The Templars of the Crown
The governmental and judicial systems within the United States of America, at both federal and local state levels, is owned by the “Crown,” which is a private foreign power. Before jumping to conclusions about the Queen of England or the Royal Families of Britain owning the U.S.A., this is a different “Crown” and is fully exposed and explained below. We are specifically referencing the established Templar Church, known for centuries by the world as the “Crown.” From this point on, we will also refer to the Crown as the Crown Temple or Crown Templar, all three being synonymous.
First, a little historical background. The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar in two parts: the Round and the Chancel. The Round Church was consecrated in 1185 and modeled after the circular Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The Chancel was built in 1240. The Temple Church serves both the Inner and Middle Temples (see below) and is located between Fleet Street and Victoria Embankment at the Thames River. Its grounds also house the Crown Offices at Crown Office Row. This Temple “Church” is outside any Canonical jurisdiction. The Master of the Temple is appointed and takes his place by sealed (non-public) patent, without induction or institution.
All licensed Bar Attorneys - Attorners (see definitions below) – in the U.S. owe their allegiance and give their solemn oath in pledge to the Crown Temple, realizing this or not. This is simply due to the fact that all Bar Associations throughout the world are signatories and franchises to the international Bar Association located at the Inns of Court at Crown Temple, which are physically located at Chancery Lane behind Fleet Street in London. Although they vehemently deny it, all Bar Associations in the U.S., such as the American Bar Association, the Florida Bar, or California Bar Association, are franchises to the Crown.
The Inns of Court (see below, The Four Inns of Court) to the Crown Temple use the Banking and Judicial system of the City of London - a sovereign and independent territory which is not a part of Great Britain (just as Washington City, as DC was called in the 1800’s, is not a part of the north American states, nor is it a state) to defraud, coerce, and manipulate the American people. These Fleet Street bankers and lawyers are committing crimes in America under the guise and color of law (see definitions for legal and lawful below). They are known collectively as the “Crown.” Their lawyers are actually Templar Bar Attornies, not lawyers.
The present Queen of England is not the “Crown,” as we have all been led to believe. Rather, it is the Bankers and Attornies (Attorneys) who are the actual Crown or Crown Temple. The Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the reign of King John, circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that time has passed to the Crown Temple in Chancery.
The U.S.A. is not the free and sovereign nation that our federal government tells us it is. If this were true, we would not be dictated to by the Crown Temple through its bankers and attornies. The U.S.A. is controlled and manipulated by this private foreign power and our unlawful Federal U.S. Government is their pawn broker. The bankers and Bar Attorneys in the U.S.A. are a franchise in oath and allegiance to the Crown at Chancery - the Crown Temple Church and its Chancel located at Chancery Lane - a manipulative body of elite bankers and attorners from the independent City of London who violate the law in America by imposing fraudulent “legal” - but totally unlawful - contracts on the American people. The banks Rule the Temple Church and the Attorners carry out their Orders by controlling their victim’s judiciary.
Since the first Chancel of the Temple Church was built by the Knights Templar, this is not a new ruling system by any means. The Chancel, or Chancery, of the Crown Inner Temple Court was where King John was, in January 1215, when the English barons demanded that he confirm the rights enshrined in the Magna Carta. This City of London Temple was the headquarters of the Templar Knights in Great Britain where Order and Rule were first made, which became known as Code. Remember all these terms, such as Crown, Temple, Templar, Knight, Chancel, Chancery, Court, Code, Order and Rule as we tie together their origins with the present American Temple Bar system of thievery by equity (chancery) contracts.
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.”-Matthew 23:27
By what authority has the “Crown” usurped the natural sovereignty of the American people? Is it acceptable that the U.S. Supreme Court decides constitutional issues in the U.S.A? How can it be considered in any manner as being “constitutional” when this same Supreme Court is appointed by (not elected) and paid by the Federal U.S. Government? As you will soon see, the land called North America belongs to the Crown Temple.
The legal system (judiciary) of the U.S.A. is controlled by the Crown Temple from the independent and sovereign City of London. The private Federal Reserve System, which issues fiat U.S. Federal Reserve Notes, is financially owned and controlled by the Crown from Switzerland, the home and legal origin for the charters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and most importantly, the Bank of International Settlements. Even Hitler respected his Crown bankers by not bombing Switzerland. The Bank of International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland controls all the central banks of the G7 nations. He who controls the gold rules the world.
Definitions you likely never knew:
ATTORN [e-'tern] Anglo-French aturner to transfer (allegiance of a tenant to another lord), from Old French atorner to turn (to), arrange, from a- to + torner to turn: to agree to be the tenant of a new landlord or owner of the same property. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.
ATTORN, v.i. [L. ad and torno.] In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another. This is the act of feudatories, vassels or tenants, upon the alienation of the estate.-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
ESQUIRE, n [L. scutum, a shield; Gr. a hide, of which shields were anciently made.], a shield-bearer or armor-bearer, scutifer; an attendant on a knight. Hence in modern times, a title of dignity next in degree below a knight. In England, this title is given to the younger sons of noblemen, to officers of the king's courts and of the household, to counselors at law, justices of the peace, while in commission, sheriffs, and other gentlemen. In the United States, the title is given to public officers of all degrees, from governors down to justices and attorneys.-Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
RULE, n. [L. regula, from rego, to govern, that is, to stretch, strain or make straight.] 1. Government; sway; empire; control; supreme command or authority. 6. In monasteries, corporations or societies, a law or regulation to be observed by the society and its particular members. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary
RULE n. 1 [C] a statement about what must or should be done, (syn.) a regulation.
REGULATION n. 1 [C] a rule, statement about what can be done and what cannot. 2 [U] the general condition of controlling any part of human life. -Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.
CODE n. 1 [C;U] a way of hiding the true meaning of communications from all except those people who have the keys to understand it. 2 [C] a written set of rules of behavior. 3 [C] a formal group of principles or laws. -v. coded, coding, codes to put into code, (syn.) to encode. ENCODE v. 1 to change written material into secret symbols. -Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.
CURTAIN n. [OE. cortin, curtin, fr. OF. cortine, curtine, F. courtine, LL. cortina, also, small court, small inclosure surrounded by walls, from cortis court. See Court.] 4 A flag; an ensign; -- in contempt. [Obs.] Shak. Behind the curtain, in concealment; in secret. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
COURT, n. 3. A palace; the place of residence of a king or sovereign prince. 5. Persons who compose the retinue or council of a king or emperor. 9. The tabernacle had one court; the temple, three. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
COURT n. 2 the place where a king or queen lives or meets others. -The Newbury House Dictionary ©1999.
TEMPLAR, n. [from the Temple, a house near the Thames, which originally belonged to the knights Templars. The latter took their denomination from an apartment of the palace of Baldwin II in Jerusalem, near the temple.] 1. A student of the law. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
TEMPLE, n. [L. templum.] 1. A public edifice erected in honor of some deity. Among pagans, a building erected to some pretended deity, and in which the people assembled to worship. Originally, temples were open places, as the Stonehenge in England. 4. In England, the Temples are two inns of court, thus called because anciently the dwellings of the knights Templars. They are called the Inner and the Middle Temple. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
CAPITOL, n. 1. The temple of Jupiter in Rome, and a fort or castle, on the Mons Capitolinus. In this, the Senate of Rome anciently assembled; and on the same place, is still the city hall or town-house, where the conservators of the Romans hold their meetings. The same name was given to the principal temples of the Romans in their colonies.
INN, n. [Hebrew, To dwell or to pitch a tent.] 2. In England, a college of municipal or common law professors and students; formerly, the town-house of a nobleman, bishop or other distinguished personage, in which he resided when he attended the court. Inns of court, colleges in which students of law reside and are instructed. The principal are the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn. Inns of chancery, colleges in which young students formerly began their law studies. These are now occupied chiefly by attorneys, solicitors, etc.
INNER, a. [from in.] Interior; farther inward than something else, as an inner chamber; the inner court of a temple or palace. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
CROWN, n. 4. Imperial or regal power or dominion; sovereignty. There is a power behind the crown greater than the crown itself. Junius. 19. A coin stamped with the image of a crown; hence, a denomination of money; as, the English crown. -- Crown land, land belonging to the crown, that is, to the sovereign. -- Crown law, the law which governs criminal prosecutions. -- Crown lawyer, one employed by the crown, as in criminal cases. v.t. 1. To cover, decorate, or invest with a crown; hence, to invest with royal dignity and power. -1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary.
COLONY, n. 1. A company [i.e. legal corporation] or body of people transplanted from their mother country to a remote province or country to cultivate and inhabit it, and remaining subject to the jurisdiction of the parent state; as the British colonies in America or the Indies; the Spanish colonies in South America. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
STATE, n. [L., to stand, to be fixed.] 1. Condition; the circumstances of a being or thing at any given time. These circumstances may be internal, constitutional or peculiar to the being, or they may have relation to other beings. 4. Estate; possession. [See Estate.] -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
ESTATE, n. [L. status, from sto, to stand. The roots stb, std and stg, have nearly the same signification, to set, to fix. It is probable that the L. sto is contracted from stad, as it forms steti.] 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a fixed condition; 5. Fortune; possessions; property in general. 6. The general business or interest of government; hence, a political body; a commonwealth; a republic. But in this sense, we now use State. ESTATE, v.t. To settle as a fortune. 1. To establish. -Webster’s 1828 Dictionary.
PATENT, a. [L. patens, from pateo, to open.] 3. Appropriated by letters patent. 4. Apparent; conspicuous. PATENT, n. A writing given by the proper authority and duly authenticated, granting a privilege to some person or persons. By patent, or letters patent, that is, open letters, the king of Great Britain grants lands, honors and franchises.
PATENT, v.t. To grant by patent. 1. To secure the exclusive right of a thing to a person
LAWFUL. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law. "Lawful" properly implies a thing conformable to or enjoined by law; "Legal", a thing in the form or after the manner of law or binding by law. A writ or warrant issuing from any court, under color of law, is a "legal" process however defective. – A Dictionary of Law 1893.
