Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > General Conspiracy Discussion
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-25-2006, 12:29 PM
HothSnake HothSnake is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 24
Default America: still a British colony.


http://www.givemeliberty.50megs.com
“The Constitution is swollen with dangerous doctrine; doctrine that will be taken advantage of by the Federalists, a faction of monarchy men, military men, aristocrats and drones whose noise, impudence and zeal exceeds all belief."Richard Henry Lee, letter to George Mason, 1 October 1787

There existed a strong element within this country that maintained ties to the Crown before and after the war. These monarchy men, known as the Federalists, worked for the Crown and sought to undermine the fledgling Republic from its beginning. The Anti-Federalists (Patrick Henry was a prominent one of these) sounded the warning about the dubious actions of the Federalists; their public debates centered on the centralization of government under a Federal Constitution, the powers of the Executive branch in a consolidated and Federally Constituted government, and later, upon monetary issues. Of course, the Federalists were for a Federal consolidated government, a national central bank, and a strong Presidential office. Though the Anti-Federalists are generally ignored by our history books, it is because of them that we have a Bill of Rights. Because of their strong dissent against Federalism, the Bill of Rights was adopted into the Federalist's Constitution in order to get it ratified by all of the then thirteen States. A huge victory for freedom lovers at the time, but this victory would not last for long, as you will see. Patrick Henry was asked by his home State of Virginia to represent them at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He refused this service stating, "I smell a rat!"

"Unlike Henry, we have bought the lie that government made us rich, and that government can keep us that way. We have accepted the farce that an armed and independent people means nothing in the face of great dangers in far away lands. Indeed, these are the same lies spouted in Henry’s time. As Patrick Henry knew, Federalists, the ideological great-grandfathers of our own tax-happy centralizers, built everything on fear. Fear of economic decay, fear of foreign enemies, and fear of disunity. For a civilized and free people, the answers to such fears could no more be found in the hands of government in 1788 as today. Indeed, for Henry, it is those hands that are the only true threat to liberty." ~ Ryan McMaken

You may be very surprised at what you were never taught at government school. For instance, the Avalon Project at Yale Law School has documented significant sections of American history, through the various contracts and treaties that we have signed with foreign governments. I suggest that you check some of this material out at their website linked above, because I believe that what you will learn will be quite shocking.

For instance, I would wager that you did not know that the colonies were barrowing money from King George III before, during, and after the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) to the tune of 18 million of liveres, as indicated by the Contract of 1782. What is the King of England doing financing both sides of this war!? Also, according to the Treaty of Paris (the treaty that ended the war), article IV; all debts were to be repaid to their creditors (King) and article V, which returned all confiscated land to real British subjects. This treaty also provided for the use of the Mississippi River by England. Kind of a one sided treaty, huh? Note that the American signers of this treaty carried the title "Esqr." (Esquire a.k.a. attorney, lawyer), which legally denotes them as officers of the King's courts, thus making both parties the same party and thus only one creditor and recipient of confiscated lands (the Crown). When you only have one party to a contract, its not really a contract. Also, according to the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation (1794), the King kept troops quartered in the U.S. well after the war. It would seem that the Revolutionary War was nothing but a ruse with the goal of placing the American colonies in considerable debt to the Crown. It is the exact same premise used by credit card companies that make considerable profits off of debt slavery. Control the monetary policies of a country, and you control that country. Like all wars over the past four hundred years, the Revolutionary War was fought for monetary reasons.

It is interesting to note that the due date on the loans discussed under the Contract of 1782 was January 1, 1788. Was the scramble for a Constitutional Convention of 1787 an attempt at reorganization for bankruptcy? Note that Article Six, Section One keeps the loans from the King current. It states; "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." It would appear that the Constitution was a contract securing the King's ransom and providing for control of his debtors (note that the Crown of England was sworn in fealty to the Pope under the Charter of 1213, making the "Crown" the legal arm of the Vatican when this charter was breeched by the Magna Carta of 1215).

It would appear that the creditors ("Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States of America," i.e., King George III, according to the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783) of the newly reorganized "United States" wanted the interest on the loans that they had given the colonists (Contract of 1782), so Alexander Hamilton (Federalist extraordinaire) came up with an ingenious plan for taxing alcohol. The people resisted and George Washington sent the militia out to collect this tax, an event known by historians as the Whiskey Rebellion. And collect this tax he did.

