Fluouride video to the right hacked!

The video to the right will not hold it's link to the site for some unexplained but suspected illicit factors...This is billions a year to the industry..Facts or fiction you decide. It comes up if you wait but here is the link to part 1...

Please listen closely...This is a massive expose of the most commonly and systematically applied neurotoxin in the world,,,,,

Great Documentary Exposing fraudulent Science feeding poison to the planet!!!
http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3y8uwtxrHo&eurl=http://allcreatorsgifts.blogspot.com/

These links below lead you to the scientific proof and impressive credentials of those exposing this fraud. Please check them out...it is your health and Children's future we are talking about!

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&attid=0.1&thid=11f162f7676b34ec&mt=application%2Fpdf
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&attid=0.2&thid=11f162f7676b34ec&mt=application%2Fpdf&pli=1

Facts about the money and which God you worship

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”
-Revelation 17:4

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 [6] 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.

TOP ^

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!

TOP ^



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!

It's SCIENCE!!! The Creator, Heaven and Hell proven by chem student!!!

The following is an actual question given on a University of Washington chemistry mid term. The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well :

Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.

One student, however, wrote the following:

First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.

As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially.

Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell,then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has
already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"

Do you thinks US taxes are Legitimate? Watch and learn that they are not!

Former IRS agent holds conferance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xb3pKzWikk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9PSYkWIuIs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPypDaXfIV8&NR=1

Fenomenal IRS defet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aroN2uRbIMc&feature=related

Sheldon Cohen, Former Commissioner prove that he is a Israeli traitor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSW_M5_jPkA&feature=related

Rothschild history

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USGSOViaulc

Enjoy!

Stefan Molyneux on the illusion of freedom

Probably one of the most dangerous films on the net!

This film blends well with other posts on this blog as it explains the collectively deceptive web that has ensnared us as a species for millenia

http://yannone.blogspot.com/2008/11/most-dangerous-video-on-internet.html

and while were on the topic..
Former IRS agent holds conferance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Xb3pKzWikk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9PSYkWIuIs&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPypDaXfIV8&NR=1

Fenomenal IRS defet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aroN2uRbIMc&feature=related

Sheldon Cohen, Former Commissioner prove that he is a Israeli traitor.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSW_M5_jPkA&feature=related

Rothschild history

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USGSOViaulc

Enjoy!

Does the World Bank Help the world? Who owns it and whats their motive?

IMF / WORLD BANK DESTROYING COUNTRIES

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yL-e60klAU&NR=1
Connie Fogal on those guys and the NAU

The World Bank - IMF is owned and controlled by NM Rothschild and 30
to 40 of the wealthiest people in the world.. For over 150 years they
have planned to take the world over through money. The former chief
economist of the World Bank, Joe Stiglitz, was fired recently. He
pointed out to top executives that every country the IMF/World Bank
got involved in ended up with a crashed economy, a destroyed
government, and sometimes in flames with riots. Jim Wolfensen, the
president of the World Bank would not comment on his dismissal.

Before Joe Stiglitz was fired he took a large stack of secret

documents out of the World Bank. These secret documents from the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund reveal that the IMF required
nations:

1. to sign secret agreements of 111 items

2. in which they agreed to sell off their key assets - water,
electric, gas, etc.

3. in which they agreed to take economic steps which are really
devastating to the nations involved

4. in which they pay off the politicians billions of dollars to Swiss
bank accounts to do this transfer of a countries fixed assets

If they do not agree to these steps they are cut-off from all
international borrowing. Today if can't borrow money in the
international marketplace, no one can survive, whether you are people
or corporations or countries. If that does not work they overthrow the
government and plant lies about the former government and/or even
rewrite history.

The Argentina Plan

Inside documents from Argentina show the secret Argentine plan. This
is signed by Jim Wolfensen, the president of the World Bank. Argentina
has had six presidents in five weeks because their economy is
completely destroyed. This happened because they started out in the
end of the 80s with orders from the IMF and World Bank to sell-off all
their assets, public assets, like their water system. Then they taxed
the people. They created big government and big government handed it
off to the private IMF/World Bank. They pay off the politicians
billions in Swiss bank accounts.

The Enron Connection

The water system of Buenos Aires was sold off for a song to a company
called Enron. A pipeline was sold off, that runs between Argentina and
Chile, was sold off to a company called Enron. Then the globalists
blow out Enron after transferring the assets to another dummy
corporation..