LEGAL. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law: as, the legal profession, legal advice; legal blanks, newspaper. Implied or imputed in law. Opposed to actual. "Legal" looks more to the letter, and "Lawful" to the spirit, of the law. "Legal" is more appropriate for conformity to positive rules of law; "Lawful" for accord with ethical principle. "Legal" imports rather that the forms of law are observed, that the proceeding is correct in method, that rules prescribed have been obeyed; "Lawful" that the right is actful in substance, that moral quality is secured. "Legal" is the antithesis of "equitable", and the equivalent of "constructive". - 2 Abbott's Law Dict. 24; A Dictionary of Law (1893).
STATUS IN QUO, STATUS QUO. [L., state in which.] The state in which anything is already. The phrase is also used retrospectively, as when, on a treaty of place, matters return to the status quo ante bellum, or are left in statu quo ante bellum, i.e., the state (or, in the state) before the war.
-1913 Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
The Four Inns of Court to the unholy Temple
Globally, all the legalistic scams promoted by the exclusive monopoly of the Temple Bar and their Bar Association franchises come from four Inns or Temples of Court: the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, Lincoln's Inn, and Gray's Inn. These Inns/Temples are exclusive and private country clubs; secret societies of world power in commerce. They are well established, some having been founded in the early 1200’s. The Queen and Queen Mother of England are current members of both the Inner Temple and Middle Temple. Gray’s Inn specializes in Taxation legalities by Rule and Code for the Crown. Lincoln’s Inn received its name from the Third Earl of Lincoln (circa 1300).
Just like all U.S. based franchise Bar Associations, none of the Four Inns of the Temple are incorporated - for a definite and purposeful reason: You can’t make claim against a non-entity and a non-being. They are private societies without charters or statutes, and their so-called constitutions are based solely on custom and self-regulation. In other words, they exist as secret societies without a public “front door” unless you’re a private member called to their Bar.
While the Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license to steal from Canada and Great Britain, it is the Middle Temple that has legal license to steal from America. This comes about directly via their Bar Association franchises to the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple through the Crown Temple.
From THE HISTORY OF THE INN, Later Centuries, [p.6], written by the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple, we can see a direct tie to the Bar Association franchises and its Crown signatories in America:
“Call to the Bar or keeping terms in one of the four Inns a pre-requisite to Call at King's Inns until late in the 19th century. In the 17th and 18th centuries, students came from the American colonies and from many of the West Indian islands. The Inn's records would lead one to suppose that for a time there was hardly a young gentleman in Charleston who had not studied here. Five of the signatories to the Declaration of Independence were Middle Templars, and notwithstanding it and its consequences, Americans continued to come here until the War of 1812”.
All Bar Association licensed Attorneys must keep the terms of their oath to the Crown Temple in order to be accepted or “called to Bar” at any of the King’s Inns. Their oath, pledge, and terms of allegiance are made to the Crown Temple.
It’s a real eye opener to know that the Middle Inn of the Crown Temple has publicly acknowledged there were at least five Templar Bar Attornies, under solemn oath only to the Crown, who signed what was alleged to be an American Declaration of Independence. This simply means that both parties to the Declaration agreement were of the same origin, the Crown Temple. In case you don’t understand the importance of this, there is no international agreement or treaty that will ever be honored, or will ever have lawful effect, when the same party signs as both the first and second parties. It’s merely a worthless piece of paper with no lawful authority when both sides to any agreement are actually the same. In reality, the American Declaration of Independence was nothing more than an internal memo of the Crown Temple made among its private members.
By example, Alexander Hamilton was one of those numerous Crown Templars who was called to their Bar. In 1774, he entered King's College in New York City, which was funded by members of the London King’s Inns, now named Columbia University. In 1777, he became a personal aide and private secretary to George Washington during the American Revolution.
In May of 1782, Hamilton began studying law in Albany, New York, and within six months had completed a three year course of studies, passed his examinations, and was admitted to the New York Bar. Of course, the New York Bar Association was/is a franchise of the Crown Temple through the Middle Inn. After a year's service in Congress during the 1782-1783 session, he settled down to legal practice in New York City as Alexander Hamilton, Esqr. In February of 1784, he wrote the charter for, and became a founding member of, the Bank of New York, the State's first bank.
He secured a place on the New York delegation to the Federal Convention of 1787 at Philadelphia. In a five hour speech on June 18th, he stated “an Executive for life will be an elective Monarch”. When all his anti-Federalist New York colleagues withdrew from the Convention in protest, he alone signed the Constitution for the United States of America representing New York State, one of the legal Crown States (Colonies).
One should particularly notice that a lawful state is made up of the people, but a State is a legal entity of the Crown - a Crown Colony. This is an example of the deceptive ways the Crown Temple - Middle Templars - have taken control of America since the beginning of our settlements.
Later, as President Washington’s U.S. Treasury Secretary, Hamilton alone laid the foundation of the first Federal U.S. Central Bank, secured credit loans through Crown banks in France and the Netherlands, and increased the power of the Federal Government over the hoodwinked nation-states of the Union. Hamilton had never made a secret of the fact that he admired the government and fiscal policies of Great Britain.
Americans were fooled into believing that the legal Crown Colonies comprising New England were independent nation states, but they never were nor are today. They were and still are Colonies of the Crown Temple, through letters patent and charters, who have no legal authority to be independent from the Rule and Order of the Crown Temple. A legal State is a Crown Temple Colony.
Neither the American people nor the Queen of Britain own America. The Crown Temple owns America through the deception of those who have sworn their allegiance by oath to the Middle Templar Bar. The Crown Bankers and their Middle Templar Attornies Rule America through unlawful contracts, unlawful taxes, and contract documents of false equity through debt deceit, all strictly enforced by their completely unlawful, but “legal”, Orders, Rules and Codes of the Crown Temple Courts, our so-called “judiciary” in America. This is because the Crown Temple holds the land titles and estate deeds to all of North America.
The biggest lie is what the Crown and its agents refer to as “the rule of law”. In reality, it is not about law at all, but solely about the Crown Rule of all nations. For example, just read what President Bush stated on November 13, 2001, regarding the “rule of law:”
“Our countries are embarked on a new relationship for the 21st century, founded on a commitment to the values of democracy, the free market, and the rule of law.” - Joint Statement by President George W. Bush and President Vladimir V. Putin on 11/13/01, spoken from the White House, Washington D.C.
What happened in 1776?
"Whoever owns the soil, owns all the way to the heavens and to the depths of the earth." - Old Latin maxim and Roman expression.
1776 is the year that will truly live in infamy for all Americans. It is the year that the Crown Colonies became legal Crown States. The Declaration of Independence was a legal, not lawful, document. It was signed on both sides by representatives of the Crown Temple. Legally, it announced the status quo of the Crown Colonies to that of the new legal name called “States” as direct possessive estates of the Crown (see the definitions above to understand the legal trickery that was done).
The American people were hoodwinked into thinking they were declaring lawful independence from the Crown. Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession is the use of the word “State” to signify a “legal estate of possession.” Had this been a document of and by the people, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would have been written using the word “states”. By the use of “State,” the significance of a government of estate possession was legally established. All of the North American States are Crown Templar possessions through their legal document, signed by their representation of both parties to the contract, known as the Constitution of the United States of America.
All “Constitutional Rights” in America are simply those dictated by the Crown Temple and enforced by the Middle Inn Templars (Bar Attorners) through their franchise and corporate government entity, the federal United States Government. When a “State Citizen” attempts to invoke his “constitutional”, natural, or common law “rights” in Chancery (equity courts), he is told they don’t apply. Why? Simply because a State citizen has no rights outside of the Rule and Codes of Crown “law”. Only a state citizen has natural and common law rights by the paramount authority of Yahweh’s Law.
The people who comprise the citizenry of a state are recognized only within natural and common law as is already established by Yahweh’s Law. Only a State Citizen can be a party to an action within a State Court. A common state citizen cannot be recognized in that court because he doesn’t legally exist in Crown Chancery Courts. In order to be recognized in their State Courts, the common man must be converted to that of a corporate or legal entity (a legal fiction).
Now you know why they create such an entity using all capital letters within Birth Certificates issued by the State. They convert the common lawful man of Yahweh into a fictional legal entity subject to Administration by State Rules, Orders and Codes (there is no “law” within any Rule or Code). Of course, Rules, Codes, etc. do not apply to the lawful common man of the Lord of lords, so the man with inherent Godly law and rights must be converted into a legal “Person” of fictional “status” (another legal term) in order for their legal - but completely unlawful – State Judiciary (Chancery Courts) to have authority over him. Chancery Courts are tribunal courts where the decisions of “justice” are decided by 3 “judges”. This is a direct result of the Crown Temple having invoked their Rule and Code over all judicial courts.
“It is held to be a settled Rule, that our courts can not take notice of any title to land not derived from the State or Colonial government, and duly verified by patent.” -4 Johns. Rep. 163. Jackson v. Waters, 12 Johns. Rep. 365. S.P.
The Crown Temple was granted Letters Patent (see definition above) and Charters (definition below) for all the land (Colonies) of New England by the King of England, a sworn member of the Middle Temple (as the Queen is now). Since the people were giving the patent/charter corporations and Colonial Governours such a hard time, especially concerning Crown taxation, a scheme was devised to allow the Americans to believe they were being granted “independence.” Remember, the Crown Templars represented both parties to the 1776 Declaration of Independence; and, as we are about to see, the latter 1787 U.S. Constitution.
To have this “Declaration” recognized by international treaty law, and in order to establish the new legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, Middle Templar King George III agreed to the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, “between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States”. The Crown of Great Britain legally was, then and now, the Crown Temple. This formally gave international recognition to the corporate “United States”, the new Crown Temple States (Colonies). Most important is to know who the actual signatories to the Treaty of Paris were. Take particular note to the abbreviation “Esqr.” following their names (see above definition for ESQUIRE) as this legally signifies “Officers of the King’s Courts”, which we now know were Templar Courts or Crown Courts. This is the same Crown Templar Title given to Alexander Hamilton (see above).
The Crown was represented in signature by “David Hartley, Esqr.”, a Middle Templar of the King’s Court. Representing the United States (a Crown franchise) by signature was “John Adams, Esqr”, “Benjamin Franklin, Esqr.” and “John Jay, Esqr.” The signatories for the “United States” were also Middle Templars of the King’s Court through Bar Association membership. What is plainly written in history proves, once again, that the Crown Temple was representing both parties to the agreement. What a perfect and elaborate scam the people of North America had pulled on them!
It becomes even more obvious when you read Article 5, which states in part,
“to provide for the Restitution of all Estates, Rights, and Properties which have been confiscated, belonging to real British Subjects.”
