. They have no vision at all other than arming themselves with assault rifles and shooting anyone who comes round to collect taxes from them. Can these people possibly be regarded as fine human beings? It is no wonder they hate the Iluminati so much.




http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DS3Axl118Ng/SwlBZM5ApCI/AAAAAAAAGeM/rUVsJz02xh8/s400/resist-nwo.jpg

The Old World Order

It is often claimed that neocons, Freemasons, various powerful secret societies etc are conspiring to create a New World Order - a one-world oppressive government, supposedly. In fact the groups mentioned constitute the Old World Order and their agenda is to keep extending their existing political and economic model that has served them so well for so long. There is absolutely nothing new about it. "Globalisation" is their key word. That is their code for complete OWO control of the world. When British Prime Minister Gordon Brown talks of "the birth pangs of a new global order," he is referring to the political and economic domination of the whole world by the OWO.

"New World Order" is a misnomer unless used in the context defined by the Illuminati. A New World Order means a new political, economic and religious configuration of the world. It does not mean an existing model simply extended further. A New World Order is precisely that - something never seen before. It is the gateway to a greater and nobler humanity.

The Old World Order's plan is not mysterious or strange. It is the simplest one imaginable, and it is tacitly supported by many people who claim to oppose the Old World Order. It is this: how do I ensure that my family is more successful than other families? As soon as you let that thought enter your head you are damned. It is the gospel of the Old World Order, their morality, their path to "salvation". 

The issue could not be simpler. If you have the ability to place your family above more talented families, what will you do? Will you make the most of that advantage, or will you refrain? Will you sacrifice the interests of your family to those of more talented strangers, or will you do everything in your power to give your family an advantage over those strangers? Do not call yourself a meritocrat if you want the untalented members of your family to prosper more than the talented members of other families.

The remarkably untalented Bush family dominates American political life because it is the ultimate manifestation of the desire of the American family to glorify itself no matter that it lacks any trace of merit. But are not all families like that? That is what the Old World Order relies on. It succeeds because it is the ordinary family writ large. All typical families would do the same in their position. They would use their wealth and power to rig the system in favour of the members of their family. They do not care about the objective merits of their family, or of other families.

If you are a genuine meritocrat, you would support the most meritorious person over a close member of your own family. How many would actually do that in practice?

There can be a fair world only if there is a willingness to acknowledge the superior merit of others. That is the great challenge to humanity. It is also the only way for any family to get true justice. If you do not believe in merit then you will be ruled by rich and privileged families such as the Bush family. They have used their advantages to the maximum, and your children have paid the price. And you do not deserve any better.

The Anti-OWO Law

Is it possible to use legislation to begin the assault on the high fortresses of the Old World Order? A single "disclosure" Act would allow the people to see who is really running society.  

The Annual Disclosure List

If the political will existed, it would be easy to detect whether nations such as America and Britain are being systematically manipulated in favour of certain privileged groups. Every year, a list of the 10,000 highest paid individuals in each nation should be published for public scrutiny. Each person on the list should be compelled to reveal a) which school/college/university they attended b)which religion they belong to c) if they belong to any secret societies and, if so, which ones d) any private clubs or organisations they belong to e) if they are related to, or are friends with, anyone else on the list, and, finally, how much tax they paid. 

Of course, those who are conspiring against the people will not wish to participate in this exercise: lack of full disclosure is the best friend of those who wish to rig economic and political systems in their favour. But the top earners in our society have disproportionate influence, so should not their financial affairs and social connections be made visible to those over whom they wield their influence? The current financial crisis reminds us, if we had forgotten, that our economy is the plaything of investment bankers, CEOs and media moguls. None of these people are elected by the people, none of them are subject to the approval of the people. Isn't it absurd that presidents and prime ministers are subjected to intense public scrutiny, yet the elite who have a decisive say over the direction of the nation aren't publicly vetted at all?

The governments of many nations are now having to throw the people's hard earned tax dollars at major institutions in a desperate attempt to remedy the catastrophic errors of wealthy and powerful bankers and CEOs. So, since the people are now massively indebted thanks to the disastrous misjudgements of a few thousand privileged individuals, shouldn't the people be allowed to enquire into the backgrounds and financial details of those who have led them into recession and perhaps Depression? Shouldn't this now be an ongoing requirement so that we are never again duped by the privileged elite?  

If a President has his life pored over by the public, why shouldn't the masters of the universe of Wall Street? Why are they allowed to wield power over the economy without being accountable to the people? We know why - because it's in their interests to avoid the searching eye of public scrutiny. They carry out their deals in secret. They decide what they should be paid in secret. The last thing they want is for the people to be involved in their clandestine affairs.



Imagine it were demonstrated, as many suspect, that the top 10,000 pay virtually no tax thanks to their offshore accounts and tax avoidance schemes. Imagine it were demonstrated, as many suspect, that America is run by Ivy League graduates, and Britain by Oxbridge graduates. Was it intended by the Founding Fathers that America should be ruled by the privileged Ivy League gang? Why should certain institutions be permitted to possess disproportionate power? Are your chances in life wrecked if you do not go to an elite school? What kind of system produces such an outcome? 



The first weapon to be deployed against the Old World Order should be the one that ensures that they are brought out into the open and everyone can see what they are up to. The essence of their power lies in the strength of the secretive networks they have established to exclude the mass of people, and to allow them to reach mutually rewarding decisions that are never in the interests of the people. Once they can no longer conceal themselves, their power will wane.



Naturally, even if such an Act were introduced, the OWO would refuse to cooperate. But why would any government committed to ruling in the name of the people not wish to implement such a disclosure Act? The people merely wish to know the identities, connections and backgrounds of those who are running their society. Don't they have an absolute right, in a democracy, to that information? Shouldn't it be a matter of course for governments to reveal to the people who are the most financially influential people in the nation? Everyone knows the simple equation around which the world revolves: money = power. Not to fully disclose the wealth of the top 10,000 individuals is to announce that power should be concealed from the people. How could any member of the electorate tolerate such a system? We must have full visibility of those who take the decisions that shape the lives of so many of us. It is natural justice.


Greed and Arrogance

The arrogance of the OWO has reached such spectacular levels that it actually goes beyond breathtaking. Many of the OWO work in finance, naturally. From where better to control the world? They are the people who caused the credit crunch that has wrecked so many lives. Millions have been thrown onto the scrap heap because of their greed. They themselves, of course, have not been impoverished. They still have their huge mansions, usually several in the finest locations. They still have their gold and their diamonds. They still have their yachts. Some of their funds have lost money. So what? They will soon recover all that they have lost. Only the ordinary people, those who have been wiped out, will be unable to recoup all their losses. The OWO are never afraid of recessions or depressions. These are a means of eliminating the opposition. They are buying opportunities. At the end of each downturn, the OWO invariably emerge richer, stronger and more powerful. Why do we let them get away with it?



http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs25/i/2008/068/5/c/NWO_by_mankosaiko.jpg

The Arrogance of the OWO


Consider the following cases:

John Thain, former Goldman Sachs executive, former head of Merrill Lynch. Despite the current financial climate, he thought he should redecorate his office at shareholders' expense. Total cost: $1.2 million. What did he spend the money on? Here are some of the items:

1)    A "commode on legs" costing $35,000.
2)    Regency chairs costing $24,000.
3)    A "parchment waste can" costing $1,400.
4)    A Persian rug costing $85,000.
5)    Services of celebrity designer Michael Smith costing $800,000.

Thain, an extremely wealthy man, did not pay for any of this. As always, others must cough up to satisfy the egotism of the masters of the universe of the OWO.

Thain reputedly wanted a bonus of $35 million as Merrill Lynch were preparing to announce a record-busting $15.3 billion loss and thousands of job cuts. Is it possible to imagine the arrogance of someone requesting any kind of bonus given such catastrophic performance?

Thain ran the New York Stock Exchange between 2003 and 2007. His task when he took over at Merrill Lynch was to repair the disastrous balance sheet. One of his first acts was to arrange his extravagant office makeover. This was an extremely highly regarded man, an alumnus of MIT and Harvard Business School, known as "Mr Fix-it". Is this the type of person that gets to the top of the tree in America? Is this what counts as talent and integrity? Is this what "fixing it" means? If so, is it any surprise that we are in such dire straits?

Thain, in the hours before Merrill Lynch was taken over by the Bank of America, made sure that bonus payments were rushed forward to ensure that highly paid employees in the failing investment bank got their cash before the takeover took place. Had the bonus payments taken place at the normal time, they would have been slashed to zero. Thain had no respect for the Bank of America, no respect for the government, no respect for the public. This is the OWO in microcosm - always making sure they take care of themselves; always showing complete contempt for everyone else.

People like Thain have ceased to inhabit the real world. They exist solely in the world of the OWO where they can get away with anything and no one ever tries to stop them.

Now consider Dennis Kozlowski, head of Tyco International. He had Tyco pay $30 million for his New York City apartment, including $6,000 shower curtains. He stole $150 million in unauthorised bonuses. He committed fraud against Tyco to the extent of $400 million. Kozlowski admitted that his pay package was "confusing" and "almost embarrassingly big", but he strenuously denied that he had committed any crimes. Unusually, he was prosecuted and jailed. No doubt he had alienated his friends in the OWO and they abandoned him to his fate. The OWO dislike being embarrassed. When someone goes too far and gets caught, the OWO will not save them. There is no honour amongst thieves.