According to Article One, Clause 15, the militia is responsible for executing the laws of the land. Also, notice Clause 16, which states that it is Congress that has the power to arm and organize the militia. Make no bones about it folks! The militia (police, IRS, etc.) are not here for our protection. The Constitution never provided for our protection, but for the collection of our substance and the maintenance of plantation America for her creditors.

One only has to look at the actions of a certain "Esqr." Alexander Hamilton in the creation of the United States (central) Bank of 1791, in order to witness the fruit born of the Federalists. This, of course, was a private bank, of which 18,000 of the 25,000 shares were owned by England. This bank led to so much economic turmoil and rampant corruption that its charter was not renewed in 1811, leading to the War of 1812. Soon, the second BUS was chartered just after the war, until it was put down by Andrew Jackson, who exclaimed: "You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, by the Eternal God, I will rout you out!" In 1913, England cemented its control over our monetary system with the creation of the Federal Reserve System, culminating in the second reorganization for bankruptcy under FDR.

The fact of the matter is that the King of England allowed the colonists of America to falsely believe that they were free, just as he did with the British people under the Magna Carta of 1215 and the Declaration of Rights of 1689. It's the same old game, but we are too ignorant about our history to figure it out.

Things got so bad with so called "Esquires" and "Attorneys" (agents of the Crown) running the country that a new amendment was suggested to the Constitution. In 1810 the original Thirteenth Amendment was proposed, which would have effectively removed the king’s power of reclaiming his land from the American people, by removing the possibility of lawyers/esquires running and obtaining office in the United States government. Strangely, this Amendment, though ratified in 1819, seems to have dissappeared until fifty years later when it was replaced by what we currently call the Thirteenth Amendment, which has nothing to do with the original. How could such a fraud be perpetrated upon our history books? Well, the evidence is overwhelming that such an Amendment did exist and was ratified long before the Civil War and can be seen in many of the official documents from the era. If you don't believe me, then here is just one: Journal of the Senate (1810). Here are a bunch more.

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."-- Original 13th Amendment ratified in 1819. [Journal of the Senate]


You see, Attorneys (Attornies), Lawyers, Esquires swore an oath to the "Crown Templar Bar", i.e., they are the legal arm of the King and the Vatican. It is the equivalent of today's American Bar Association, which is a franchise of the Lawyer's Guild of Great Britain. Not much has changed today, where these franchised members of elite clubs with their secret oathes, are placed in control of nearly every office in the land, and hold a total monopoly on the legal system of this country.

As you are coming to learn, the U.S., and the entire world for that matter, is still under Roman Law, which is Babylonian Talmudic Law, Justinian Codes and Hammurabi's Code, known today in the U.S. as the Uniform Commercial Code. We are members of the ardu (slave) class, i.e., tenants, "subjects", or "citizens" (notice that the use of the word "citizen" changed under the 14th Amendment, the Amendment that placed us all under the Code by granting us privileges from a contracting party instead of Rights derived of God) of Rome. This whole system of charters, contracts, deeds, conveyances, bonds, feuds and corporations is Babylonian Code, which is essentially a secret law administered within conquered nations for the benefit of the conquering force that allows them to extract tribute. Just take a look at the words used in the contracts and charters that are mentioned above and then notice their definitions. It is an ingenious system of thievery by equity (chancery) contracts. It was used extensively by the Roman Empire for controlling her conquered subjects, and has been the supreme law of the land (not the Constitutional Bill of Rights) since the Civil War under Abraham Lincoln, who abolished Congress as a lawful Constitutional entity and established Martial (Justinian Code) Law. Today, Congress as well as our Judicial branch operate under the auspices of the Executive branch. This is why the flag of the Executive branch flies in our Courts of law (gold fringed flag.) Our Government as it is portrayed today, is nothing more than a hoax. We are taxed without representation, and subject to military subjugation.