The Crown Colonies were granted to “persons” and corporations of the Crown Temple through Letters Patent and Charters, and the North American Colonial land was owned by the Crown.
Now, here’s a real catch-all in Article 4:
“It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.”
Since the Crown and its Templars represented both the United States, as the debtors, and the Crown, as the creditors, then they became the creditor of the American people by owning all debts of the former Colonies, now called the legal Crown States. This sounds too good to be true, but these are the facts. The words SCAM and HOODWINKED can’t begin to describe what had taken place.
So then, what debts were owed to the Crown Temple and their banks as of 1883? In the Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782, Article I states,
“It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit…”
That amount equals about $18 million dollars, plus interest, that Hamilton’s U.S. Central Bank owed the Crown through Crown Bank loans in France. This was signed, on behalf of the United States, by an already familiar Middle Templar, Benjamin Franklin, Esquire.
An additional $6 million dollars (six million livres) was loaned to the United States at 5% interest by the same parties in a similar Contract signed on February 25, 1783. The Crown Bankers in the Netherlands and France were calling in their debts for payment by future generations of Americans.
The Fiscal Agents of Mystery Babylon
Since its beginnings, the Temple Church at the City of London has been a Knight Templar secret society. It was built and established by the same Temple Knights who were given their Rule and Order by the Roman Pope. It’s very important to know how the British Royal Crown was placed into the hands of the Knights Templars, and how the Crown Templars became the fiscal and military agents for the Pope of the Roman Church.
This all becomes very clear through the Concession Of England To The Pope on May 15, 1213.charter was sworn in fealty by England’s King John to Pope Innocent and the Roman Church. It was witnessed before the Crown Templars, as King John stated upon sealing the same,
“I myself bearing witness in the house of the Knights Templars.”
Pay particular attention to the words being used that we have defined below, especially charter, fealty, demur, and concession:
We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal… 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 Yahweh 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… we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church… binding our successors and 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. As a sign… we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession… from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms… the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling… saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.
Most who have commented on this charter only emphasize the payments due the Pope and the Roman Church. What should be emphasized is the fact that King John broke the terms of this charter by signing the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215. Remember; the penalty for breaking the 1213 agreement was the loss of the Crown (right to the kingdom) to the Pope and his Roman Church. It says so quite plainly. To formally and lawfully take the Crown from the royal monarchs of England by an act of declaration, on August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III annulled the Magna Carta; later in the year, he placed an Interdict (prohibition) on the entire British empire. From that time until today, the English monarchy and the entire British Crown belonged to the Pope.
The following definitions are all taken from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary since the meanings have not been perverted for nearly 200 years:
FEALTY, n. [L. fidelis.] Fidelity to a lord; faithful adherence of a tenant or vassal to the superior of whom he holds his lands; loyalty. Under the feudal system of tenures, every vassal or tenant was bound to be true and faithful to his lord, and to defend him against all his enemies. This obligation was called his fidelity or fealty, and an oath of fealty was required to be taken by all tenants to their landlords. The tenant was called a liege man; the land, a liege fee; and the superior, liege lord.
FEE, n. [In English, is loan. This word, fee, inland, or an estate in trust, originated among the descendants of the northern conquerors of Italy, but it originated in the south of Europe. See Feud.] Primarily, a loan of land, an estate in trust, granted by a prince or lord, to be held by the grantee on condition of personal service, or other condition; and if the grantee or tenant failed to perform the conditions, the land reverted to the lord or donor, called the landlord, or lend-lord, the lord of the loan. A fee then is any land or tenement held of a superior on certain conditions. It is synonymous with fief and feud. In the United States, an estate in fee or fee simple is what is called in English law an allodial estate, an estate held by a person in his own right, and descendible to the heirs in general.
FEUD, n. [L. fides; Eng. loan.] A fief; a fee; a right to lands or hereditaments held in trust, or on the terms of performing certain conditions; the right which a vassal or tenant has to the lands or other immovable thing of his lord, to use the same and take the profits thereof hereditarily, rendering to his superior such duties and services as belong to military tenure, &c., the property of the soil always remaining in the lord or superior.
By swearing to the 1213 Charter in fealty, King John declared that the British-English Crown and its possessions at that time, including all future possessions, estates, trusts, charters, letters patent, and land, were forever bound to the Pope and the Roman Church, the landlord. Some five hundred years later, the New England Colonies in America became a part of the Crown as a possession and trust named the “United States.”
ATTORNING, ppr. Acknowledging a new lord, or transferring homage and fealty to the purchaser of an estate.
Bar Attorneys have been attorning ever since they were founded at the Temple Church, by acknowledging that the Crown and he who holds the Crown is the new lord of the land.
CHARTER, n. 1. A written instrument, executed with usual forms, given as evidence of a grant, contract, or whatever is done between man and man. In its more usual sense, it is the instrument of a grant conferring powers, rights and privileges, either from a king or other sovereign power, or from a private person, as a charter of exemption, that no person shall be empanelled on a jury, a charter of pardon, &c. The charters under which most of the colonies in America were settled, were given by the king of England, and incorporated certain persons, with powers to hold the lands granted, to establish a government, and make laws for their own regulation. These were called charter-governments.
By agreeing to the Magna Carta, King John had broken the agreement terms of his fealty with Rome and the Pope.
The Pope and his Roman Church control the Crown Temple because his Knights established it under his Orders. He who controls the gold controls the world.
The Crown Temple Today
The workings of the Crown Temple in this day and age is moreso obvious, yet somewhat hidden. The Crown Templars have many names and many symbols to signify their private and unholy Temple. Take a close look at the (alleged) one dollar $1 private Federal Reserve System (a Crown banking franchise) Debt Note.
Notice in the base of the pyramid the Roman date MDCCLXXVI which is written in Roman numerals for the year 1776. The words ANNUIT COEPTIS NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM are Roman Latin for ANNOUNCING THE BIRTH OF THE NEW ORDER OF THE WORLD. Go back to the definitions above and pay particular attention to the words CAPITOL, CROWN and TEMPLE. 1776 signifies the birth of the New World Order under the Crown Temple. That’s when their American Crown Colonies became the chartered government called the United States, thanks to the Declaration of Independence. Since that date, the United Nations (another legal Crown Temple by charter) rose up and refers to every nation as a State member.
The Wizard of Oz = the Crown Temple
This is not a mere child’s story written by L. Frank Baum. What symbol does “Oz” stand for? Ounces.Gold What is the yellow brick road? Bricks or ingot bars of gold.
The character known as the Straw Man represents that fictitious ALL CAPS legal fiction - a PERSON - the Federal U.S. Government created with the same spelling as your Christian birth name. Remember what the Straw Man wanted from the Wizard of Oz? A brain! No legal fiction has a brain because they have no breath of life! What did he get in place of a brain? A Certificate. A Birth Certificate for a new legal creation. He was proud of his new legal status, plus all the other legalisms he was granted. Now he becomes the true epitome of the brainless sack of straw who was given a Certificate in place of a brain of common sense.
What about the Tin Man? Does Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) mean anything to you? The poor TIN Man just stood there mindlessly doing his work until his body literally froze up and stopped functioning. He worked himself to death because he had no heart nor soul. He’s the heartless and emotionless creature robotically carrying out his daily task as if he was already dead. He’s the ox pulling the plow and the mule toiling under the yoke. His masters keep him cold on the outside and heartless on the inside in order to control any emotions or heart he may get a hold of.
The pitiful Cowardly Lion was always too frightened to stand up for himself. Of course, he was a bully and a big mouth when it came to picking on those smaller than he was. They act as if they have great courage, but they really have none at all. All roar with no teeth of authority to back them up. When push came to shove, the Cowardly Lion always buckled under and whimpered when anyone of any size or stature challenged him. He wanted courage from the Grand Wizard, so he was awarded a medal of “official” recognition. Now, regardless of how much of a coward he still was, his official status made him a bully with officially recognized authority. He’s just like the Attorneys who hide behind the Middle Courts of the Temple Bar.
What about the trip through the field of poppies? They weren’t real people, so drugs had no effect on them. The Wizard of Oz was written at the turn of the century, so how could the author have known America was going to be drugged? The Crown has been playing the drug cartel game for centuries. Just look up the history of Hong Kong and the Opium Wars. The Crown already had valuable experience conquering all of China with drugs, so why not the rest of the world?
Who finally exposed the Wizard for what he really was? Toto, the ugly (or cute, depending on your perspective) and somewhat annoying little dog. Toto means “in total, all together; Latin in toto.” Notice how Toto was not scared of the Great Wizard’s theatrics, yet he was so small in size compared to the Wizard, no-one seemed to notice him. The smoke, flames and hologram images were designed to frighten people into doing as the Great Wizard of Oz commanded. Toto simply went over, looked behind the curtain – the court - (see the definition for curtain above), saw it was a scam, and started barking until others paid attention to him and came to see what all the barking was about. Just an ordinary person controlling the levers that created the illusions of the Great Wizard’s power and authority. The veil hiding the corporate legal fiction and its false courts was removed. The Wizard’s game was up. It’s too bad that people don’t realize how loud a bark from a little dog is. How about your bark? Do you just remain silent and wait to be given whatever food and recognition, if any, your legal master gives you?
Let’s not forget those pesky flying monkeys. What a perfect mythical creature to symbolize the Bar Association Attorneys who attack and control all the little people for the Great Crown Wizard, the powerful and grand Bankers of Oz - Gold.
What is it going to take to expose the Wizard and tear down the court veil for what they really are? Each of us needs only a brain, a heart and soul, and courage. Then, and most importantly, we all need to learn how to work together. Only “in toto,” working together as one Body of the King of Kings, can we ever be free or have the freedom given under Yahweh’s Law.
Mystery Babylon Revealed
There is no mystery behind the current abomination of Babylon for those who discern His Truth:
And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.-Revelation 17:5
Yahweh has reserved His judgment for the great idolatress, Rome, the chief seat of all idolatry, that rules over many nations with whom the kings have committed to the worship of her idols (see Revelation 17:1-4). The Pope and His purported Church; sitting on the Temple throne at the Vatican; ruling the nations of the earth through the Crown Temple of ungodly deities are the Rule and Order of Babylon; the Crown of godlessness and the Code of commerce.