Todd Thomson, former head of wealth management at Citigroup, had a stunning view of Central Park from his 50th-floor Manhattan office. His boardroom had marble flooring, polished wood cabinets, a tropical fish-tank, Persian rugs, and an enormous wood-burning fireplace. It was so extravagant that it was nicknamed "Todd Mahal." Scarcely anyone other than Thomson had access to it. Thomson had a corporate jet at his disposal. Returning from a Chinese business trip, he ejected other Citigroup executives from the jet so that he could be alone with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo. This glamorous reporter was nicknamed the Money Honey.

Sir Fred Goodwin, knighted by the British Queen, former chief executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, issued a writ against a newspaper when it published the following details:

1)    Goodwin had wanted to build a private road from his HQ to the nearby airport so that he wouldn't have to travel on a busy road with ordinary commuters.
2)    He ordered a "scallop" kitchen to be built near his office.

Goodwin did not succeed with his writ. He was nicknamed "Fred the Shred" because of the number of employees he made redundant. He was responsible for the catastrophic purchase of ABN Amro Bank. At the start of 2009, the share price of RBS had fallen more than 98% from its peak. The bank is now owned 70% by the British government, and may be fully nationalised. Goodwin reluctantly resigned.

Goodwin, commonly regarded as exceptionally arrogant, was described as "The World's Worst Banker". A major newspaper referred to him as a modern day villain who made millions then left the taxpayer to sort out the mess. He has never apologised. He was highly regarded by British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and gave advice to the British Government's regarding economic policy. Britain is now facing an unprecedented financial crisis.

Jimmy Cayne, former chairman of Bear Stearns, liked to play golf on Fridays. He often used a helicopter to reach the golf course. When Bear Stearns was going into financial meltdown, Cayne was on the golf course.

Insurance company AIG, receiving massive financial assistance from the U.S. taxpayer, sent 70 executives to the luxury St Regis Resort in California. Their tab for 7 days came to $440,000.

As for Dick Fuld of Lehman Brothers, he was probably the worst of the lot. Four days before the bank went bankrupt, Fuld was trying to arrange $20 million in "special payments" for three senior executives who were about to leave the company. Fuld, the man who destroyed a venerable banking institution, was reputed to have received some $500 million in pay and bonuses while at the helm (not to mention hundreds of millions of dollars in stock options). Fuld sold his $14m dollar mansion in Florida to his wife for $100 to hide his assets from litigants seeking compensation for his spectacular ineptitude. (There's no chance of convicting this crook.) Fuld still has a huge property empire and a modern art collection.

In the UK, four members of the unelected House of Lords were caught out in a sting operation by a newspaper. It appears that they take cash from lobbyists and, in exchange, they seek to amend legislation so that it will favour the interests of the lobbyists. One of the Lords says that he get £100,000 each time he assists companies in this way. He says it's "cheap for what I do for them." He told the undercover journalist, "You've got to whet my appetite to get me on board." We all know what that means.

Britain, a nation that pretends to have little or no political corruption, is one of the most corrupt, Masonic nations on earth. Corruption is endemic and actually forms part of the system. It is so built into the fabric of Britain that it is almost invisible.

America has also been hit by innumerable scandals involving lobbyists, politicians and corruption. It is par for the course in countries ruled by the OWO.

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich saw no reason why he shouldn't try to sell Barack Obama's vacant U.S. Senate seat. In a phone call secretly recorded by the FBI, he said, "I've got this thing and it's fucking golden, and, uh, uh, I'm just not giving it up for fuckin' nothing. I'm not gonna do it."

The pigs think they can feed in the trough forever.

The greed and arrogance of these people is without restraint. They believe they are a law unto themselves, that they can get away with anything. Frequently, they do. Only now and again is an example made of one or two of them. These people, and a few thousand others just like them, are the Old World Order who shape the direction of the world and who control governments and economies. They do not act in your interests, only in their own.

What are we going to do about it? Will we sit here forever and take no action? Will we keep electing presidents and prime ministers who are in their pocket and who do nothing to curb their excesses? Will we keep paying the price for their avarice and ineptitude? Are we the greatest suckers the world has ever seen?      


From Armageddon Conspiracy @ http://www.armageddonconspiracy.co.uk/The-Old-World-Order%281025563%29.htm



Help This Unique Independent Site Survive
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
Just click in the jar - 




Images – http://i882.photobucket.com/albums/ac23/benfranklinronzio/Traitors%20Tyrants/154414_1482393784577_1375800934_31101378_1188240_n.jpg
http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/aa-Dees-Bohemian-Grove.jpg
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/moneymisterymagick12.jpg
http://www.poundmag.com/files/9112/9185/9272/nowecant.png
http://www.theglobalistreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/old-world-order-and-new-world-ordr.jpg 
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_DS3Axl118Ng/SwlBZM5ApCI/AAAAAAAAGeM/rUVsJz02xh8/s400/resist-nwo.jpg
http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs25/i/2008/068/5/c/NWO_by_mankosaiko.jpg




For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


And see




 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed



The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com



The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)



This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a small but heartfelt donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper!


From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com




Thursday, August 30, 2012

The REAL HISTORY of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA

The REAL HISTORY of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA

http://therealviews.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/constitutional.png



By Rebekah Sutherland at becworks@gmail.com




Part One
QUESTIONS for the Interrogatories
 

1.      Who funded the grants for the land development in the Colonies?
2.      What were the names, founding dates, and  connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies?
3.     Who owned the colonies
4.     Did each colony have its own form of government?
5.     Did the colonies have laws?
6.     Did Christopher Columbus discover and claim any of the original 13 colonies for Spain or Portugal?
7.     What is a Commodity Exchange?
8.     Did the colonies have connections to a Commodity Exchange in England?
9.     Does the word “plantation” mean a large farming enterprise?
10.                       Did the King of England operate on his own as a free agent in the creation of the colonies?
11.                       Did the Treaty of 1213 actually affect the ownership of the colonies?
12.                       What did the Treaty of 1213 actually say?

Part Two

1.     Who were the members of the Board of Trade?
2.     Were Jews allowed on the Board?
3.     Did the original 13 colonies have a court system?
4.     What were the types of jurisdiction assigned to the courts in the colonies?
5.     What is the legal meaning of the word “federal?”
6.     Did Commercial Contracts in the United States evolve from something else?
7.     Is there a difference between Government commerce and Private commerce in law?
8.     Do Admiralty courts still exist today?
9.     Why is there paper money, if the Constitution does not allow it?
10.                       Did the British International Bankers have other names in history?

Part Three

1.     Legally DEFINE: Contract, Charter, Compact and Constitution?
2.     Was the United States Constitution a charter, compact, constitution or contract?
3.     In legal terminology, is there a difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people?”
4.     In 1776, who was “We, the People” as is written on the U.S. Constitution?
5.     Why did the aristocrats meet in secret to discuss the constitution?
6.     Who actually wrote the Constitution?
7.     How did the Constitution protect The Crown’s investments in America?
8.     When did the United States come into existence?
9.     What were the terms of the Treaty of 1783?
10.                       Who was the “most holy and undivided Trinity” that is mentioned in the declaration paragraph of the Treaty of 1783?
11.                        What is the legal definition of the word “church”?
12.                       What is the legal definition of the word “business”?
13.                       Is the United States actually a church organization, an extension of the Vatican?

Part Four

1.     Was the U.S. Constitution ‘ratified’ or ‘adopted’?
2.     What is the difference between “ratified” and “adopted” in legal terminology?
3.     Why did the wealthy aristocrats choose to adopt the compact called “the Constitution for the United States”, which was sent to them by the Vatican via the King of England on behalf of The Crown?

Part Five

1.      What are the divisions of American Jurisprudence?
2.     What is the difference between Tort Law and Contract Law?
3.     What are the three main parts of a binding contractual agreement?
4.     Is there a legal difference between “signing” and “witnessing” a document?
5.     Was The United States Constitution “signed” or was it “witnessed?”
6.     Did the men who “witnessed” The United States Constitution participating in the beginning of a “con job” for the colonists which continues today?

Part Six

1.      What are the legal jurisdictions mentioned by the United States Constitution and what is involved in each?
2.     Is there a difference between Admiralty Law and Maritime Law?
3.     How did Admiralty Law become the jurisdiction in the Federal Courts?
4.     How does one become financially entangled in the Admiralty Law system in the USA?
5.     What is Statutory Law?
6.     What happened in 1938 that revolutionized American jurisprudence?
7.     Why did the USA judges abandon Public Law and switch to Public Policy for decisions?
8.     For what are the international bankers waiting, if the nation is bankrupted?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.png/800px-Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.png

Constitutional Consternation Part 1

by R.E. Sutherland, M.Ed./sciences

Presented to the Americans for Constitutional Government
DISCLAIMERS

1.  This author loves government so much that she desires three branches of government; and all three operating in a check-and-balanced manner.  I am pro-government when it protects the individual.

2.  I am not an attorney, nor do I hand out legal advice.  I am an American who was educated in the public school system, which taught “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.”  Therefore, I have performed my duty, studied what is available to me, used whatever talents my Creator assigned to me, and the following are my observations based upon knowledge, which the federal government mandated that I develop on my own.

3.  This author is not anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic, anti-Protestant, or anti-anything else.  This author is Pro-Factual, Pro-Truth, and Pro-Freedom.  Everything shared with you is open to your own investigation and interpretation.  You are free to “believe” anything you wish.