They come in, pay off politicians to transfer the water systems, the
railways, the telephone companies, the nationalized oil companies, gas
stations - the politicians then hand it over to the IMF for nothing.
The Globalists pay them off individually, billions a piece in Swiss
bank accounts. The plan is total slavery for the entire population.
Enron is a dummy corporation for money laundering, drug money, etc.

IMF Planed Riots

The IMF/World Bank are systematically tearing nations apart, whether
it's Ecuador or Argentina. It's not privatization. They steal it from
the people and hand it over to the IMF/World Bank. They hand it over,
generally to the cronies, like Citibank grabbed half the Argentine
banks. British Petroleum grabbed pipelines in Ecuador. Enron grabbed
water systems all over the place. The problem is that they are
destroying these systems as well. You can't even get drinking water in
Buenos Aires. It is not just a question of the theft. You can't turn
on the tap. It is more than someone getting rich at the public
expense. And the IMF just got handed the Great Lakes. They have the
sole control over the water supply now. The IMF and the World Bank is
51% owned by the United States Treasury. Indonesia is in flames.

Every country IMF/World Bank meddling in they destroyed their economy
and they ended up in flames. They even plan in the riots. They know
that when they squeeze a country and destroy its economy, you get
riots in the streets. And they admit that it an IMF riot. Because you
have riot, all the capital runs away from your country and that gives
the opportunity for the IMF to then add more conditions.

California Utilities & Enron

It is really an imperial economy war to implode countries and now they
are doing it here with Enron. They are getting so greedy - they are
preparing it for America. The chief investigators of Enron for the
State of California said that that it's not just the stockholders that
got ripped off. They sucked millions, billions of dollars out of the
public pocket in Texas and California in particular. Where are the
assets? See, everybody says there are no assets left since Enron was a
dummy corporation - from the experts I've had on and they transferred
all those assets to other corporations and banks. You did pay
California's electric bills according to the investigations, they are
telling me that they were pumped up unnecessarily by 9 to 12-billion
dollars. And I don't know who they are going to get it back from now.
Well they actually caught the Governor buying it for $137 per megawatt
and selling it back to Enron for $1 per megawatt and doing it over and
over and over again.

Enron's Auditor - Lord Wakeham


The men who designed the system in California for deregulation then
went to work for Enron right after. Lord Wakeham, who was on the audit
committee of Enron, is the head of NM Rothschild. There isn't anything
that he doesn't have his fingers in. He's on something like fifty
Boards. And he was supposed to be head of the audit committee watching
how Enron kept the books. In fact, they were paying him consulting
fees on the side. He was in Margaret Thatcher's government and he's
the one who authorized Enron to come into Britain and take over power
plants in Britain. Enron owned a water system in the middle of
England. This is what Lord Wakeham approved and then they gave him a
job on the board. On top of being on the board, they gave him a huge
consulting contract. Lord Wakeham is supposed to be in charge of the
audit committee to see how they were handling their accounts, but he
is also the head of the board to regulate the media. Lord Wakeham is
trying to pass laws in England where you can't own your own water. He
can't be touched because he regulates the media.

Rothschild and the Illuminati

Burrow into NM Rothschild, you'll find it all there. The IMF/World
Bank implosion, four points, how they bring down a country and destroy
the resources of the people. First you open up the capital markets.
That is, you sell off your local banks to foreign banks.. Then you go
to what's called market-based pricing. That's the stuff like in
California where everything is free market and you end up with water
bills no one can pay. Then open up your borders to trade - complete
free marketeering. Its like the opium wars. This isn't free trade;
this is coercion trade. This is war. They are taking apart economies
through this. China has a 40% tariff on the USA, but the USA has a 2%
on them. That's not free and fair trade. It's to force all industry
into a country that the globalists fully control, and they control
China.

Wal-Mart

The Illuminati owns Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart has 700 plants in China.
There is almost nothing in a Walmart store that comes from the United
States of America, despite all the eagles on the wall. They have big
flags saying "Buy American" and there's hardly anything from America
in their stores. What's even worst is they will hire a factory and
right next to it will be the sister factory which is inside a prison.
You can imagine the conditions of these workers producing this lovely
stuff for Walmart.

Briberization

Sell off the water company and that's worth, over ten years, let's say
about 5 billion dollars, ten percent of that is 500 million. A Senator
from Argentina said that he got a call from George W. Bush in 1988
saying give the gas pipeline in Argentina to Enron. Enron was going to
pay one-fifth of the world's price for their gas and he said how can
you make such an offer? The answer was that if they only pay one-fifth
that leaves quit a little bit for you to go in your Swiss bank
account. This is the same George W. Bush who said he didn't get to
know Ken Lay of Enron until 1994. Now they are having these white-wash
hearings. Bill Clinton, to get even with Bush's big donor, cut Enron
out of the California power market. He put a cap on the prices they
could charge. They couldn't charge more than one-hundred times the
normal price for electricity. That upset Enron. So Ken Lay personally
wrote a note to Dick Cheney saying get rid of Clinton's cap on prices.
Within 48 hours of George W. Bush taking office, his energy department
reversed the clamps on Enron.