One may call the Rule of the world today by many names: The New World Order (a Bush family favourite), the Third Way (spoken by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton), the Illuminati, Triad, Triangle, Trinity, Masonry, the United Nations, the EU, the US, or many dozens of other names. However, they all point to one origin and one beginning. We have traced this in history to the Crown Temple, the Temple Church circa 1200. Because the Pope created the Order of the Temple Knights (the Grand Wizards of deception) and established their mighty Temple Church in the sovereign City of London, it is the Pope and his Roman Capitols who control the world.
“And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication”
This verse appears to be an accurate description of the Pope and His Bishops for the past 1,700 years. The idolatries of commerce in the world: all the gold and silver; the iron and soft metals; the money and coins and riches of the world: All of these are under the control of the Crown Temple; the Roman King and his false Church; the throne of Babylon; attended to by his Templar Knights, the Wizards of abomination and idolatry.
“The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman [mother of harlots] sitteth” - Revelation 17:9
The only mention of “seven mountains” within our present-day Bible is at Revelation 17:9, so it’s no wonder this has been a mystery to the current Body of the Messiah. The 1611 King James (who was a Crown Templar) Bible is not the entire canon of the early Congregation (“church” in Latin ecclesia; in Greek ekklesia). This in itself is no mystery as history records the existence and destruction of these early Congregation writings; just as history has now proven their genuine authenticity with the appearance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the coptic library at Nag Hagmadi in Egypt, among many other recent Greek language discoveries within the past 100 years.
The current Holy Bible quotes the Book of Enoch numerous times:
By faith Enoch was taken away so that they did not see his death, "and was not found, because Yahweh had taken him"; for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased Yahweh.
- Hebrews 11:5
Now Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about these men also, saying, "Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of His saints, to execute judgment on all, to convict all who are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things which ungodly sinners have spoken against Him."- Jude 1:14-15
The Book of Enoch was considered scripture by most early Christians. The earliest literature of the so-called "Church Fathers" is filled with references to this mysterious book. The second century Epistle of Barnabus makes much use of the Book of Enoch. Second and Third Century "Church Fathers," such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria, all make use of the Book of Enoch "Holy Scripture". The Ethiopic Congregation included the Book of Enoch to its official canon. It was widely known and read the first three centuries after the Messiah. However, this and many other books became discredited after the Roman Council of Laodicea. Being under ban of the Roman Papal authorities, afterwards they gradually passed out of circulation.
At about the time of the Protestant Reformation, there was a renewed interest in the Book of Enoch, which had long since been lost to the modern world. By the late 1400's, rumors began to spread that a copy of the long lost Book of Enoch might still exist. During this time, many books arose claiming to be the lost book but were later found to be forgeries.
The return of the Book of Enoch to the modern western world is credited to the famous explorer James Bruce, who in 1773 returned from six years in Abyssinia with three Ethiopic copies of the lost book. In 1821, Richard Laurence published the first English translation. The now famous R.H. Charles edition was first published by Oxford Press in 1912. In the following years, several portions of the Greek text also surfaced. Then, with the discovery of cave number four of the Dead Sea Scrolls, seven fragmentary copies of the Aramaic text were discovered.
Within the Book of Enoch is revealed one of the mysteries of Babylon concerning the seven mountains she sits upon (underlining has been added):
[CHAPTER 52] 2 There mine eyes saw all the secret things of heaven that shall be; a mountain of iron, a mountain of copper, a mountain of silver, a mountain of gold, a mountain of soft metal, and a mountain of lead.
6 These  mountains which thine eyes have seen: The mountain of iron, the mountain of copper, the mountain of silver, the mountain of gold, the mountain of soft metal, and the mountain of lead. All these shall be in the presence of the Elect One as wax: Before the fire, like the water which streams down from above upon those mountains, and they shall become powerless before his feet. 7 It shall come to pass in those days that none shall be saved, either by gold or by silver, and none be able to escape. 8 There shall be no iron for war, nor shall one clothe oneself with a breastplate. Bronze shall be of no service, tin shall be of no service and shall not be esteemed, and lead shall not be desired. 9 All these things shall be denied and destroyed from the surface of the earth when the Elect One shall appear before the face of the Lord of Spirits.’
[CHAPTER 24] 3 The seventh mountain was in the midst of these, and it excelled them in height, resembling the seat of a throne; and fragrant trees encircled the throne.
[CHAPTER 25] 3 And he answered saying: ‘This high mountain which thou hast seen, whose summit is like the throne of Yahweh, is His throne, where the Holy Great One, the Lord of Glory, the Eternal King, will sit, when He shall come down to visit the earth with goodness. 4 As for this fragrant tree, no mortal is permitted to touch it until the great judgment when He shall take vengeance on all and bring (everything) to its consummation for ever. 5 It shall then be given to the righteous and Holy. Its fruit shall be for food to the elect: It shall be transplanted to the Holy place, to the temple of the Lord, the Eternal King. 6 Then shall they rejoice with joy and be glad, and into the Holy place shall they enter; its fragrance shall be in their bones and they shall live a long life on earth, such as thy fathers lived: In their days shall no sorrow, or plague, or torment, or calamity touch them.’
The present wealth and power of all the world’s gold, silver, tin, bronze, pearls, diamonds, gemstones, iron, and copper belonging the Babylon whore, and held in the treasuries of her Crown Templar banks and deep stony vaults, will not be able to save them at the time of Yahweh’s judgment.
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in [yourselves], neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in.
– Matthew 23:13
Where do we go from here?
Now that their false Temple has been exposed, how does this apply to the Kingdom of Heaven? To reach the end, you must know the beginning. For everything ordained of Yahweh, there is an imitation ordained of evil that looks like the genuine thing. There is the knowledge of good and the knowledge of evil. The problem is, most believe they have the knowledge of Yahweh when what they really have is knowledge of world deceptions operating as gods. The only way to discern and begin to understand the Kingdom of Heaven is to seek the Knowledge that comes only from Yahweh, not the knowledge of men who take their legal claim as earthly rulers and gods.
The false Crown Temple and its Grand Wizard Knights have led the world to believe that they are of the Lord Yahweh and hold the knowledge and keys to His Kingdom. What they hold within their Temples are the opposite. They claim to be the “Holy Church,” but which holy church? The real one or the false one? Are the Pope and his Roman Church the Temple of Yahweh, or is this the unholy Temple of Babylon sitting upon the seven mountains?
They use the same words, but alter them to show the true meaning they have applied: The State is not a state; a Certificate is not a certification. The Roman Church is not the Congregation (ekklesia). There is the Crown of Yahweh; and a Crown of that which is not of Yahweh. All imitations appear to be the genuine article, but they are fakes. Those who are truly seeking the genuine Kingdom of Yahweh must allow Yahweh to show them the discernment between the genuine and the imitation. Without this discernment by His Holy Spirit, all will remain fooled by the illusions of false deity emanating from the unholy spirits of the Wizards.
Neither shall they say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For behold, the kingdom of Yahweh is within you.
- Luke 17:21
Yah’shua said, "If your leaders say to you, 'Look, the (Father's) kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the FATHER'S kingdom is within you and it is outside you."– Gospel of Thomas 3
Don’t you know that you are the temple of Yahweh, and that the Spirit of Yahweh lives in you?
– 1 Corinthians 3:16
Yah’shua said, "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. For there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed. [And there is nothing buried that will not be raised."]– Gospel of Thomas 5.
Illusions on Freedom
Canadians, Americans and others living in defined “democracies” live under some delusion that they enjoy “freedom”. In the wake of his re-election for example, President Bush announced that he remained committed to bringing democracy to the Middle East, which included the indefinite military occupation of Iraq. In the president's mind, indeed in the minds of most public officials in North America or the rest of the world for that matter, “democracy” is freedom.
They would have us believe that since we voted in the recent election, or any previous one in our hailed democracies, that we are free. Or since we have a piece of paper at our disposal - allegedly a "Constitution", that allegedly proclaims our rights and freedoms, that we are therefore free. But are we?
Let's see. Government officials in every known democracy have the power to take away our income by simply raising the percentage of tax allowing them to take from us to whatever extent they wish. So they have the power to destroy us by the unlimited power to tax us. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will put us in jail if we ingest substances that deem to be harmful to our health. Okay, not just any harmful substances such as alcohol and tobacco, but certainly harmful substances that our public officials don't approve of. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy force us to subject our children to a government-approved education. Or they force us to pay for the government-approved schooling of other people's children. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy unduly coerce us to subject our children to invasive, proven ineffective and dangerous vaccination programs. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy force us to adhere to prescribed methods of dealing with the death of loved ones. We must subject our loved ones to autopsies at the state’s discretion, we must bury them in accordance to state rules and licensing and we must pay prescribed duties and taxes on these expenses as well as on any belongings they may have left behind. Failure to do any which may result in significant fines and or imprisonment of those of us that did not die. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy confiscate our wealth simply by debasing the currency by printing lots of it to finance out-of-control government expenditures. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy have stolen children from their families under the guise of protecting the child’s fundamental rights (Child Welfare Rights in Canada for example), simply because the parents did not want their children subjected to public programs including school programs that may be against their religious beliefs, such as evolution or homosexuality. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy regulate and license our economic activities with other people. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will punish us for traveling to non-approved countries. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will arrest us without regard to any alleged rights or protections and punish us for publicly speaking out against them or their actions. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will arrest us and restrict our right to travel freely without regard to any alleged rights or protections simply because of our religious beliefs. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will arrest us and restrict our right to travel freely without regard to any alleged rights or protections simply because of our cultural heritage. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will punish us if we help by hiring an undocumented worker or even permit him to spend the night in our home. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will punish us for buying, selling, or trading with unapproved people overseas. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will punish us for engaging in an occupation or business without official permission in the form of a government license or permit. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy force us to be good, caring, and compassionate by confiscating our money in order to give it to other people. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will take our home away from us if we don't make tax payments to them. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy will deny us right to counsel, due process of law, and habeas corpus by simply labeling us an "enemy combatant" before executing us. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy, particularly in America, start wars on the declaration of only one person, our ruler. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy can seize us against our will and force us to work for them and even send us thousands of miles away to die for them. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy can prohibit us from owning assault weapons and other means of self-defence. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy can prohibit us from possessing the money that we earned from the sale of our labour or production in amounts over $5,000 or if they catch us with amounts over $5,000 they can confiscate it merely by making an unsupported accusation that we could be terrorists or drug dealers. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
Government officials in every known democracy can illegally search, seize, apprehend, detain or imprison us under the auspices of their “Customs” authorities, because Customs authorities are always empowered to operate outside of the jurisdictional protections of our nation’s laws – meaning beyond our alleged “rights”. Just like those nasty communist bastards in North Korea. But I'm free because I voted, right?