4.  This author is not interested in Conspiracy Theories.  A conspiracy by definition must be (1) hidden and (2) illegal.  Instead, this author is focused on items that have been written in the legal documents of Record and the legislation by which our freedoms have disappeared.  This author is only interested in being extremely correct.

5.  My work is not finished.  It is entirely selfish.  I have no hope, nor any reason, to expect others to accept what I am learning.  Forgive me for saying this, but I do not care if you reject it.  This investigation is for me.  I do not wish to save the world; instead, I must save my own sanity.  I must understand why things are happening which appear un-American.  I am hunting.  You are welcome to read the answers to my questions.  I am compiling huge amounts of research into a streamlined format to increase cognitive comprehension and to enhance discussion for further research.  My hope is that you will not place yourself in jeopardy to defend the Constitution.


INTRODUCTION

I am a scientist and a teacher with a love for investigative journalism.  My love for research was first discovered while sitting on my living room floor surrounded by encyclopedias, magazines, and books, writing a health report in the fifth grade.  The love for research is innate.  The search for answers to the questions “why” and “how” have created an incredible journey for this soul, which appears to be leading right smack into the center of the prophetic Book of Revelations, the Mayan calendar, the I Chi, and most prophetic works through the ages.

I do not create an opinion, and then find facts to support it.  Instead, I find facts, and they lead me to more questions.  That is the Scientific Method.  When facts are true, then they can be used to predict outcomes with accuracy.  That is the only real proof of factual certainty.


PROLOGUE

FACT: The  Theory of Cognitive Dissonance [TCD] was developed by  Leon Festinger and published by Stanford University Press ( 1957)    The theory says that the mind involuntarily rejects information that is not in line with previous thoughts/or actions.   Festinger observed: “A person can deal with the pressure generated by changing the dissonance of the old behavior to harmonize with information.  But if the person is committed to the old behavior and way of thinking, he simply rejects the new information.”  That explains why so many Americans say, “I don’t believe it” when they are presented with new information, and why the Left-leaning agenda is able to brand thinkers as “conspiracy nuts” and “extremists.”

I apologize to many of you today, because you are going to learn things that rearrange the molecules of your brain.  When things that we thought were true, are proven false, then it can be traumatic.  Do not hide from new realities; instead, embrace them. Make a paradigm shift and go on.   Individual responsibility for facts and truths leads one to freedom and independence.


INVESTIGATION

FACT:  About 30 years ago, a team of men came together with the sole purpose of going back through the historical legal paperwork to find out why judges were rendering the decisions they were making. The documents and original books filled up a warehouse.  Today, most of the team is dead.  They were ridiculed for their discoveries, because they had tapped into the real power behind the government.  Nonetheless, they discovered the Truth, and one of the team successfully implemented that Truth for himself.  He is the only real free Man in the country.  I interviewed him five hours and read his works.  His knowledge when combined with the other research in my files, led to incredible disclosures and understanding about our government.

CONCLUSION:   The United States of America has been locked into a Babylonian economic system the extends from the blend of pagan Emperor Constantine and the Roman Catholic Church in 382 A.D., which is under the control of the King of England, who is owned by the Vatican per the Treaty of 1213.  In 1611, King James had the Bible translated into an official English version.  King James happened to be the most powerful Freemason in history, because he  ruled Scotland and England at the same time.   In 1776, the rebellion in the colonies was halted and the aristocrats were placed into “checkmate” by the Vatican, whose message was delivered by the King’s agents.  From that point until today, Americans have been taught a Myth about their own history, which holds them in slavery to the most powerful corporation on earth which resides in Rome, Italy.  Americans have been deliberately kept ignorant of the Truth.

QUESTION: Is the United States Constitution in effect today?

FACT:  President Bush II told the GOP leadership during a meeting about the Patriot Act in November of 2005:  QUOTE: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face! It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!”

FACT:  Citizens feel like they are under siege from all branches of government.  They must pay taxes and fees that consume over 50% of their earned wages.  They formed the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners of America to prevent the government from taking away firearms, which are supposedly protected under the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights. There is an invasion from Mexico that is ignored by the federal level, yet it is constitutionally mandated to protect the borders.

QUESTION:  Where are the Declaration of Independence and The United States Constitution physically located?

ANSWER: The Declaration of Independence is missing.

QUOTE:  In the Woman’s Day magazine, July 7, 2009, there is a box entitled, “Independence Day by the Numbers” which states: “25 = Number of copies of the Declaration of Independence known to exist.  (No originals with the famous signatures are known to remain.) END QUOTE

ANSWER:  The original handwritten copy of The United States Constitution, according to the National Archives and records Administration, QUOTE:  “ . .. Is on display at the National Archives and Records Administration in Washington, D.C.” END QUOTE

QUESTION:  Can Americans access all of their pubic documents?

ANSWER: No.

QUOTE: “2006 controversy over reclassification– In March 2006, it was revealed by the Archivist of the United States in a public hearing that a memorandum of understanding between Collins and various government agencies existed to ‘reclassify’, (i.e., withdraw from public access), certain documents in the name of national security, and to do so in a manner such that researchers would not be likely to discover the process. [SOURCE: gwu.edu (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20060411/index.htm) (2006-04-11)]

QUESTION: Was the entire creation of the United States of America a con job?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE from Edmond Burke in March 22, 1775 with his Speech on Conciliation with America:

“. . . Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government–they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.  But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation–the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution.  As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces toward you.  The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience.  Slavery they can have; they can have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia.  But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you.  This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly.  This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world.  Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire.  English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”

QUESTION:  Is there legal evidence that the Constitution did not apply to the American people at large from the very beginning?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE:

The Padleford Case

“But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach in the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. States are the parties to it.

Padleford, Fay & Co. v. The Mayor & Aldermen of the City of Savanna, 14 Ga 438, 520, S.C. Georgia (1854)

Interrogatories about the Constitution and American Law


http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=17791&d=1344917840&thumb=1

Part One

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  Seek the Truth, and then you will become aware of the shackles on your ankles and the blinders on your eyes.

NOTE: This author has chosen to use well known academic sources for the concepts commonly taught at the high school level.  As the answers become more complicated, the more analytical and legal sources will be used.  This is an attempt to keep a difficult subject as simple as possible.

QUOTE: “The reason why [deception cannot be forced on an Individual] is because deception has to be first created, then conveyed, and then accepted by others – then only can deception succeed.  Deception can only find fertility in a human mind to the extent that mind is receptive to it; similarly, in a sense, it actually takes two people to manufacture a successful lie: the first to utter the lie, and the second to accept it as such.”  –1985, Invisible Contracts, by  George Mercier.

1.  Who funded the grants for the land development in the original 13 Colonies?

ANSWER: There were several entities involved in exploring America, but the King of England was the point of contact. Other countries said that they had claim to lands; however, they were not clever enough to get the paperwork straight, nor were they strong enough to defend their legal Claim; hence, they lost both the legal and physical battle for occupation of America.

2.  What were the names,  founding dates, and connections to the King of England by the original 13 colonies?

[SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]

ANSWER:
1067-Virginia – Charter by King to the Virginia Company of London
1620-Massachusetts – Charter granted by the King to the Puritans
1623-New Hampshire – King appointed Council of New England for settlement
1624-New York – Charter by King to Duke of York
1622-Connecticut – Charter by King to John Winthrop
1634-Maryland – Charter by King to Lord Baltimore
1636-Rhode Island – King granted “Charter of Rhode Island & Providence Plantations”
1638-Delaware – Charter by King to Duke of York
1643-Pennsylvania – Grant by King to William Penn
1653-North Carolina – Grant by King to Sir Robert Heath
1660-New Jersey – Grant by King to Duke of York
1670-South Carolina – Grant by King to Eight “Lords Proprietors”
1733-Georgia – Grant by King to a Corporation entitled:  “Trustees for Establishing the Colony of Georgia in America

3.  Who owned the colonies?


ANSWER: The legal contracting documents for the colonies were of three types, but all of them were under the direction of the King of England:

(a) royal – under the direct control of the King
(b) proprietary-under the control of a Proprietor, an appointed by the King
(c) corporate-under a charter obtained from the King of England by a company with stockholders. [SOURCE: WBE]


4.  Did each colony have its own form of government?

ANSWER: Each colony had a governor and a legislature; however, the King of England appointed the governor over the royal colonies.  In proprietary colonies, the King appointed the Proprietor, who appointed the governor.  In Connecticut and Rhode Island the people elected the governor; however, Connecticut was under the Fundamental Orders until it received a royal charter in 1662 and Rhode Island was under the English charter of 1663, which served as its constitution.  [SOURCE: WBE]

5.  Did the colonies have laws?

ANSWER: The laws that were passed by any of the colonial legislatures had to be approved by the English government.  Governors appointed by the King had the responsibility of carrying out his orders.  The King expected them to enforce the laws of England, especially acts of Parliament that regulated colonial trade.  [SOURCE:  WBE]

6.  Did Christopher Columbus discover and claim any of the original 13 colonies for Spain or Portugal?

ANSWER: No.  Columbus traveled around the areas of Jamaica, Costa Rica, Panama, etc. [SOURCE: WBE]

7.  What is a Commodity Exchange?

ANSWER: “Commodity exchanges are voluntary trade associations.  They are called organized markets, because all members must follow certain trading rules.  All business, for example, must be conducted on the trading floor within certain hours.  Rules set the commission (fee) that may be charged in a transaction, and the time within which payment must be made.” [SOURCE: WBE]

8.  Did the colonies have connections to a Commodity Exchange in England?

ANSWER: Yes, It was called the Board of Trade (1621-1970)
QUOTE:
URL: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/
“The1621 Privy Council, directed by the King, ‘to take into their consideration, the true causes of the decay of trade and scarcity of coin within the Kingdom and to consult the means for the removing of these inconveniences.’  As a result a committee of inquiry was set up named ‘The Committee of Privy Council for Trade and Foreign Plantations’ (this is still the formal title of the ‘Board of Trade’) and this committee can be regarded as the germ of the Board of Trade.”


“Throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, trade matters remained the responsibility of Privy Council Committees.  In 1696 William III set up a body of eight paid Commissioners ‘for promoting the trade of our Kingdom and for inspecting and improving our plantations in America and elsewhere.’”

9.  Does the word “plantation” mean a large farming enterprise?

ANSWER: No.  The definition found in Burke on Conciliation of the Colonies stated, “Plantations–colonies; the plantings of a new society or race.  The term is regularly so used in Acts and Charters, and has no reference whatever to cultivation of the soil.”

10.  Did the King of England operate on his own as a free agent in the creation of the colonies?

ANSWER: No.  The King of England was bound to the Treaty of 1213.  The following brief history explains who was actually in charge of the colonies.

QUOTE:
[ INTRO:  The King refused to accept Stephen Langton as the Archbishop of Canterbury by Pope Innocent III in 1208, and the King was excommunicated from the Catholic Church by the Pope for his disobedience to contractual agreements to the Crown.  The Pope and the King owed money to the Crown bankers, so the Pope had to reign in a naughty King in order to avoid default to The Crown.]


“Faced with defeat by the forces aligned against him by the Vatican, King John ran for cover, and sought to regain the support of the Pope.  He returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to the Pope, as vassals, swore submission and loyalty to him, accepted Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal’s bond of fealty and homage, an annual tribute of 1,000 marks (equivalent to a bit more than 666 pounds sterling) and the return of the Church property he had seized when he had rebelled against it.

“Two months later, in July 1213, King John was: absolved of excommunication, at Winchester, by the return Arch Bishop of Canterbury Langton.

“Three months later, on October 3, 1213, King John ratified his surrender of his kingdoms to the Pope, who by virtue of his position as Vicar of Christ claims ownership of everything and everyone, on earth in the tradition of the Nazarene-Communist supercapitalist superdictatorship that is true fundamentalist Christianity.

“On April 21, 1214, the Pope, in Rome, formally accepted King John’s surrender of his kingdoms and his pledge of vassal (together with the moneys paid in tribute); and three months later, in July 1214, Pope Innocent III raised the interdict against the English.

“Thus the Pope assured the English of ‘access to Heaven,’ from which they had been ‘barred’ by their king’s opposition to the church’s Nazarene, or Communist, totalitarianism and denial of civil rights to mankind.”

[SOURCE: British Museum Publication G. R. C. Davis, entitled Magna Carta (211), and American Counsel of Christian Laymen: How Red is The Federal Counsel of Churches.]

11.  Did the Treaty of 1213 actually affect the ownership of the colonies?

ANSWER: The Vatican owned the colonies, but let the King serve as the manager for the enterprise.  The Vatican was busy fighting Crusades and expanding The Kingdom.


12.  What did the Treaty of 1213 actually say?

ANSWER: The original Treaty of 1213 is located in the London Archives and is available to Ph.D.s; however, a copy of a translation has been made available.  It remains in power to this day.  It states:

QUOTE:The King’s Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope–“We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in consequence are known to have very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for making due satisfaction to God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms: we, wishing to humiliate ourselves for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy Spirit inspiring, not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, for the remission of our sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for the dead; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the presence of that prudent man Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur.  Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.” [END QUOTE]

End of Part 1

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gaBm4VuARDk/TxXJwb9geQI/AAAAAAAAC6s/yXGltPAXKX0/s1600/1012_the-united-states-usa-stars-and-stripes-viba-demotivational-posters-1291754115.jpg

Part 2

OBJECTIVE:  If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  This is important.

13.  Who were the members of the British Board of Trade?

ANSWER
: The Board included agents of the King of England, members of the Privy Council (i.e., legislative bodies), and the Archbishop of Canterbury who represented the Church of England. [SOURCE: World Book Encyclopedia (WBE)]


14.  Were Jews allowed on the Board of trade?

ANSWER: No.  The Board refused to allow either the Lombards or the Jewish moneylenders onto their Board.  They were segregated because their religious rules made them useful for the Board.  The following quote is an excellent explanation.

QUOTE:  The Federal Reserve Conspiracy and Rockefeller (1952)
By Emanuel Josephson


“Since commerce and money are the livelihoods of nations and their peoples, the control of money is the obvious key to the control of nations and the world. …Rome’s successor the Holy Roman Empire dissimulated its interest in money and its power.  This was in accord with its professed tenets of Nazarene, theistic Communism.

“Under ecclesiastic Canon Law, even profits in business transactions were decreed to be the cardinal sin and capital offense of ‘usury’ As late as the sixteenth century, one hundred businessmen were burned at the stake in Geneva, as a penalty under Church law, for making profits in their business transactions.  Title to all wealth , as well as to the person and lives of all the earth, are claimed by the Church, on the ground that their ownership is divinely vested in the Pope as the Vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.

“Thus theistic, Nazarene Communism, and the ‘modern’ religion that goes by the name of Communism and is supposedly atheist, both are basically supercapitalist and both mask their grab for money and wealth.

“Title to all wealth was vested in the Church and in its champion ‘knights,’ who at the same time assumed the role of so-called ‘protectors,’ much like the present day labor leaders of their vassals whom they mercilessly enslaved and looted.

“Both Churchmen and lay knights used the despised Jews for the conduct of their usurious financial operations, in order to avoid ‘sinning’ and the death penalty that it involved.  The Jews proved very useful and handy for that purpose. Their use was justified by their ‘CHRISTIAN’ masters in a manner that they were taught by their faith was incontrovertible.  Jews were damned and doomed by their faith and their failure to accept the divinity of Jesus and the perversion of His teachings by the Jewish merchant, Saul of Tarsus, alias St. Paul, opined the Churchmen; and therefore, it was ‘good work’ to hasten them to damnation.

“This they did by forcing their Jewish serfs to engage, as their pawns, in the ‘sin’ and ‘crime’ of ‘usury’ by which was meant the charging of interest as well as loan sharking and engaging in profitable commerce, for their Christian, ecclesiastical bosses.

“Often the Churchmen barred the Jews, by their orders and laws, from engaging in any other vocation than those to which the stigma of usury was attached, especially loan-sharking, as their agents.  This was a particular advantageous set up for the Churchmen.  For if the Jew was merciful and failed to extract from the victims everything that they possessed (i.e., the last drop of blood), he was burned at the stake as a ‘heretic.’

“On the other hand, if the Jew mercilessly followed orders of his priestly boss, was honest with his boss and amassed a fortune for him and for himself, there was nothing to bar his Christian master from exercising his cupidity and robbing his faithful loan-shark by charging him with the ‘sin’ of usury, confiscating the fortune he had made in his service, and with great hypocritic show of ‘piety,’ burn him at the stake—‘to ensure his salvation.’

“The victorious Lombard invaders of the Holy Roman Empire changed the financial situation in much the same manner as have the latter day Maffia extortioners and blackmailers.  Seizing control of the Church, they gave themselves ‘dispensation’ to disregard the Canon Law on usury.  They openly engaged in it from the very steps of the Vatican.

“Dispensation from the Canon on Usury was subsequently granted by the Vatican, in the 15th century, to the German Fuggers, the Rockefellers of that era.  Their profits from commerce, usury and the sale of papal dispensations, as agents of the Vatican, grew rapidly, as did their ‘payoff’ to the church.  They were heaped with Papal honors.  Both their grasping greed and merciless loan-sharking earned for them distrust and terror.  When one of their number was elevated to the rank of Cardinal, the Churchmen feared that the Fuggers would reach out and steal the Vatican itself.  They then decided that their Jewish pawn were more completely at their mercy, more amenable and safer.

“Trusteeship of the fortune of one of the wealthiest Christian rulers of Europe, whose confidence had been earned by honest and trustworthy dealings during the Napoleonic wars, is the source of the wealth and influence that the Rothechilds acquired in the first decades of the 19th century.

“Subsequently, after making a large loan to the hard pressed Vatican, that no Christian would consider making, they became the fiscal agents of the Vatican, received Papal decorations and preferments, and enforced the policies dictated by the Church.  It was largely in this sense that they were ‘international bankers.’  And the policies dictated by them were in effect the policies dictated by the Church.  They enforced those policies through their establishments in many lands.

“An amusing story is told of the earliest relations of the Rothschilds with the Vatican.  The Vatican found itself short of ready cash after almost half a century of war waged on it for the Jesuit Order by one of its unordained members, Adam Weishaupt, to avenge its abolition, in 1773, as ‘immoral and a menace to the Church and the Faith’ by short lived Pope Clement XIV in his Papal breve Dominus Ac Redemptor.

“Weishaupt and his fellow Jesuits cut off the income to the Vatican by launching and leading the French Revolution; by directing Napoleon’s conquest of Catholic Europe; by the revolt against the Church led by such priests as Father Hidalgo, in Mexico and Latin America; by eventually having napoleon throw Pope Pius Vii in jail at Avignon until he agreed, as the price for his release, to reestablish the Jesuit Order.  This Jesuit war on the Vatican was terminated by the Congress of Vienna and by the secret, 1822 Treaty of Verona. . .