First, there is novation, [taken from Roman Justinian Code] from the Latin, novatio. This concept did not exist in American law before Lincoln's War Against the States. Novation is the extinguishment of a prior debt by a new debt obligation. Today, this is done by a birth certificate when a baby's foot is placed thereon - before it touches the land. The certificate is then recorded at a County Recorder, sent to the Secretary of State in the State where the baby is born, exported to the Department of Commerce, and Bereau of Census and the process of converting a man's life , labor, and property to an asset of theUnited States government is in place. (Ever wonder how the government can be so deeply in debt and still remain solvent? You're the collateral!) Novation is not complete until the child -- as adult -- voluntarily assents to being a debtor, by submitting an application for a benefit, priviledge, immunity, or opportunity from any branch of martial law agency. It does not matter whether it's The Department of Motor Vehicles or, The Social Security Administration, the effect is the same. Novation converts a baby's life, liberty, labor, and property, to an asset of the United States, a Federal Corporation, and converts flesh and blood man or woman, created under substantive Law by God, to a persona, {15} i.e., a fiction. One is now living collateral for the debts of the United States corporation, who has entered into commerce for some benefit, priviledge, etc., from an imperial power, regulated by military law that benfits bondholders of the debt of the corporation.-- Alan Russel

There are some whom will undoubtedly ask why Lincoln did not import the civil law of Rome. The answer is, the idea of Roman civil (common) law is bogus because Rome was always under the god Mars, i.e., Martial law (Temple) and was always a military state in which the Roman Legions were used to expand and maintain control of Rome's insatiable commercial appetite on behalf of the Crown Temple God (Emperor, Mars,etc.). Haven't you ever wondered why you need a lawyer in order to have justice? Why can't the law be made accessible and understandable to the common man? This is because we live under Roman Justinian Code, a legal system that is often kept a secret from the public. We all have selected sections of the Constitution of the U.S. drilled into our skulls from the time we start Government school, but we never learn about the commercial Codes that actually rule and control our lives.

See definitions of Esquire and Attorney.

__________________
\"If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of super-rich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead, it becomes logic...
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-02-2006, 07:43 PM
eddie eddie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 60
Default Re: America: still a British colony.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/
read the book on the front page by mary. :-)
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-24-2006, 10:34 PM
Ozziecynic's Avatar
Ozziecynic Ozziecynic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: A Land of Convicts & Rogues known as Downunder
Posts: 487
Default Re: Australia still a British colony.

:-? As a citizen of the land down under i can say with certainty so is Australia.But why i dont know or does anyone know?.
Its really strange and funny being subject to institutions which are still fully british in common law principles & logos of ER her Majesty Etc etc..a union jack in the corner of our flag when the country just signed a US Free trade agreement two years ago and the country operates on american capitalism and culture and most citizens are year by year and generation by generation overwhelmingly non anglo!.

In short a Nation with servere indentity Crisis!.

:roll:
__________________
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
Lord Acton.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-26-2006, 08:51 AM
marypopinz marypopinz is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 710
Default Re: Australia still a British colony.

30.05.06







A Plea for Humanity

- Brian Haw













1964 words


















My opinion:

Genocide: Judge Pleads Not Guilty on Behalf of Government



Dear Sir: 30.05.06

I still cannot quite digest what I witnessed today within the Bow Street Magistrates Courts - such flagrant abuse of a fellow country man’s rights. Why did not the solicitor object more strenuously? Perhaps she did not fully understand the games that were being played in that courtroom. They are certainly beyond the comprehension of most ordinary folk. Business as usual, I suspect - collusion. I recognized what I saw. I will explain…

It is just not a very pretty conclusion that is beginning to form in my mind. Brian politely stood up and asked the judge for his help, humbly, and was told to sit down and remain silent; that he could not speak regarding matters that others present were able to discuss to whatever length they chose - so many unanswered questions.

I know from article 1. of Brian Haw’s statement, that it was legally impossible for a plea to be offered today, let alone one be chosen and laid down by the judge on behalf of the accused, until advanced disclosure of all evidence is provided to the defendant by the CPS or the police. Lunacy comes to mind. The man said he could not make a plea and the judge did it for him. Why? What was his motivation? What could be the possible ramifications of his chosen actions upon Brian Haw? I certainly hope someone is not trying to make Circuit Judge off of the back of Brian Haw. Carrot and stick comes to mind.

Furthermore, it was agreed prior to court behind closed doors that no plea could be entered. Wat went wong? Are even the processes of law being abused? The CPS council and Brian’s solicitor, present behind closed doors, viewed Brian Haw’s statement before entering the courtroom - they received advanced disclosure. Good for the goose is not good for the gander in the kitchens of Bow Street Magistrate‘s Courts. Just what are they cooking up? The Judge received The Statement of Brian Haw by hand, by Brian’s solicitor, in courtroom Number 1, in public view, make no mistake please.