The great German thinker Johann Wolfgang von Goethe once wrote, "None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free." I wonder what he meant by that. I'm free because I voted, right? So I wonder why they don’t vote in North Korea?
Edward Mandell House had this to say in a private meeting with Woodrow Wilson (President) [1913-1921] (Minutes archived and publicly available.)
"[Very] soon, every American will be required to register their biological property [their body] in a national system designed to keep track of the people and that will operate under the ancient system of pledging. By such methodology, we can compel people to submit to our agenda, which will effect our security as a chargeback for our fiat paper currency. "Every American will be forced to register or suffer being able to work and earn a living.
"They will be our chattel, and we will hold the security interest over them forever, by operation of the law merchant under the scheme of secured transactions. Americans, by unknowingly or unwittingly delivering the bills of lading to us will be rendered bankrupt and insolvent, secured by their pledges.
"They will be stripped of their rights and given a commercial value designed to make us a profit and they will be none the wiser, for not one man in a million could ever figure our plans and, if by accident one or two should figure it out, we have in our arsenal plausible deniability.
"After all, this is the only logical way to fund government, by floating liens and debt to the registrants in the form of benefits and privileges.
"This will inevitably reap to us huge profits beyond our wildest expectations and leave every American a contributor to this fraud which we will call "Social Insurance." Without realizing it, every American will unknowingly be our servant, however begrudgingly. "The people will become helpless and without any hope for their redemption and we will employ the high office of the President of our dummy corporation (“The United States of America”) to foment this plot against Americans."
This was spoken to Woodrow Wilson almost 80 years ago by Edward Mandel House. TOP ^
“The Truth about Non-Canada!”
When we refer to our current alleged Canadian government as de jure, we no doubt mean de facto, since de facto means “in fact”, but not “by law”, which is what de jure means. In other words, a lawful government is a de jure government. A government that exists by deception and fraud, and not by lawful authority, is a de facto government.
It's highly unlikely that the Canadian establishment, with political millionaire shysters as its vanguard, is ignorant of the actual history of Canada and its fake government. The fake version taught in our schools has nothing in common with 135 years of reality; of government by millionaires, of millionaires, for millionaires.
Canada is neither a federation nor does its government operate with legitimate authority. Knowing this and keeping mum about it makes politicians and the entire Bar Association criminal offenders by default, if not by design...all of them, past and present. Which doesn't matter much these days because it's obviously cool (and very profitable) to be lawless, as far as those at the trough are concerned.
Judging by politicians, and the legal community's visible conduct, their strategy seems to be one of perpetually reinforcing the nixing of the UNAUTHORIZED AND ILLEGITIMATE EXISTENCE OF CANADIAN GOVERNMENTS (DE JURE) by teaching and celebrating a Canadiana, pickled in bald-faced lies, with much ado and hoopla.
It takes a lot of time and effort to separate the facts from the myths about Canada's "creation." Fortunately, there have been many dedicated Canadians doing the arduous research. By learning how constitutions and nations are properly created and then comparing this with Canada's (and Britain's) records of the time (and since then), these researchers have accurately re-created a chronology of what actually happened since 1864 and what Canada's status is today...which isn't news, it's just information that is rigorously suppressed.
Few people would suspect that educational faculties, politicians, judges, media and the entire membership of the Canadian Bar Association would intentionally deny the existence of such a fundamentally important matter. With few notable exceptions, the public has unquestioningly accepted the official fairytale as gospel. Professionals, privy to the truth, are simply too busy chasing the buck and drop the truth from their conscience.
Politicians have banked on such developments with astonishing success since "confederation." Today, nobody in his right mind (while ignorant of the facts) will believe that Canada has actually been under the control of impostors for 135 years; which continues to be so, as long as most Canadians are content to trudge through the dark, thinking they are soaring in the light.
Nowhere are the consequences of this massive deception more embodied than in the diligence with which Canadian judges help the Canadian Customs and Revenue Agency (CCRA) to ruthlessly administer a tax extraction racket as fraudulent and criminal as Canada's C-36 protection racket. Faced with having to rule inescapably in favour of the aggrieved (tax victims), Canadian judges, spineless without exception, have turned into legal eels, symbiotically corrupted by their addiction to prestige, special privileges and highly salaried appointments for life.
Citizens, pay for judicial privileges with the erosion of their "constitutional" rights and speedy redress, while judges hide their bottomless cowardice to uphold the principles of the BNA Act behind overbearing pomposity, intimidation and self-serving and criminal bias, in an effort to protect the hand that feeds them.
There is no such thing as arm’s-length freedom of judges from government interference. When it comes to the constitution and taxes, judges are deathly afraid to reveal their knowledge of the BNA Act's illegitimacy. Instead they improvise slick Catch 22 procedures and set obstructive precedents based on legal sophistry; ostensibly, to "avoid the chaos" that would ensue if they were inclined to respect the (non-) constitutional rights of the people. They maintain that, by enlightening the public about Canada's constitutional reality and by ruling fairly and with integrity, they would "unleash" real nation building reforms by a liberated public, while curtailing for themselves Ottawa's munificence, which they view as anarchy.
Compounding their crimes, judges find nothing wrong with the massive counterfeiting of credit and the collection of interest from it by private banks. Nor does it bother them that this occurs without the blessings of the BNA Act and under the auspices of impostors with pretensions of governmental authority...all of which has become "real" under the umbrella of fake legitimacy.
Canada is joined in this constitutional dilemma by Australia and New Zealand. But, unlike Canada's, their legal communities have acknowledged that a constitutional problem exists and they deal with it, viewing it as a grand opportunity of change for the better.
To understand why the BNA Act and the Canadian Federation are fake, here is a quick, nutshell explanation of how and by whom constitutions and sovereign democratic countries are properly created.
The "infamous socialist agenda". The creation of a democratic nation is for sane people simply a matter of common sense and decency; for the established elites, it's a leading cause of apoplexy and a matter of subversion, terrorism and communism...if not downright anarchy.
But assuming that a sovereign democratic federation is socially desirable - in other words, liberal rhetoric transformed into actual reality – no supernatural abilities or special law degrees are necessary to create it.
It requires merely a public consensus about the purpose of the nation and how to best achieve it.
a) First, there has to be a territory (like a Canadian province) who's people desire to be a sovereign and democratic nation.
b) From among themselves the people select, by vote or appointment, a temporary assembly and charge it with the formulation of a constitution.
c) A first draft of the constitution is submitted by the assembly to the people for review and public debate, to provide an opportunity for changes.
d) After a first public debate the assembly retires to work out the changes, after which it is submitted again to the people for review and further changes, if necessary.
e) This process is repeated until the constitution has become a formula acceptable to a substantial majority of the people.
f) Now the people vote in a referendum to accept (or reject) the constitution with a pre-determined majority (75% for example).
g) If the required majority cannot be achieved, further changes must be made until the formula becomes acceptable to the required number of people.
h) The entire process is recorded and documented as proof of the constitution's authority.
i) On the basis of the constitution a government is then formed, which is contractually bound (social contract) to respect it and conduct itself in accord with it.
j) Now this sovereign nation can form a federation with other nations, if it wishes to do so.
Note, that no consideration has been given to the manipulative interference from privately owned media monopolies.
Note, that the constitution is created first, then the government. To create a democratic nation for the people, by the people, of the people, it cannot be any other way.
Note, no foreign government can formulate (or create) the constitution of another country. It has to be created by the people themselves and becomes thus, for all intents and purposes, their protective property. It's not only the law but it is a contract which subjugates the government to the people. The government derives a limited authority to govern from it, always subject to the people's authority.
Note, ONLY SOVEREIGN NATIONS CAN FORM A FEDERATION. For example, a dominion is the subject of an empire, un-free, and cannot determine anything, much less federate, without the empire's approval. A SOVEREIGN NATION IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANYONE. In other words, it is free to design its socio-economic organization or enter into federations in any way it wants.
A sovereign, democratic dominion?! But that's not what happened in 1867. When we ask, did Canada become then a sovereign, democratic dominion, we must also ask, of whom or of what? The Crown? Rothschild? The IMF? Thus the incongruity becomes unmistakably self-evident.
In 1867 we-the-people didn't exist, as far as political "participation" was concerned. In the exalted view of our betters, the colonial millionaire paragons of civilization, we were practically indistinguishable from the stinking squalor surrounding us. They habitually referred to us as “scum." They were the landed gentry, lording it over us, the rabble, with style, opulence...and vastly refined superiority.
In 1864 an assembly of such unelected "colonial representatives of the Crown" (appointees and careerists) convened in Quebec and began to draft the Quebec Resolutions under the wise guidance of the Hon. John A. Macdonald, all of them men of substance, inspired by self-interest. The general "scum" of the day didn't even know that this was going on, not being wealthy enough to vote and all....
Note, that the original draft was created by an unelected assembly of colonial appointees without the knowledge of the general public. In 1867 the "Quebec scheme of 1864" was submitted to the Colonial Office in London for Royal assent, to be enacted by the British legislature. In between readings in the House of Lords and the House of Commons the wording of the preamble (the most important page of a constitution) was changed (a fraudulent slight of hand), without the knowledge of the delegation from Canada or anybody in both houses, into the oxymoron it has remained to this day. At this point there existed no printed copy of the original.
Remember, no foreign government can create a legally valid constitution for another country. What eventually emerged from the British legislature was a statute as phoney as a three dollar bill, with the first page missing entirely. The list of experts who attested to this fact in 1935 is impressive, indeed:
Dr. O. D. Skelton, Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs;
Dr. Ollivier, K.C., Joint-Law Clerk, House of Commons;
Dr. W. P. Kennedy, Professor of Law, University of Toronto;
Dr. N. McL. Rogers, Professor of Political Science, Queens University;
Dr. Arthur Beauchesne, K.C., C.M.G., L.L.D., Clerk of the House of Commons.
And it doesn't end there. Note, that there exists no documented record of a mandated assembly or debates by neither the elites nor the "scum," nor a binding referendum in 1867 or since.