“The Rothschilds sought to extend their financial and political dominion to the United States, for themselves primarily to serve their Vatican masters.  The Vatican’s interest in the U.S. Republic was clearly revealed in the Treaty of Verona, in which the Jesuit Order pledged itself, as the price of reestablishment, to destroy ‘the works of Satan’ that it had accomplished in setting up, by revolts, representative governments such as republics and so called ‘democracies.’

“Senator Robert Owen pointed out, in the Senate, that the prime target to which the Vatican and the ‘Holy Alliance’ directed the subversive and destructive activities of the Society of Jesus is the United States, [See Congressional Record, April 25, 1916], as well as other republics in the Western Hemisphere.  This plot, he related, was the target at which the Monroe Doctrine was directed.

“The Rothschild-Vatican cabal unsuccessfully attempted to gain control over the power of the purse in the U.S. through the First and Second Bank of the United States.  They were established under the emergency powers granted the President by the Constitution, as temporary institutions to tide the country through the periods of financial stress occasioned by the Revolutionary and 1812 Wars.” [END QUOTE]

15.  Did the original 13 colonies have a court system?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE:
“Encyclopedia of American History – “in 1697 the British Board of Trade, under the Navigation Act, established vice-admiralty courts in all the colonies.  These courts had jurisdiction over Trade, ordinary maritime cases as well as prize.  It even granted jurisdiction by the Act of 1722 over infringements concerning timber.  These Admiralty courts, set up under the Townshend Acts, centered final control in America.” [Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 4]


16.  What were the types of jurisdiction assigned to the courts in the colonies?

ANSWER: Admiralty and maritime.

QUOTE: “Admiralty, by Benedict, 1850:
“Its necessary effect [the Act] was, however, to start the courts on that system of practice, and really to impose upon them, in admiralty and maritime cases, the civil law practice, as that under which they must continue to administer justice, even after the expiration of that act, until further provision could be made.”


“Section 105–The Purpose of the Constitutional Grant–The Essential Harmony of the Maritime Law.  The grand purpose of the Constitution was to unify the several states , the whole people, in their national, international, and interstate relations and all other purposes were subordinate and ancillary to this.

“Section 123 – The commission to the Governor as Vice-Admiral was very full, granting, in language so clear that it cannot be misunderstood, an admiralty jurisdiction as wide and beneficial as the most zealous supporters of the English Admiralty ever claimed for it.”

17.  What is the legal meaning of the word:  “federal”?

ANSWER: The word “federal” simply put means “contract.”
QUOTES: From The American College Dictionary, 1947:
“Federal – 1.  Of or pertaining to a compact or a league, esp. a league between nations or states.”
“Compact–an agreement between parties; a covenant; a contract.”


NOTE: The more modern dictionaries are missing the original definitions as the university professors began to reshape society by gradually changing the definitions of words our students learn and use.

18.  Did Commercial Contracts in the United States evolve from something else?

ANSWER: Yes.
QUOTE from Section 065, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier:
“Here in the United States, in a Commercial contract factual setting, the word ‘covenant’ is an Old English Law Merchant origin, and now means only a few clauses within a larger contract. . .”


19.  Is there a difference between Government commerce and Private commerce in law?

ANSWER: Yes.
QUOTE from Section 387, “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier:
“Admiralty Jurisdiction is the KING’S COMMERCE of the High Seas . .. But as for that slice of Commerce going out on the High Seas without the King as a party, that Commerce is called Maritime Jurisdiction, and so Maritime is the private Commerce that transpires in a marine environment.  At least, that distinction between Admiralty and Maritime is the way things once were, but no more.”


20.  Do Admiralty courts still exist today?

ANSWER: Yes, it is the United States Federal Court system.
QUOTE:
“This is the type of court that exists today and why we cannot bring a pure Article of the Bill of Rights argument into a contract [i.e., federal] court of the Law-Merchant in their civil law.  As Benedict states at Section 5,” . .. The civil law was held to be the law of admiralty, and the course of proceedings in admiralty, closely resembled the civil law practice.”  All maritime revenue cases, whether State or United States, deals in contract. …
[Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 5.]


QUOTE from Section 049,  “Invisible Contracts,” by George Mercier.
“In such administrative enforcement proceedings under grievances arising out of privileges and contracts that Congress created, Federal Judges are acting MINISTERIALLY as Legislative Court, functioning as an extension of the agency for the King, and not Judicially as an Article III Court acting like neutral and disinterested referees calling the shots as umpires between adversaries; and so some steps taken by the Judge acting MINISTERIALLY, to shorten the proceedings or otherwise silence the Defendant when irrelevant subject matter is being discussed, are largely non-reversible on appeal.  In Northern Pipeline vs Marathon Pipe Line ]458 U.S. 50 (1982)], the Supreme Court ruled that Congress can create non-Article III LEGISLATIVE COURTS in three areas: Territorial Courts, Military Courts Martial, and in disputes involving privileges that Congress created in the first place [MARATHON, id., at pages 64 et seq.].  Participating in that closed private domain of King’s [government] Commerce is very much accepting and benefitting from a privilege created by Congress.


QUOTE:
“A case in admiralty does not, in fact, arise under the Constitution or Laws of the United States.”
American Ins. Co. V Canter, 1 Pet. 511, 545 (1828).


QUOTE: “We don’t use the word constitution in this court,” said the Aiken Federal Judge during a hearing for a Freedom of Information Act violation in the City of Aiken.  This author was the Plaintiff, and was awarded damages for the failure of the city to give information per the FOIA, but no discussion about the constitutional merits of the case were allowed to be discussed..

21.  The U.S. Constitution states in Article I, Section 8, “The Congress shall have Power . .. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States; . .. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures”.  So, why is there also paper money if it is not constitutional?

ANSWER: It all began in 1751 with the English Parliament.
QUOTE from  Source: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 7:
“In March of 1751, the British Board of Trade presented Parliament with a Restraining Act, which barred the Colonies, by law, from issuing paper money and letters of Credit. This gave the King’s orders the validity of formal law.  The Colonies didn’t buy it, for it destroyed their control of the trade.  You see, there was no gold or silver being mined in America.  They had to rely on gold and silver from other countries.  England had most of the gold.


“On July 10, 1754, the Confederacy was born because of this, so they could issue paper money, only on their joint order.  Ben Franklin had long advocated this.

“In March of 1775, the Pennsylvania Assembly borrowed money and issued bills of Credit without authorization of either King or Governor.  The Board of Trade tried another ploy and said that Gold and Silver have intrinsic value, and therefore, should be used by the Colonies.  Because of ‘them’ issuing ‘paper money’ it ‘ruins the Colonies,’ so said the Tories.

“Now get this people, Franklin replied to the contrary saying that paper money served as a medium of exchange and credit had made possible the growth of the Colonies and their trade.  He told the Board of Trade that the Tories argued that the paper money issued by the colonies was a dilution of their control of wealth.

“This explains why the federal government is denied the power to issue currency other than coin or to set up or charter banks.  But they do it under ‘emergency power.’  This is why the present day private Federal Reserve System, counterpart of the British Board of Trade, runs this country today.

“Now you know why the Crown initiated the coin only clause in the Constitution, so the private bankers could control the paper credit.  Paper is NOT money.”

QUOTE from Section 390, “Invisible Contracts,’ by George Mercier:
“However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into with each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: the beneficial use and reticulation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King [government] an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.”


End of Part 2


http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef011278fcf14328a4-800wi

Part 3

OBJECTIVE:  If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  This is important.

22.  What other names were given to the British International Bankers in history?

ANSWER: They were called Fruggers, Knights Templar, Gisors, Tuscans, etc., and today they are called The Crown.  [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 6]

23.  Legally DEFINE: Contract, Charter, Compact and Constitution?



ANSWER:

Contract: “An agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. . . A legal relationship consisting of the rights and duties of the contracting parties; a promise or set of promises constituting an agreement between the parties that gives each a legal duty to the other and also the right to seek a remedy for the breach of those duties. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Charter: “An instrument emanating from the sovereign power, in the nature of a grant, either to the whole nation, or to a class or portion of the people, to a corporation, or to a colony or dependency, assuring to them certain rights, liberties, or powers . .. A charter differs from a constitution, in that the former is granted by the sovereign, while the later is established by the people themselves. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Compact: “. . .A contract between parties, which creates obligations and rights capable of being enforced and contemplated as such between the parties, in their distinct and independent characters. . .” [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

Constitution: “ . . . A charter of government deriving its whole authority from the governed.  The written instrument agreed upon by the people of the Union, or a particular states, . .. In a more general sense, any fundamental or important law or edict; as the Novel Constitutions of Justinian; the Constitutions of Clarendon.”  [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

24.  Was the United States Constitution a charter, compact, constitution or contract?

 ANSWER:  It was a compact between the Vatican, who controlled the King of England, and the aristocrats of the thirteen colonies.  [The New History of America, by The Informer, Page 20]

QUOTE:  John C. Calhoun, in 1831 said, “The Constitution of the United States is, in fact, a compact, to which each State is a party.” [SOURCE: The New History of America, by The Informer, page 20.]

QUOTE:   Thomas Jefferson in 1789 stated, “To this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-states forming, as to itself, the other party.”