If Brian is to be found guilty under the new SOCPA legislation he could face up to one year in jail for his five year pursuit of peace, eviction and a hefty fine. To plead not guilty and be found guilty appears far worse that to confess ones guilt from the beginning. Wonderful childhood lessons I hope we have all learnt - all things being equal.

It is curious how applications for an anti-war protest to be located at Parliament Square are being continually rejected since the whips of Parliament determined to move Brian Haw on.

This is not the England my mother taught me about. Is this Roger Whittaker’s England? Is this your England? Do you recognize this country? I don’t, and I have lived here since 1991. Things have not been changing for the better, Tony. Everything you have touched has turned to shite. Education, healthcare, Iraq and the law - shite. Is this English justice?

A woman was arrested under the same SOCPA legislation for reading the names of the dead soldiers of this illegal war at a place of respect for them without government permission. Do we now require government permission to grieve? Just exactly what happened to the folks in Parliament Square when they held up blank placards without permission? Were they cautioned like myself, or arrested like others under which ridiculous section of what new and improved legislation attempting to erode away our civil rights? Not even a question mark folks?

Free speech is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as the right to express your opinions. Read it. Learn it. Live it. Love it. Speech is a gift from God and He intended to give it to everyone and some have had had taken it away. Make no mistake yet again. Free speech is a gift that God gave me that no man in this land may wave his magic pen and right a law to deny my voice or the voice of others. We, as members of the humane race, must speak for those who have been deprived their voice, especially to incite peace on behalf of my Good Lord. I will sing out and rejoice as the Bible has taught me to do. Amen.

I am a Christian woman and Brian is my brother from another mother. We have brothers and sisters all over the world; Moslem sisters and Hindu brothers, Jewish mothers and Buddhist fathers. We are indeed a global family that does not bar any creed, race, religion or fellow human being. We are humanity. Our uniting common desire is that of peace, love and justice for all our children’s future. Education is the way forward, not ignorance. Lying is never a good idea. The truth always has a funny way of coming to light.

Tony… can we talk?

Recently, I was cautioned for singing Jesus Loves the Little Children, All things Bright and Beautiful, Always Look on the Bright Side of Life - Monty Python, the word “mercy” sang over the tune of Amazing Grace and You Are My Sunshine outside Number 10 Downing Street on a Sunday evening. The policeman on the gate was a sweet heart. I think his mum must have sang him these songs too as he commented that he liked a certain hymn. He had a nice smile. It was all cool and copasetic. So why the charges?

Section 132 and 137 were first cited by two police officers after I demanded they tell me under which specific section I was being cautioned. They seemed to feel I had enough information in the knowledge of the Act and didn’t need to know under which specific section I was being cautioned, the fact that I was being cautioned under the Act alone was enough information for my small my mind to handle.

Section 137 deals with the use of a megaphone. I had none and pointed out the lunacy of that charge. Are you staring to get the picture? I was also told I should have received form 5090. What form? This all happened in public view.
I am told they are considering summonsing me to court as a serious organized criminal basically for practicing/singing hymns and a quirky English tune. The very next day, I hear that Mr. Tony Blair is swearing his faith to the Roman Catholic Church when he steps down from Number 10 and desires to lead the UN? Not into the music anymore, Tony? Hypocrisy comes to mind.

What more can I say?

The British Law Society needs to be duly informed that grievous improprieties and abuse of processes occurred within the walls of the Bow Street Magistrates Courts, Room number 1 on the above noted date.

I would also assume that an immediate dismissal of said hearings would be appropriate - a mistrial. It is contemptible that Brian Haw is expected to negotiate the return of his personal confidential legal documents and personal property, such as clothes and two priceless Bibles, with the parties who, in my opinion, illegally took possession of said confidential property and should have never had touched his personal effects in the first place. For myself, that is like telling a woman who was been raped and mugged to “go sort it out” with her rapist - the safe amicable return of her handbag and virginity.

I don’t think the artist Mr. Banks is going to be very happy with the due care that was not paid to his gifted artwork valued at some £50,000 that was on the pavement for public display until 78 police officers were sent on a dawn raid of Parliament Square. Has this theft been reported and filed? Has a statement been taken from the victim of this crime? Were there any witnesses? Were these paintings evidence and exactly whose evidence were they?

Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not kill.

The evidence Brian Haw displayed on the pavements of Parliament Square is that of genocide: noun deliberate extermination of a race of people.[from a Greek noun genos meaning ‘a race’ and a Latin verb caedere meaning ‘to kill’] Uranium/Plutonium tip weapons are raining down on the Iraqi women and their foreign invaders. Just as the men and women of Iraq are presently birthing Chernobyl babies due to radiation, where there was no nuclear plant melt-down, the parents of Hiroshima cried out years before them.

I fear that same hell we be re-visited upon our returning troops - their sperm and eggs were not protected upon Iraqi soil. Will you believe when England begins to birth these mal-formed children from her own womb and hear the cries of the Iraqi women? Oops…You won’t see those babies on Westernized soil - we have abortion. The Iraqi women do not believe in abortion. They endure a naturally painful childbirth without modern pain relief to hold ‘what’ in their arms and show ‘who’ to their families. They believe every child is a gift from God, as is right and proper.

Due to what can only be described as barbaric sanctions and the virtual destruction of a country by perpetual warfare back to the standards of the Stone Age, the cradle of civilization tracing from to the Stone Age, Iraq - the Garden of Eden, the birth place of Abraham, is being systematically finished off. (Nice going George and Tony! And you call yourselves Christians?)

The first gulf war was only the beginning. This time, the troops have been sent in to finish off the job which will be at their own peril. Didn’t Hitler think to kill off a breed of people? Did the English not seek to breed out the Scots, at one point in time, unless I am mistaken? Did the Bruce not commit treason against his fellow Scotsman in Mel Gibson’s ‘Brave Heart’ when he allowed the arrows to drop on his fellow Scotsman, while he plotted and colluded with Lords and Kings of other lands? (My 13 year old son explained that little interesting point.)

Is this treason I am witnessing? Does the English nation support these actions?

At the very least, an appeal on behalf of Brian Haw should have been immediately lodged. The amount of monies wasted harassing and bullying this warrior of peace is yet to be discussed in the House of Lords.

Is this English justice?

Please read the statement of Brian Haw and dare to question his written truth - a mere 730 words of your precious time. Ask yourself whether his heart speaks for the hope of peace for all nations or whether he is the heartless God Father of all serious organized criminals, as proposed under England’s daft new serious organized crime laws. Does he deserve a jail sentence for his plea? For the love of Christ, the man is proposing peace to the world and asking the bullies of this world to look at what they are doing and stop attacking and killing the children. The man is proposing love, peace and justice for all!

Some folks appear to be more interested in arresting free speech than educating terrorists into the understanding that terrorizing any race or segment of society is never a good idea.

No one likes a bully.

I am a Canadian citizen with permanent Right to Abode Status in England and in my heart, I am English. I was blessed with a fine English lady for my mother. My eldest daughter is Iraqi. Brian speaks for me and for her and my mum. God bless him and protect him and all God’s children.





Charity Sweet
Anti copyright acknowledging Brian Haw
__________________
[size=medium]Freelance brain owner[/size] R U Darwin\'s monkey?[size=medium] HumanKIND = God\'s creation[/size]
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-26-2006, 03:00 PM
Ozzy_dopster Ozzy_dopster is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 161
Default Re: Australia still a British colony.

OK Mary, I hope the flames are out now. It is easier to disregard even the bravest and most noble when they can be disregarded as cranks, that's all I was alluding to.
I wish I could do more for those who suffer systemic neglect and corruption here in my country, including the children who will one day become guinea pigs for the big pharmaceutical companies.

I wish Brian the best of luck and hope his public image is unsullied by media bias.

G'day, miss! :-)
__________________
\"Oops\" = A. Hitler upon hearing that the allied troops landed at Normandy instead of Pas-De-Calais as expected.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Was Hitler a "British" Agent? Insider Alternate History 26 07-28-2008 05:02 AM
United States Still A British Colony ??? Jimbo New World Order operatives 12 10-27-2007 09:55 PM
British Drivers - Another bone Yeoshua General Conspiracy Discussion 16 02-12-2007 07:32 PM
British Isreal World Federation redrat11 Share the knowledge 0 11-20-2005 03:35 AM
where does the idea of 'British Israelism' come from? Thumper General Conspiracy Discussion 1 10-18-2005 05:01 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.