On November 8, 1945, the MP for Jasper-Edson, Walter F. Kuhl, widely respected as the pre-eminent authority on constitutional matters at the time, tried to revive the issue of Canada's non-constitution/non-federation in the House. He stressed that UNTIL 1931 CANADA WAS NOT, AND COULDN'T HAVE BEEN, A FEDERATION since, until then, it was still a dominion of the crown.
Only in 1931 did the British Crown abrogate its authority over the Canadian Dominions (provinces) with the enactment of the Statute of Westminster. This provided a most auspicious opportunity for Canada to become a truly sovereign, democratic federation. Instead Ottawa created the Bank of Canada, a central bank.
Once again the elite studiously "ignored" the opportunity Mr. Kuhl's argument offered to create a bona fide federation based on a bona fide constitution. It created the Maple Leaf Flag instead; more focussed on image than on substance in order to maintain the deliberate deception. There exists no record of any constitutional assembly, any public debates or any constitutional referendum nor any confederation efforts since 1931, other than Ottawa's denial of Quebec's sovereignty, which is a fact.
Since 1931 the rest of Canada has been akin to a wreck, loaded to the hilt with gold, adrift at sea, under the control of pirates who gut and plunder it to their hearts' content. There are even rumours, that the Rothschild Clan secretly claimed Canada as an object of salvage and is managing it and extracting its wealth from behind complex banking fronts within fronts, like a Russian Egg, with the outer, visible shell being the "federal government."
But, people ask, didn't Trudeau “patriate” the constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982? Well, he actually did patriate, in a fashion...and a unified chorus of the public, the media, the judiciary and educational institutions all went "Aahh" and "Oohh" and "isn't that nice of him?" It seemingly never dawned on anybody to ask who gave him the authority to draft the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The problem here, is the word "patriate." It didn't exist in the English language until 1981, nor does it exist in any other language, ancient or contemporary, to this day. It is meaningless gibberish invented by Trudeau and his cabinet. The question "What does it mean?" is unanswerable. Perhaps it was intended to be rooted in the Latin word patris. Which could mean, by a wild stretch of the imagination, that Father Pierre fathered the Bill of Rights and Freedoms and generously bestowed it upon Canadians as an (unconstitutional) gift. More likely, the word simply exists to invoke a sense of constitutional incomprehension in order to discourage deeper probings by a mystified public.
Let's give it the benefit of the doubt and assume that it is a semantic mistake, and what was meant was that Trudeau repatriated the constitution. That would mean he brought it home in 1982. We must ask then, from where?! Where was it until 1982 if not in this "sovereign, democratic and federated dominion?" In Britain?
Why? In comparison with the proper process explained above, it's practically impossible to believe that Canada is a legitimately sovereign and democratic federation, unless one is deranged or in the grasp of opiate dreams. Since most Canadians DO believe the impossible, what does this say about their mental and moral disposition?
No matter how we slice it, the Canadian Federation remains a fiction. The federal government is a cabal of impostors; its authority to govern being non-existent until such time as Canadians wake up to the fact that EVERY TREATY ENTERED INTO (NATO, GATS, NAFTA, FTA, FTAA etc.) AND ALL LAWS AND REGULATIONS (ITA, GST, C36, PRIVATIZATION, DOWNSIZING, etc.) PASSED SINCE 1867 ARE NULL AND VOID...just as null and void as the non-constitutional authority of Canada's community of bottom feeders...the judiciary and the Canadian Bar Association, including their bloated and subversive court procedures.
And let's not forget the law enforcement agencies such as the RCMP, the police and CSIS, which have no non-constitutional authority to enforce (or protect) anything, much less the dictates (legalized crime) of impostors.
GOVERNMENT IS NOT THE BOSS, YOU ARE! SO ACT LIKE ONE! Knowing all this, perhaps it becomes a bit more attractive for Canadians to get a taste of real nationhood and real sovereignty (i.e. freedom), instead of oppressive despotism and wage slavery, by adopting the purely Canadian concept of PARTICIPATION.
To sum it up, CANADA IS A GIGANTIC FAKE, an embarrassment of giant proportions. All centralized governments are imposed by non-legal force and their constitutions are not worth the paper they are not written on, nor are their laws, as we can clearly see now. It will stay that way until such a time when nation building is again considered a project worthy of the creative and liberating efforts of free people...inclusive, consensual, universal and truly democratic.
As it stands now, Canada is a fake in every respect, in the hands of despotic individuals bent on pulling off the biggest crime in the universe...THE GLOBALIZATION OF FAKENESS...and again the establishment's cheerleaders go "Oohh" and "Aahh," duly recorded and endlessly re-cycled in the closed loop of the media monopolies until all alternatives have moved beyond the vanishing point...out of sight.
Oh, and what was that you were saying about fighting your tax assessment (or this or that alleged law) on grounds that it is unconstitutional? Perhaps you should consider moving to a real Country, or at least one that has a real constitution!
We, as alleged Canadians are living in an un-country with no law because we have no basis from which to frame any law, hence we have absolutely no fundamental rights, real or feigned! Everything is merely an “act” (no pun intended) designed to keep us un-informed, un-protected, and un-able to object.
We are nearly as far away from true reality, as our American neighbors!
Conspirators, Money, Constitutions and Dummies:
Many people in North America may be familiar with the term “Living Constitution.” This is the idea that the meaning of a Constitution has to change with the times. The original writers, truthfully the “Conspirators”, lived in the horse-and-buggy era. We live in the spaceship era.
Obviously, an alleged Constitution has to somehow evolve intellectually to deal with those changes. In effect, this reduces any Constitution to whatever the politically powerful find it expedient to mean from time to time. You could call that “situation law.” Or maybe you’ve heard of being “railroaded”? They railroad their ideas through, and like many traditional religious organizations, they expect us to accept it on blind faith.
Let us give you an example in the monetary field. Basic question: “What is a dollar?” Interesting question: “What is a dollar?” That’s the unit of our currency. What is it? Well, if you ask most people, some Americans would pull out a little silver coin and say, “This is a dollar.” Or more likely they would probably pull out one of these, a George Washington Federal Reserve Note, and say, “This is a dollar.” Canadians would do similar with a piece of gold colored metal commonly called a “Loonie” – how appropriate!
And if you asked any of them, “Well, why is this thing a dollar?” he or she would probably say, “Well, it’s because Congress says so,” or “the Treasury says so,” or “the Federal Reserve (or Bank of Canada) System says so,” or “the Supreme Court says so”, or “the banks say so”, or the Government says so” - begging the question of whether Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, the ‘banks’, or the Government has the authority to say so. Is this simply a matter of raw power?
Let’s have a quick reality check. Pretend we have a card that says, “One cow.” Is this a cow? Next step: here’s a card that says, “By order of Congress: one cow.” Is this a cow? You’re getting the picture, aren’t you?
Here we go, the next step: “By order of the Federal Livestock Board: one cow.” And then the final absurdity: “By order of the Federal Livestock Board: one cow. This is legal tender for all debts public and private.” You don’t have to be a farmer to understand the meaning of this little demonstration. But you’d certainly have to be a dummy to accept it! But then, that is what “they”, the conspirators, counted on!
Let’s take it to another level. “One dollar.” Is it a dollar? “By order of Congress: one dollar.” “By order of the Federal Reserve Board: one dollar.” “By order of the Federal Reserve Board: one dollar.” “By order of the Bank of Canada: one dollar. This is legal tender for all debts public and private.”
Do you follow this? This is kindergarten material. As the Gershwins told us in Porgy and Bess, “it ain’t necessarily so” simply because someone writes it on a piece of paper. Where should we look to find Congress’ or anyone else’s powers and disabilities in this regard? Well, suppose you look in an alleged Constitution.
The American Constitution is a good example, it actually mentions the word “dollar” in Article One, Section Nine, Clause One, the famous slave tax provision, that provided a tax or duty might be imposed on the importation of slaves, not exceeding ten dollars for each slave.
Do you think that was important at the time? It was one of the provisions that was put in as part of the compromise between the Southern slave-owning states and the Northern states. If something like that hadn’t been put in, the American Constitution probably would never have been ratified by the original colonies.
It’s also found in the Seventh Amendment, the word “dollars”: “In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved.”
Do you think that was important to those people at that time? Trial by jury was known in that era as the palladium of British liberty, going back to Magna Carta. Do you think those people knew what the word “dollar” meant? Do you think they thought it meant a modern Federal Reserve Note or Bank of Canada Loonie, or did they just make it up because it sounded nice? It must have had an accepted meaning at that time.
The proponents of the “Living Constitution” in America will say: “That time has passed, and now we have Congress, the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court, whatever, to make a new determination of what a dollar is”—of course begging the question of whether the definition of the “dollar” can be changed. Let’s look at what we feel is a conclusive analogy on this point.
If you read a Constitution, any Constitution, you’ll find the word “year” used. For instance: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of ….” “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the legislature, for six years.” If the meaning of “dollar” can be changed by Congress or whatever body is suggested as expedient, why can’t the meaning of “year” be changed just as easily?
The principle is exactly the same. Yet we all know that if the Congress passed a statute, and the Supreme Court upheld it, saying that for constitutional purposes the word “year” will no longer mean three hundred and sixty-five days, but seven hundred and thirty days, or fourteen hundred and sixty days, or some arbitrary number, they would he howled down in hoots of ridicule. No one in any country with an alleged Constitution would accept that.
In fact, even we the people – speaking of Americans, amending the Constitution as they can do under Article Five, could not change the true definition of the word “year.” They could change the length of the term for a Representative to something other than two years, the Senator to something other than six years; but they could not amend the Constitution to say that a “year” is something other than what it is. We cannot fly in the face of astronomical reality. Well, if it’s obvious for the word “year,” why isn’t it just as obvious for the word “dollar”?
You all know what the word “year” means in its astronomical significance, and therefore you know what it means in its constitutional significance. And if you knew what the word “dollar” meant in its historical significance, you would therefore know what it meant, or what it must mean, in its constitutional sense.
What did that word mean to the Founding Fathers – "Founding Fathers," sounds so warm and fuzzy and “Grand Fatherly" don't they, those original conspirators! It certainly didn’t mean the Sacagawea silver dollar coin, the paper dollar or the Loonie! For North Americans, and in fact for all British Colonies at the time, it meant this: the “Spanish milled dollar”. And not just in the late 1700s.