QUOTE:  “Patrick Henry said he was ‘no longer a Virginia, but an American.’  He did not say he was an American citizen, because the compact merged all confederate states as if one, and you couldn’t tell the difference.”  [SOURCE:  The New History of America, by The Informer, Page 20]

QUOTE:  “United States is a place within America and it is not a country.  Also, what you were not told were the framers signed the Constitution as witnesses only.  In law, that is an impossibility to witness a document no one signed . . . The Constitution was not only never signed by anybody, but it was never delivered by anybody, or to anybody’s agent or attorney.  It can therefore be of no more validity as a contract, than can any other instrument that was never signed or delivered . . . On general principles of law and reason, the oaths which these pretended agents of the people take ‘to support the Constitution,’ are of no validity or obligation.  And why?  For this, if for no other reason, viz., that they are given to nobody.  There is no privity (as the lawyers say) –that is, no mutual recognition, consent, and agreement—between those who take these oaths, and any other persons.”  [SOURCE:  The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, pages 10-13]

25.  In legal terminology, is there a difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people?”



ANSWER:  Yes.  In the phrase, “We, the People” the capitalized word makes it a proper noun, which means that “the People” was a specific group (i.e., the aristocrats).  In the phrase, “We, the people” the common noun indicates that the phrase refers to people in a general sense.  [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Pages 25-26]

26.   In 1776, who was “We, the People” referring to in the U.S. Constitution?

ANSWER:  The “People” referenced by the Constitution were the wealthy aristocrats.   All of the men held Grants and Charters with the King.  They owed him, as well as The Crown, interest on the credit extended to them for planting the new society.  They profited very well from their exports all over the world.  [The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 23]

QUOTE:  Patrick Henry said, “ . .. But, Sir, give me leave to demand, what right had they to say, ‘We, the People?  If the States be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great consolidated National Government of the people of all the states.” [SOURCE: The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, page25.]

27.  Why did the aristocrats meet in secret to discuss the Constitution?

ANSWER:  The Founding Fathers were in very big trouble.  They were wealthy men, who had credit with the King via The Crown.  They owed contractual debts, which the King expected them to pay. The Crown fronted the money for the King’s enterprise, so the International Bankers would hold the King responsible for that debt, if the colonists refused to pay their debts.  All were obligated to the King with written and signed contracts.  The leaders in the colonies were held responsible for the rebellion (i.e., Revolutionary War).  They were wealthy aristocrats, who also had large parcels of land, huge estates, and other revenue producing businesses back in the old country.  The Vatican controlled King placed the wealthy aristocrats into a political ‘checkmate’.   The King sent them a choice.  They could lose everything they owned in Europe, or they could quietly go along with a form of government that would allow the King to manipulate the future, on behalf of The Crown, for profit, and the aristocrats would go along with a lie to the people, which was to tell them they won the war.  The wealthy men chose to deceive the public.  They were told to Witness their agreement on the compact document to pledge that they would cooperate with the King.  The compact was called “The Constitution for the United States”, which is duly stated in paragraph number one of the document.  [SOURCE:  The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, pages 22-24]

NOTICE the words “for the United, because these men did something on behalf of unsuspecting fellow countrymen.  The public school system and elected officials have created a wonderful myth for us to believe about the derivation of the Constitution, but it was not an honorable meeting.

28.  Who actually wrote the Constitution?

ANSWER:  The Vatican along with The Crown drafted the constitution, and the King’s agents delivered it to the aristocrats in America for witnessing.  [SOURCE:  The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Pages 22-27.]

29.  How did the Constitution protect The Crown’s investments in America?

ANSWER:  Article VI of the Constitution 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. . . ”

30. When did the United States actually come into existence?

ANSWER:  The website for the Central Intelligence Agency states: “Britain’s American colonies broke with the mother country in 1776 and were recognized as the new nation of the United States of America following the Treaty of Paris in 1783.”

 NOTICE:  The USA was not official for seven years after the announced “victory” of the Revolutionary War.

31.  What were the terms of the Treaty of Paris in 1783?

QUOTE:

The Ten Articles of the Treaty of 1783
Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration.

Preface. Declares the treaty to be “in the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity,” states the bona fides of the signatories, and declares the intention of both parties to “forget all past misunderstandings and differences” and “secure to both perpetual peace and harmony.”

1. Acknowledging the Thirteen Colonies to be free, sovereign and independent States, and that the British Crown and all heirs and successors relinquish claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof;[2]

2. Establishing the boundaries between the United States and British North America (for an account of two strange anomalies resulting from this part of the Treaty, based on inaccuracies in the Mitchell Map—see Northwest Angle and the Republic of Indian Stream);

3. Granting fishing rights to United States fishermen in the Grand Banks, off the coast of Newfoundland and in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence;

4. Recognizing the lawful contracted debts to be paid to creditors on either side;

5. The Congress of the Confederation will “earnestly recommend” to state legislatures to recognize the rightful owners of all confiscated lands “provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects [Loyalists]“;

6. United States will prevent future confiscations of the property of Loyalists;

7. Prisoners of war on both sides are to be released and all property left by the British army in the United States unmolested (including slaves);

8. Great Britain and the United States were each to be given perpetual access to the Mississippi River;

9. Territories captured by Americans subsequent to treaty will be returned without compensation;

10. Ratification of the treaty was to occur within six months from the signing by the contracting parties.

* Spain received East and West Florida under the separate Anglo-Spanish peace agreement

[SOURCE:  Wikipedia.com]

32. Who was the “most holy and undivided Trinity” that is mentioned in the declaration paragraph of the Treaty of 1783?

ANSWER:  The Vatican, the King of England, and The Crown (i.e., international bankers).  [SOURCE:  The Myth and The Reality, by The Informer, Page 100]

33.  What is the legal definition of the word “church”?



ANSWER: A simple definition of church would be that it is a business.

QUOTE: “Church–In its most general sense, the religious society founded and established by Jesus Christ, to receive, preserve, and propagate His doctrines and ordinances.  It may also mean a body of communicants gathered into church order; body or community of Christians, united under one form of government by the profession of the same faith and observance of the same ritual and ceremonies; place where persons regularly assemble for worship; congregation; organization for religious purposes; religious society or body; the clergy or officialdom of a religious body.” [Black’s Law Dictionary]

34.  What is the legal definition of the word “business”?

QUOTE: “. . . Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome.  Doggett v Burnet, 62 App.D.C. 103, 65 F.2d 191, 194.” [Black’s Law Dictionary]

35.  Is the United States actually a church organization, an extension of the Vatican?

 ANSWER:  Yes.

QUOTE:  “If North Carolina is only a geographical place in America in which the State resides along with you, who is supreme?  Is not the State a corporate religion?  Is the Lord a religion?  I think not.  Are there many religions in the State?  To be recognized as a religion do not those religions have to register with the IRS/FED/STATE team to get a 501c-3 exemption?  This goes against what the “government” preaches, that being, church and State separation.  Government drones are hypocrites, because to be a church you must be controlled by the very State that boasts that church and State must not mix.  This is where logical minds do not prevail in the masses and they have no reasoning or common sense.  Who then is the master, if the State will not recognize the religion, if not licensed?  So one religion controls all others through license.  Shades of merry ole England and the Crown that controlled all religions before the what, revolutionary war?  But what if you are under another “church” called government?  The Lord said he set His Church upon this Rock, meaning he set His GOVERNMENT upon this earth, NOT some church building or religion . . . you can see why the State is telling you that they can’t mix the Church (Government) of the Lord and the State’s government (church?).  How fatuous to believe we are free people and can worship the Almighty and follow His laws without the Crown interfering; paying taxes to a rogue IRS that cannot be proven to be created by the legislature and which operates through fear, extortion, threats, killings, jailing, seizures, suicides and the like to keep everyone in bondage to pay a tribute to the elite integrationists using England as a front since it too went bankrupt before the United States did in 1861. . .  [The New History of America, by The Informer, Pages 16-17]

End of Part 3. 



http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6a8KeS8tzV8/TmamN2R0iSI/AAAAAAAABQA/B5xgSCUnTjY/s1600/HOLY+SEE+ADMIRALTY+LAW+RULES+THE+WORLD+001.jpg

Part 4

OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  Seek the Truth, and then you will become aware of the shackles on your ankles and the blinders on your eyes.

36.  Was the U.S. Constitution “ratified” or “adopted”?


ANSWER:  It was adopted.

QUOTE:  [Preamble to the Bill of Rights – “THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution …”

37.  What is the difference between “ratified” and “adopted” in legal terminology?

ANSWER:

“Adopt.  To accept, appropriate, choose, or select.  To make that one’s own (property or act) which was not so originally.  To accept, consent to, and put into effective operation; as in the case of a constitution, constitutional amendment, ordinance, court rule, or by-law.”

“Ratify.  To approve and sanction; to make valid; to confirm; to give sanction to.  To authorize or otherwise approve, retroactively, an agreement or conduct either, expressly or by implication.”

[SOURCE:  Black’s Law Dictionary]

38.   Why did the wealthy aristocrats choose to adopt the compact called “The Constitution for the United States”, which was sent to them by the Vatican via the King of England on behalf of The Crown?

ANSWER:  The King had the leaders of the colonies in a ‘checkmate.’  They owed him money.

QUOTE:  “In March of 1775 the Pennsylvania Assembly borrowed money and issued bills of Credit without authorization of either King or [appointed] Governor.”  [The New History of America by The Informer, Page 7]

QUOTE from Our Enemy the State, by Albert J. Nock:

“ . . . More than half the delegates to the constitutional convention in 1787 were either investors or speculators in the public funds.  Probably sixty percent of the values represented by these securities were fictitious, and were so regarded even by their holders.

QUOTE from The New History of America, by The Informer, Pages 31-33:

“They also had many land holdings and businesses in Europe . . . Well, they won independence from the King until the King wanted all his money he invested in his British colonies, now called the confederate states.  If the British Board of Trade was concerned in 1700 about losing wealth, then this was the time for them to take control of the situation.  After all, paper money was being printed in just about every confederate state, thereby wiping out the Bank of England’s control of the wealth.  The Treaty of 1606 still existed, (see James Montgomery’s work) so the King gave the ultimatum to the ‘men.’   . . .

“America had no navy to defend the waters.  It was dependent on the trading with foreign countries of Europe using British trading ships.  America was not yet self sufficient.  The King knowing this said to the men, I will seize all your property and business in England, under escheat.  I will run a blockade on the ocean and allow no trading to be carried on.  I will have total control in the amount of time your stores run out due to lack of trade.  They knew it was just a matter of time for this to happen, so, they agreed to cut a deal.

“This deal was to make the confederation appear to be very frail so they could draft up a compact.  This compact would suck in all the states in which the states would be forbidden to use their own paper money.  The corporate States, which you did not create, were bound to pay their debts in silver, Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1.  But, it cannot extend to the people, they can use anything they want.  Now you can understand a little better what I stated near the beginning about the British Board of Trade controlling the whole works. .  . As Patrick Henry stated, are you starting to ‘Smell a Rat?’

“ Is it any wonder why the ‘We, the People’ rushed to seal the deal between the King and themselves, leaving us the little people in the dark? . .  This would allow the British Board of Trade to use its international banking cartel to again control the trade through the use of its paper notes.  In exchange the King would solidify, by two more treaties, under the compact/agreement of the new Constitution, his hold on his property in America.  England was very near bankruptcy and had to hold onto its holdings in America.  Being business men, the ‘We’s’ jumped at the offer and a ‘new constitution’ was formed.  It was formed by “WE the People.” Was the We the People the 75% of the people in America?  No!  The “We the People” were only those that drafted the Constitution, therefore the need for the capital P in People. …

“So after all the smoke cleared the people had a new King and some vice-admirals called governors of each of the political subdivision.  Those in power still ruled the 75% of the masses that didn’t give a darn.”

 End of Part 4 


Part 5

OBJECTIVE:  If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  This is important.

39. What are the divisions of American Jurisprudence?

 ANSWER:  There are two major divisions: Tort Law and Contract Law. [Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier.  Section 013.]

QUOTE:   In Section 018, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“In general terms, both American Jurisprudence and Nature that it is modeled after are divided into actions that fall generally under Tort Law and Contract Law.. . . For a presentation of the history of the bifurcation of Law into Tort and Contract going back into 1200 A.D., see C.H.S. Fifoot in HISTORY AND SOURCES OF THE COMMON LAW, TORT AND CONTRACT; [Stevens and Sons, London (1949)].

40.  What is the difference between Tort Law and Contract Law?

QUOTE:  In Sections 018-021 , Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“Very simply, Contract Law applies to govern a settlement of a grievance whenever a contract is in effect.  This means that only certain types of very narrow arguments are allowed to be plead in Contract Law grievances, since only the content of the contract is of any relevance in the grievance settlement . . .”Commercial contracts are born, live and then die, in their own strata, without the Constitution offering any significant restrainment on Legislative intervention . . .In contrast . . . we have Tort Law.  Think of Tort Law as being a Judgment Law to settle grievances between persons where there are damages, but without any contract in effect between the parties.”

EXAMPLES of Contract Law: (1) Securities law, (2) Estate Inheritance law, (3) Quasi-Contracts, etc.

EXAMPLES of Tort Law: (1) Civil Rights, (2) Wrongful Death, (3) Product Liability, (4) Aviation law, (5) Personal Injury, (6) Accident Recovery, (7) Professional Malpractice, (8) Unfair Competition, (9) Admiralty and Maritime Torts, (10) Fraud and Anti-Trust actions, etc.

QUOTE:  Wigmore, Select Cases on the Law of Torts, page vii (1912 states:

“Never did a Name so obstruct a true understanding of the Thing.  To such a plight has it brought us that a favorite mode of defining a Tort is to declare merely that it is not a Contract.  As if a man were to define Chemistry by pointing out that it is not Physics or Mathematics.”

 41.  What are the three main parts of a binding contractual agreement?

ANSWER: The three parts of a binding contract are: Offer, Acceptance, and Consideration.

Explanation:  (1) An Offer  must be made to someone else, (2) .the Offer must be voluntarily Accepted, and (3) if both parties “voluntarily give, exchange, perform, or promise one another something of value, then you’ve got Consideration. [SOURCE:  Law for Dummies, by John Ventura, JD, Page 16]

QUOTE:  In Section 013 of, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“ … A perfect, well-rounded contract requires not only a promise and a Consideration, but a participation by each party in both of these elements . . .”  – Edward Bennett in Considerations Moving From Third Persons in 9 Harvard law Review 233, at 233 (1895).

QUOTE:  In Section 001 of, Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier states:

“Whenever there is an exchange of benefits and there remains some lingering expectations of some duty between two parties, then an actual INVISIBLE CONTRACT is in effect . . . as it is said that the duty owed back to the party initially transferring the benefits is RECIPROCAL in nature.”

42.  Is there a legal difference between “signing” and “witnessing” a document?

ANSWER: Yes.

QUOTE: “Sign –To affix one’s name to a writing or instrument, for the purpose of authenticating or executing it, or to give it effect as one’s act.   . . To make any mark, as upon a document, in token of knowledge, approval acceptance, or obligation.”

QUOTE: “Witness – In general, one who, being present, personally sees or perceives a thing; a beholder, spectator, or eyewitness.   . . One who testifies to what he has seen, heard, or otherwise observed. . . A person attesting genuiness of signature to document by adding his signature. .. One who is called upon to be present at a transaction, or the making of a will. . . “ [Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition]

43.  Was The United States Constitution “signed” or was it “witnessed?”

ANSWER:  Read the document.  It states, “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth in Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, . . .”

NOTE:  Remember in Part 3, Item 25, one learned the difference between “We, the People” and “We, the people.”  The constitution was created for and witnessed by a specific body of men, and it did not apply to the more general population, which is clearly noted in the way it uses capital letters.

44.  Did the men who “witnessed”  The United States Constitution participating in the beginning of a “con job” for the colonists which continues today?

ANSWER:  Yes.

QUOTE from Edmond Burke in March 22, 1775 with his Speech on Conciliation with America:

“. . . Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights associated with your government–they will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of power to tear them from their allegiance.  But let it be once understood that your government may be one thing and their privileges another that these two things may exist without any mutual relation–the cement is gone, the cohesion is loosened and everything hastens to decay and dissolution.  As long as you have the wisdom to keep the sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the sacred temple consecrated to our common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship freedom, they will turn their faces toward you.  The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the more ardently they love liberty, the more perfect will be their obedience.  Slavery they can have; tey can have it from Spain; they may have it from Prussia.  But until you become lost to all feeling of your true interest and your natural dignity, freedom they can have from none but you.  This commodity of price, of which you have the monopoly.  This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the commerce of the colonies, and through them secures to you the wealth of the world.  Deny them this participation of freedom, and you break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the unity of the empire. . . Let us get an American revenue as we have got an American empire.  English privileges have made it all that it is; English privileges alone will make it all it can be.”

End of Part 5. 

Part 6

 OBJECTIVE: If you do not know where you came from, then you certainly cannot know where you are going.  It is time to review history and pull together some of the lesser known facts for edification and purification of what America was, is and chooses to become.  This is important.

45.  What are the legal jurisdictions mentioned by the United States Constitution and what is involved in each?

ANSWER: Common Law, Equity Law, and Admiralty/Maritime Law. [Source:  UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

Common Law.  “In general, it is a body of law that develops and derives through judicial decisions, as distinguished from legislative enactments.  The ‘common law’ is all the statutory and case law background of England and the American colonies before the American revolution.” [Source:  Black’s Law Dictionary]

LAYMEN definition: There is no Compelled Law.  Covers a damages.  This is Criminal law.

Equity Jurisdiction.  “In a general sense, the jurisdiction belonging to a court of equity..” [Source:  Black’s Law Dictionary]

LAYMEN definition: One is compelled to perform to the letter of any contract.  This is CIVIL law.

Admiralty law and Maritime Law.  Involves commerce on the High Seas and International Contracts.  Involves Compelled Performance with Criminal Penalties.

46.  Is there a difference between Admiralty Law and Maritime Law?

ANSWER: Yes.

(1)  Admiralty Law. Commerce on the high seas that involves the King (i.e., government).

QUOTE: Admiralty is a subdivision of King’s Commerce such that all of King’s Commerce that takes place over waterways and the High Seas . ..  Is assigned to be governed by a special set of grievance settlement and evidentiary rules, just custom tailored to Commerce of that nature . . . at least that was the case in the old days when Admiralty was once restricted to govern legitimate business transactions with the King out on the High Seas. . .. On land, assigning fault and making partial recovery by the responsible party is quite common, but not so out on the High Seas.  So this special marine jurisdiction (and ‘jurisdiction’ meaning here is simply a special set of rules) was developed organically, piece by piece and sometimes Case by Case . . . Also, some of the other special rules applicable to grievances brought into a Court of Admiralty are that there is no jury in Admiralty–NEVER– everything is handled summarily before a Judge in chronologically compressed proceedings.  Also, there are no fixed rules of law or evidence (meaning that it is somewhat like an Administrative Proceeding in the sense that it is a gree-wheeling evidentiary jurisdiction–anything goes).  SOURCE: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 383]

(2)  Law Merchant. “Commerce on the high seas that does not involve the King (i.e.  government).”