The Spanish milled dollar was made the unit or standard for all foreign silver coins in the American colonies (now US and Canada) in 1704 by Queen Anne (there was a British Parliamentary statute in 1707). It was adopted as the standard by early Canadians and made the standard for the United States by the Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation, before their alleged Constitution was even written. So in fact the dollar preceded the writing of either of the alleged Constitutions. It preceded the ratification of either Constitution. It preceded the first Canadian parliament, the first Congress, the first President, the first Prime Minister, the first Supreme Court, the Federal Reserve Board, the Bank of Canada and everything else. Do you think it might be independent of all those things and thus pre-defined, having preceded them?
As an historical fact, the dollar and its lawful definition is independent of either of the Constitutions. The father of the American or US dollar, in our current system, was Thomas Jefferson. He was the one who proposed it to the Continental Congress. In the first government under the alleged US Constitution, Jefferson was Secretary of State, and Alexander Hamilton was Secretary of the Treasury. They didn’t agree on very much, if anything, except this: They both agreed on the monetary system. These types of conspirators usually do.
The Federalists and the Anti-federalists were in complete agreement. And what did Congress and the Treasury do in 1792 with the first coinage act? They went out to determine what the value of this “dollar” was.
How did they do that? They went to the marketplace. In what we would call a statistical analysis, they collected a large sampling of Spanish milled dollars that were circulating, and they did a chemical analysis of them to determine on average how much silver they contained. Canadians were either less curious or simply more accepting of the value of the Spanish milled dollar, as they did not take the effort to analyze the ones in circulation in their alleged jurisdiction.
This appears in the Coinage Act of 1792 where they wrote: “The Dollar or Unit shall be of the value of a Spanish milled dollar as the same is now current,” that is, running in the market, “to wit, three hundred and seventy-one and one-quarter grains of silver.”
Now you know something that 99.999% of Canadians or Americans do not know, and probably a higher percentage of their lawyers. The “dollar” is a silver coin containing three hundred and seventy-one and one-quarter grains of silver—and it's definition cannot be changed by constitutional amendment, any more than the term “year” can. And yet, as mentioned before, if you ask the average person what a dollar is, he’ll probably hold up a Federal Reserve Note or a Loonie! Is there something wrong here? Do we see some kind of cognitive dissonance when we have a problem with this? We should hope so!
The second area in which the misuse of monetary powers and the disregard for monetary disabilities has corrupted these alleged Constitutions, as we have said before, is the over extension of powers. We won’t go into these in great detail. If you look at the “Necessary and Proper” clause of the alleged American Constitution, which has been wildly expanded to give fantastic powers to Congress, what is the foundational case for that expansion? It’s usually cited to be McCulloch v. Maryland in 1819. What was that case about? It was about the Bank of the United States. It was a money case. Imagine that!
If we go to the American doctrine of “Emergency Powers,” which is having a great uplift today, for reasons allegedly related to "foreign" terrorism, what was the foundational case that put that doctrine on the constitutional map? It was Knox vs. Lee, the legal tender cases brought after the Civil War. If we go to the doctrine of “Aggregate Powers,” the doctrine that says, “You can take a little here and a little there and kind of sum them all up, so that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts,” again we go back to the Knox case, a monetary case.
What’s very interesting is to read a dissenting opinion by Justice Stephen Field, the only Justice in the history of the American Supreme Court who had the integrity to dissent in every legal tender case that he heard. He wrote a dissenting opinion in Dooley vs. Smith, in 1872: “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress. Those limitations must be preserved, or our government will inevitably drift from the system established by our Fathers into a vast, centralized, and consolidated government [not unlike a monarchy or dictatorship].”
You notice he was not talking specifically about the monetary powers. He wasn’t saying that these arguments would lead to the monetary powers being unrestrained. He said it would and was destroying the concept of limited government. “The arguments in favor of the constitutionality of legal tender paper currency tend directly to break down the barriers which separate a government of limited powers from a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress.” How do you define, or how would you characterize, a government resting in the unrestrained will of Congress, or any other political body? It is by definition a totalitarian government. Dummies usually think of totalitarian governments as “dictatorships, or “communists”, or "monarchies", but then dummies are dummies!
The philosopher Richard Weaver, made this familiar statement, “Ideas have consequences.” He could have gone further than that. He could have said that bad ideas, once they are politicized, almost inevitably generate crises and catastrophes.
If we look throughout North American history, we will see that failures of various unconstitutional currency and banking situations, and we’ve had different ones over different periods, have inevitably led to crises and catastrophes. Pre-Civil War, we had a series of cycle collapses (they called them panics in those days), which were brought about by the unstable system of state banks and, to a certain extent, by the national banks that Congress created, the two Banks of the United States.
If you go into the Civil War, you have the crisis of massive inflation that was caused by the emission of the greenbacks, and then the tremendous political controversy over the continuation or the termination of paper money inflationism. Then we come to the Federal Reserve System. Some people may know of the arguments that were made in favor of the Federal Reserve System: "It would have an elastic currency." "Through scientific management of the monetary system, depressions would be eliminated." "There would be stability in the banking system." What happened?
The Federal Reserve System was there when the greatest monetary collapse in American history occurred, in 1932-1933, and in what was called the Great Depression of the 1930s. And so was the equally spurious Bank of Canada. In fact they were both created just in time to practice these two well-known methods of total economic manipulation.
In that period what happened? Think of problem, reaction and solution. Problem: monetary system is not working for the exclusive benefit of the rich. Reaction: we need a new monetary system. Solution: bring in the private Federal Reserve and Bank of Canada systems. Actual result: The Roosevelt New Deal. What were the powers they were screaming for? Emergency powers. You’ll find that written into many statutes, e.g., The Emergency Banking Act of 1933. You should pay attention to the title, The Emergency Banking Act of 1933, and the “Aggregate Powers” doctrine. It’s been all downhill since then. Canadians, just followed suit using slightly different verbiage.
We will not say, and we doubt that anyone could say, or defend the idea, that if the proper constitutional monetary system had been strictly enforced throughout North American history there would have been no economic crises, because we all know that economic crises are not caused solely by bad monetary and banking arrangements – they were caused by manipulative politicians influenced by bankers- perhaps summed up as conspirators. But, as sure as we are reading this, we can say that if the true intent of the alleged Constitution had been observed during that period, there would have been none of the crises that did in fact occur. They would have been essentially impossible, bringing us back to the point we made earlier about the primacy of law.
How should that have been done? Well, Canadians or Americans would have had to first understand their alleged Constitutions, and then understand that it was their obligation to enforce their alleged Constitutions. You notice we say Canadians or Americans, not the Congress, or the Supreme Court, or the government, because who is the final arbiter of these agreements? It is not Congress, it is not parliament, it is not a government, and it is not the Supreme Court, nor is it any of the myriad police forces we find existing in our countries today. It is “we the people.” Read the things. How do they start? Everyone has heard this: “We the people”! “We the people do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States”; not “we the politicians,” not “we the judges,” not "we the government”, not "we the parliament”, not “we anyone”, but "we the people!" Those alleged authoritative groups of people are merely the agents of “the people”. We the people are the principals.
The doctrine is very clear that, being the principals, we are the alleged Constitution’s ultimate interpreters and enforcers. You don’t have to take our word for it. Let’s go back to the alleged Founding Fathers.
The alleged Founding Fathers were profound students of law and political philosophy. Their mentor in that era was William Blackstone, who wrote Blackstone’s Commentaries, probably the most widely read legal treatise of its time, certainly in the United States.
What did Blackstone write about this subject? He wrote, “Whenever a question arises between the society at large and any magistrate vested with powers originally delegated by that society, it must be decided by the voice of the society itself; there is not upon earth any other tribunal to resort to.”
We the people are the alleged Constitution’s ultimate interpreters. But we all know that no people leads itself. Every people, for whatever reason, needs leadership. We call out to and look out upon you people reading this now, here today.
You are representatives, or a cross-section, if you will, of your country’s elite. We don’t say that to be flattering. We don’t say that to be patronizing. In fact, we are merely a messenger who, in a sense, is bringing you some bad news, because the majority of “we the people” out there have to depend on a minority of “we the people” like you that are reading and comprehending this right now, here and with others like you, for proper leadership.
There’s a very simple reason for that. Except by default, there is no one else. If you default, then we will continue to be stuck with the evil intentions of the conspirators that continue to feign democratic leadership over us. Therefore, here’s the bad news: it ultimately is your responsibility to find out what your alleged Constitution means with respect to monetary powers and disabilities, and then to do something about it, before history takes the opportunity permanently out of your hands, and we all suffer the consequences.
Here are some closing thoughts: Our monetary system is an abomination. It violates almost all of the principles that civilized people hold dear.
From the Biblical point of view, our monetary system violates the admonitions in Deuteronomy not to tamper with weights and measures, and, as clergymen pointed out after the American Civil War, it violates the Eighth Commandment not to steal.
From a moral point of view, mindful that our alleged money is legal tender, Salmon Chase, when he was Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1869, wrote that "the legal tender quality of money is only needed for the purposes of dishonesty."
Economically, fiat monetary systems such as ours have been collapsing for nearly 1,200 years wiping out savings and promises of future payments, such as pensions and annuities. There have been no successes, unless the creation of countless impoverished families living in countries possessing the most impressive lists of natural resources was the goal.
From a scientific viewpoint, Isaac Newton put the kabaach on fiat money at the end of the 17th century when he declared that such money would have no defined unit of measure. That is, our money has nothing to tie it to reality. It is part of the ethereal world. Today, economists describe money as a convenient “illusion”, while our courts quietly admit it is a "legal fiction".
In terms of personal relationships, our monetary system violates the sanctity of contracts, because one does not know what will be the value of future payments. That is, it violates the notion of keeping promises, of keeping one's word, which is the glue that holds civilization together.
Our monetary system violates the Rule of Law, something that we all should hold dear and that our politicians give lip service to. Particularly, it violates the supreme law of our land: the alleged Constitutions, but then even the alleged Constitutions are really a hoax. They are simply the tools crafted by our conspiratorial fathers and employed with much smoke and mirrors to their self-serving benefit.