QUOTE: “The system of law which particularly relates to marine commerce and navigation, to business transacted at sea or relating to navigation, to ships and shipping, to seamen, to the transportation of persons and property by sea, and to marine affairs generally. “ [Black’s Law Dictionary]

47.  How did Admiralty Law become the jurisdiction in the Federal Courts?

ANSWER: Federal Reserve Notes

QUOTE: “Up until the mid-1800s here in the United States, very frequently merchants paid off each other in gold coins and company notes . .. It was infrequent that the King had an involvement with private Maritime Commerce.  And there was an easy-to-see distinction in effect back then between Maritime Jurisdiction contracts that involved private parties . . . and Admiralty Jurisdiction, which applied to Commercial contracts where the King was a party. . .. However, today in the United States, all Commercial contracts that private parties enter into whith each other that are under Maritime Jurisdiction, are now also under Admiralty: Reason: The beneficial use and recirculation of Federal Reserve Notes makes the King an automatic silent Equity third party to the arrangements.” [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 390]

QUOTE: “This concept of using Admiralty as a slick tool for Revenue Raising is an important concept to understand, as this procedure to raise revenue through an invisible Admiralty Contract is now surfacing in the United States in the very last place where anyone would think a marine based jurisdictional environment belongs: On your Internal Revenue Service’s 1040 form. . . “ [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 396]

48.  How does one become financially entangled in the Admiralty Law system in the USA?

ANSWER: The Birth Certificate combined with the adult who performs Acceptance of Benefits.

QUOTE: “But later through a Federal Judge, I realized that there are special financial benefits that persons documented as being politically enfranchised at birth, experience later on as adults, when they are being shaken down for a smooth Federal looting; and it is this Acceptance of Benefits as adults, in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, that attaches contract tax liability, and not the existence of a Birth Certificate document itself. . . As a point of beginning, one person cannot bind another.  But most importantly, all the Birth Certificate and correlative documents in the world will not separate a dime in taxation from you until such time as you, individually, and personally, have started to accept juristic benefits.” [Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 411]

QUOTE: “Remember that when benefits are being accepted in the context of reciprocity being expected back in return, then there lies a good tight contract.” {Source: Invisible Contracts, by George Mercier, Section 412]

49.  What is Statutory Law?

ANSWER: Codified Merchant Law.

QUOTE: Statutory Law.  “That body of law created by acts of the legislature in contrast to constitutional law and law generated by decisions of courts and administrative bodies.”   [Source:  Black’s Law Dictionary]

QUOTE: “The word “colorable” means something that appears to be genuine, but is not.  Maybe it looks like a dollar, and maybe it spends like a dollar, but if it is not redeemable for lawful money (silver or gold) it is “colorable.”  If a Federal Reserve Note is used in a contract, then the contract becomes a “colorable” contract.  And “colorable” contracts must be enforced under a “colorable jurisdiction.”  So by creating Federal Reserve Notes, the government had to create a jurisdiction to cover the kinds of contracts, which use them.  We now have what is called Statutory Jurisdiction, which is not a genuine Admiralty jurisdiction.  It is “colorable” Admiralty Jurisdiction the judges are enforcing because we are using “colorable money.”  Colorable Admiralty is now known as Statutory Jurisdiction.”  [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 6]

50.  What happened in 1938 that revolutionized American jurisprudence?

QUOTE from a judge to an attorney: “Name any decision of the Supreme Court after 1938 and I’ll honor it, but all the decisions you read were prior to 1938, and I don’t honor those decisions.  Prior to 1938, the Supreme Court was dealing with Public Law; since 1938, the Supreme Court has dealt with Public Policy. . . .” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 3]

QUOTE by the attorney: “I found that 1938 was the year of the Erie Railroad v. Tompkins case of the Supreme Court.  It was also the year the courts claim they blended Law with Equity.  I read the Erie Railroad case . .. The district court had decided on the basis of Commercial (Negotiable Instruments) Law: That this man was not under any contract with the Erie Railroad, and therefore he had no standing to sue the company . .. This overturned a standing decision of over one hundred years . .. In the Erie Railroad case, the Supreme Court ruled that all federal cases would be judged under the Negotiable Instruments Law.  There would be no more decisions based on the Common Law at the federal level . ..  All our courts since 1938 were merchant Law courts and not Common Law courts.” [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 4]

51.  Why did the USA judges abandon Public Law and switch to Public Policy for decisions?

QUOTE from a Judge: “In 1938, all the higher judges, the top attorneys and the U.S. attorneys were called into a secret meeting and this is what we were told:  America is a bankrupt nation–it is owned completely by its creditors.  The creditors own the Congress, they own the Executive, they own the Judiciary and they own all the state governments.  Take a silent judicial notice of this fact, but never reveal it openly.  Your court is operating in an Admiralty Jurisdiction–call it anything you want, but do not call it Admiralty.”  [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 4]

QUOTE from a Judge: “The reason they cannot call it Admiralty Jurisdiction is that your defense would be quite different in Admiralty Jurisdiction from your defense under the Common Law.  In Admiralty, there is no court, which has jurisdiction unless there is a valid international contract in dispute.  If you know it is Admiralty Jurisdiction, and they have admitted on the record that you are in an Admiralty Court, you can demand that the international maritime contract, to which you are supposedly a party, and which you supposedly have breached, be placed into evidence No court has Admiralty/Maritime Jurisdiction unless there is a valid international maritime contract that has been breached.  So you say, just innocently like a lamb, ‘Well, I never knew that I got involved with an international maritime contract, so I deny that such a contract exists.  If this court is taking jurisdiction in Admiralty, then place the contract in evidence, so that I may challenge the validity of the contract.  What they would have to do is palce the national debt into evidence.  They would have to admit that the international bankers own the whole nation, and that we are their slaves.””  [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

52.  For what are the international bankers waiting if the nation is bankrupted?

QUOTE by an attorney: “But the bankers said it is not expedient at this time (i.e., 1980s) to admit that they own everything and could foreclose on every nation of the world.  The reason they don’t want to tell everyone that they own everything is that there are still too many privately owned guns.  There are uncooperative armies and other military forces.  So until they can gradually consolidate all armies into a World Army and all courts into a single World Court, it is not expedient to admit the jurisdiction the courts are operating under. . .”  [UCC Connection, by Howard Freeman, page 5]

Disclaimer: These interrogatories are not intended as legal advice, nor do they offer any political suggestions to the reader.  All verification is left to the reader.  The interrogatories by this author are an academic attempt to digest the evidence and instruction found in many sources, and especially in two books entitled: The Myth and The Reality; and A New History for America.  The Informer has displayed tremendous intellectual fortitude with his serious scientific analysis of the evidence throughout written history of the events up to, during, and following the Revolutionary War.  The conclusions are breath-taking upon the first reading, because the evidence demands huge paradigm shifts in knowledge structure and assumption.  Americans have no idea who they really are on a global scale, how their Courts came into being, nor why they keep losing nonexistent “Rights.”  Well, it is time to ask some very good questions and seek truthful answers.  LEARN.

From A Nation Beguiled @ http://anationbeguiled.wordpress.com/2012/06/24/the-real-history-of-the-united-states-of-america/
 

Help This Unique Independent Site Survive
Donate any amount and receive at least one New Illuminati eBook!
Just press the button - 




Video @ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5L_x6RHE4s

Images - http://therealviews.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/constitutional.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/43/Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.png/800px-Scene_at_the_Signing_of_the_Constitution_of_the_United_States.png
http://projectavalon.net/forum4/attachment.php?attachmentid=17791&d=1344917840&thumb=1
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gaBm4VuARDk/TxXJwb9geQI/AAAAAAAAC6s/yXGltPAXKX0/s1600/1012_the-united-states-usa-stars-and-stripes-viba-demotivational-posters-1291754115.jpg 
http://thestar.blogs.com/.a/6a00d8341bf8f353ef011278fcf14328a4-800wi 
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6a8KeS8tzV8/TmamN2R0iSI/AAAAAAAABQA/B5xgSCUnTjY/s1600/HOLY+SEE+ADMIRALTY+LAW+RULES+THE+WORLD+001.jpg 



For further enlightening information enter a word or phrase into the search box @  New Illuminati or click on any label/tag at the bottom of the page @  http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com


And see




 New Illuminati on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/the.new.illuminati

New Illuminati Youtube Channel - http://www.youtube.com/user/newilluminati/feed



The Her(m)etic Hermit - http://hermetic.blog.com



The Prince of Centraxis - http://centraxis.blogspot.com (Be Aware! This link leads to implicate & xplicit concepts & images!)



This site is published under Creative Commons Fair Use Copyright (unless an individual item is declared otherwise by copyright holder) – reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged, if you give attribution to the work & author - and please include a (preferably active) link to the original along with this notice. Feel free to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember attribution! If you like what you see, please send a small but heartfelt donation or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long and prosper!


From the New Illuminati – http://nexusilluminati.blogspot.com