In and of themselves, they – these alleged Constitutions are not lawful and true! They were not crafted by “we the people”, they were crafted, as history has well established, by a self-appointed few, for the sole purpose of profiteering – a modern more sophisticated version of land-piracy, conducted by herding “we the people” into and under their illusion of freedom. TOP ^
“Rights” or “Freedoms”
To speak of "rights" invites division - abstraction - deletion - distortion. Let us take the right direction and speak of "dutiful freedoms". To speak of dutiful freedoms implies speaking of "sharing". We all, whatever our religion, sex, age, gender, location... share dutiful freedoms.
A simple glance at the globe shows water, earth, air, lines of latitude and lines of longitude. One mechanism used by the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR] and other "power elites" to divide and conquer rests simply on using crayons to write and to draw "political" or "state" or "national" boundaries creating divisions; universal location devices, without factual "division", without factual "political" boundaries, but with "piss-marker-mentalities".
A simple glance at the roster of United Nations, reveals hundreds of "nations" or "states"... each occupied by so-called "oath takers and law makers", euphemistically described as "public servants". This phrase draws a distinction between "the private sector" and "the public sector"... creating an unwholesome division and an apartheid.
The United Nations' Charters decry apartheid yet the very phrase United "Nations" provides us with a useful oxymoron. A simple introduction to the logic of “law", illustrates how simple “lines” function to create adversaries amongst people, organizations, nations, states, religions and families.
To speak of "the rights of x" automatically creates "the rights of non-x" - whether we speak of churches, religions, political bodies or nation-states. North American Natives claim “First Nation” status, as victims of this same piss-marker-mentality. These mis-guided but well intentioned people are victims of their own self-created apartheid.
Many folks get educated to believing "laws" end where the national boundaries end... giving us ideas such as "the laws of the x" v. "the laws of y", as if Law adopts and abides by political boundary lines... as if Law adopts a "piss-marker-mentality"... creating the belief-habit that somehow the laws of nation x can be distinguished from the laws of nation y... yielding a so-called discipline called "international law" or "the conflict of laws".
In dealing with law, some people react by saying:
1. well, that's British Columbia law, but I live in x, and we have different laws.
2. well, that may be how it is there, but I live in y, and we don't have one of those laws.
This belief-habit reveals the depth and breadth of propaganda - leading people [i.e. brothers and sisters] to believe somehow the "laws" inside their specific territory, republic, nation, territory, state, country function like "property", as if a nation can control "laws". As if self-defined “Natives” have ownership of rights or laws that do not apply to any other natives. As if minorities such as gays or blacks or Orientals have ownership of rights or laws that others do not.
This mind-set offers plenty of ammunition for "the power elites" to justify invasions, wars, pre-emptive strikes and the latest version of global domination expressed in such documents as:
1. "Rebuilding America's Defences" - The Project for the New American Century
2. "National Security Strategy: 2002"
3. "Vision for 2020" [The U.S. Space Command]... expressing the logo, the motto: IN YOUR FACE FROM OUTER SPACE
Each of these documents espouse "full spectrum dominance"... and proclaim The American Empire run by The Imperial Presidency [see articles by Noam Chomsky and the book by Arthur Schlesinger Jr. using this title].
Students of history will be familiar with the phrase pax Romana = The Roman Peace. MicroSoft Word users need only to pause before creating documents and notice the intriguing headline on their computer screens:
TIMES NEW ROMAN 12
Brains wired to understand and to appreciate English grammar, will automatically engage in some inner space maneuvers. The phrase Times New Roman hits the eye, hits the brain... and the brain re-orders the words into proper grammatical format : NEW ROMAN TIMES.
Now. Imagine 900 million computer screens, 900 million Microsoft Word users, turning on their computers to write their latest diatribe against corruption, unaccountability, oppression, dissent... Their brains will experience what psychologists call subliminal seduction. The brain will believe the words... will re-order the words... will adopt the truth of the words... creating the belief/thought habit that indeed we all live in New Roman Times...
So let it be written so let it be done. Adherents of Napoleon Hill's precise statement will appreciate the full impact and import of this re-ordering: What we can conceive and believe we can achieve!
So. Folks. Welcome to the New World Order. The NWO. Complete with the New Word Order. Accept it, Folks! Bill Gates and Microsoft cannot be wrong! We do live in NEW ROMAN TIMES, where almost all of us are victims of our own self-appointed apartheids.
A simple glance at The New Testament and other 1st Century A.D. writings and we will understand the political climate 2000 years ago. A multi-faceted, multi-leveled taxation system, where people were subject to paying a) The Temple Tax [to High Priests], b) regional/county taxes [to King Herod and his brothers, and c) federal Roman taxes [to Caesar].
These oppressive tax schemes provided fodder for reformers. The legal structure 2000 years ago does not appear any different than legal structures today. For example, here is a little story, a brief vignette from The Book of Acts in The New Testament, revealing discussions and disagreements about the word so often tossed about today, like a cork on the water: jurisdiction:
And when Gallio was proconsul of Achiaia
the Jews made insurrection with one accord against Paul [a.k.a. "Saul"], and they brought him to the judgment seat…Saying, This fellow persuades men to worshipYahweh contrary to the law… And as Paul was desirous to open his mouth and speak, Gallio said to the Jews, If your accusations were based on something criminal, fraudulent or vicious, I would welcome you properly, O Jews: But if they are a mere question of words and names and concerning your law, you can settle it better among yourselves; for I do not wish to be a judge of such matters… And he drove them from his judgment seat… [Acts of The Apostles, chpt. 18: 12-16]
The refusal to take jurisdiction over questions relating to "words" or "names" sounds familiar to many who have entered Courtrooms asking for redress and recourse... How many times do you hear judges say... I do not have jurisdiction to decide this matter? Go elsewhere? It belongs not in court x but in court y or court z...?
Interestingly, a simple read of section 31 of the British North America Act, 1867 reveals exactly the same principle... there, the Constitution for Canada talks about "felonies", "infamous crimes" and "attainment of treason"... each element includes a) a victim and b) a harm. Section 31 outlines how Senators, and therefore by definition, any federal officer occupying federal office can lose his or her seat...
Principles of interpretation [i.e. called "hermeneutics" in theological and religious circles], indicate that the word "crime" must be distinguished from the word "misdemeanor" [see the above judgment by Gallio]. A court of law must limit its jurisdiction to crimes and victims of crime, i.e. there cannot be any "crime" called "victimless".
Yet, in Canada, Parliament [i.e. federal Members of Parliament] enacted so-called "crime" laws against the people, by criminalizing the growing and possessing and distribution of hemp. Readers will do well to read the book and research "Marijuana: The Forbidden Medicine" to get an idea about the reasons and the causes and the motives for this illegal legislation.
I say "illegal" with good reason. Readers ought to familiarize themselves with the Reasons for Judgment of Madam Justice Southin, in 2003 BCCA 364 [British Columbia Court of Appeal], where the most senior jurist in that province states categorically that "lawyers" licensed to participate in a "legal money making monopoly" have deceived the people into believing the "words" criminalizing marijuana... have committed crimes in so doing.
The same holds for all laws criminalizing marijuana anywhere on the globe... and for all gun registry and gun control laws. Just because politicians turned legislators are given "power to make laws" does not mean they can enact or pass just any law they like. Courts function and Courts exist for one function only, to engage in judicial review of legislation... Did the governing agency enact a law outside its jurisdiction? If so, the law can be struck down and the enactors can be held personally liable, responsible, accountable and punishable for doing so.
Effectively, any person incarcerated under the "illegal" word-law has recourse and redress to sue all those participating in the incarceration... including judges, lawyers, and politicians (unless we believe in the “legal-apartheid” we have imposed upon ourselves).
A vehicle to do just that was created in a case called Brouwer/Kuiper v. Her Majesty The Queen [i.e. Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources] filed on Feb. 12, 1999 in British Columbia Supreme Court, by filing pleadings that a) ask for class certification for an aggrieved group, b) combined with an application for judicial review and c) using Rule 31 of the B.C. Supreme Court Rules [Notice to Admit the Truth of Facts and Authenticity of Documents].
Those pleadings gave the Court, any Court anywhere in any common-law jurisdiction no choice; either grant the relief and the recourse asked for under The Law and Equity Act, or by definition, be complicit in the crimes against the elderly, the environment, the California Bighorn Sheep, and all other relations impacted by a Government fraud.
The pleadings resulted in the Law Society of British Columbia offering the lawyer involved a bribe... dump your clients, tell them [188 seniors] they got screwed, and you will have a chance to keep your "license" to practice law... he refused. It cost him a willing sacrifice... his license, his career, his reputation, his finances... such as illustrated in the movie Civil Action with John Travolta.
The principle remains, however. He did not commence a "class action" for that ‘apartheid-like’ maneuver would deprive many people of all available recourse and redress, including holding politicians and legislators personally liable for wrongdoing... based on the principles in the British North America Act, 1867 that make every public officer holding public office, accountable, liable, responsible and punishable for wrongdoing, i.e. for enacting "illegal" legislation, which applies to all people, not just to splinter groups defined by some apartheidists.
Many readers may oppose this view by arguing the so-called principle of "parliamentary sovereignty" or "executive privilege" or some other such belief that somehow someway, some entities are "above the law", including judges. Apartheid?
Indeed, a Superior Court Justice took his pen, and rewrote that specific indictment against 3 levels of government - editing out names, editing out "causes of action" and editing out "suppression of truth" and editing out obstruction of justice... all so the Liberal Party in British Columbia would not be impacted in the 2001 Provincial Election... an election "rigged" by some power elitists who needed a Liberal Party victory to ensure the 2010 Winter Olympics would yield their true purpose; developing Offshore Natural Gas next to aboriginal Haidi Native lands...
The usual argument raised by those engaged in political decision making, those enacting laws to further and to foster "policy"... yields the argument that legislatures can enact whatever laws they want... without any oversight. TOP ^
"License" - Definition
License: The lawful definition of a license is, "A permit to do that which, without the license, would be illegal to do". In other words, the government suddenly makes something that was otherwise naturally lawful to do, "illegal" by decree, so that they can then demand you pay them a bribe, ostensibly a "fee" to turn their backs and give you a permit that allows you to perform this act that they just said was illegal to do!
“Licence” is rooted in and derived from the word, “licentious”, which simply means unlawfully evil.
Grace and peace to you, from our Father, Yahweh, and Yah'shua our Messiah!