Step Two

Argentina is an example of step two of the IMF. A fifth of the
population of Argentina is unemployed, and they said cut the
unemployment benefits drastically, take away pension funds, cut the
education budgets. Now if you cut the economy in the middle of a
recession (created by the IMF), you absolutely demolish the nation.

You don't start cutting the budget in a recession, you start spending
money to stimulate the economy. You don't raise taxes, you cut them.
But they tell these countries you've got to cut, and cut, and cut. And
why, according to the inside documents, it's so you can make payments
to foreign banks - the foreign banks are collecting 21% to 70%
interest. This is loan-sharking. If fact, it was so bad that they
required Argentina to get rid of the laws against loan-sharking
because any bank would be a loan-shark under Argentine law.

Part 3 and Part 4.

Then they open up the borders for trade, that's the new opium wars.
They destroy an economy so that it can not produce anything, and then
open the borders to sell their own goods. They force nations to pay
horrendous amounts for things like drugs - legal drugs. That's how you
end up with an illegal drug trade. What's there left to survive on
except sell us smack and crack. And so, drive the whole world down,
blow out their economies and then buy the rest of it up for pennies on
the dollar. What's Part 4 of the IMF/World Bank Plan?

In Part 4, they take apart of the government by the coup d'etat and
they install their own corporate government. In Venezuela where they
have an elected president of the government, the IMF has announced
that they would support a transition government if the president were
removed. They are not saying that they are going to get involved in
politics - they would just support a transition government. What that
effectively is is saying we will pay for the coup d'etat, if the
military overthrows the current president, because the current
president of Venezuela has said no to the IMF. He told those guys to
go packing. They brought their teams in and said you have to do this
and that. And he said, I don't have to do anything. He said what I'm
going to do is double the taxes on oil corporations because we have a
whole lot of oil in Venezuela. And I'm going to double the taxes on
oil corporations and then I will have all the money I need for social
programs and the government - and we will be a very rich nation. Well,
as soon as he did that, they started fomenting trouble with the
military and watch this because the President of Venezuela will be out
of office in three months or shot dead. They are not going to allow
him to raise taxes on the oil companies.

Philipps tranceformation@trance-formation.org or http://www.GregPalast.com
or http://www.gregpalast.com


Bush Administration Signals End to Open Government

1) The Bush administration invoked executive privilege to keep Clinton-
era documents secret. The move shocked Republican lawmakers. Why would
Bush want to cover up for Bill Clinton? Representative Dan Burton, who
is the Chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, even
threatened to hold Bush in contempt of Congress unless he releases
several sets of subpoenaed Justice Department documents that he has
hidden. It does not matter. Bush promises to never comply with
congressional investigators. Bush is determined to keep Clinton's
crimes concealed.

2) Bush flatly refuses to hand over records of internal energy task
force meetings. These records could either incriminate or exonerate
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney regarding allegations of conflict
of interest in the
Enron scandal. Even the General Accounting Office is suing the White
House (a first) to obtain the records. Again, Bush refuses to comply.
The president is even willing to ignore court orders demanding the
release of documents.

3) Just this week, the United States Government's top lawyer told the
U.S. Supreme Court that officials have the right to lie to American
citizens. No, he did not explain how that assertion jives with Bush's
Christian testimony.

4) Two days ago, the White House ordered all federal agencies to
delete their web sites of all "sensitive information." The White House
did not say what information it considered "sensitive."

5) Vice President Cheney is already the stealthiest Vice President in
U.S. history. Seldom does anyone know where he is or what he is doing.

6) President Bush admitted to forming a mysterious "shadow government"
comprised of unknown persons who are living in underground bunkers at
secret sites outside Washington, D.C. Not even top legislators know
who these
people are or what instructions have been given them. Furthermore, how
does a "shadow government" mesh with the U.S. Constitution? These
questions have never been (and never will be) answered..

When asked by a reporter about these and other matters, Bush said, "I
have a duty to protect the executive branch from legislative
encroachment." Congress, for the most part, only learns of Bush's
clandestine carryings-on as brief sketches leak out in the press.

However, none of this seems to bother the American people or members
of the press. Bush is a wartime president (even though no one
officially declared war) and, therefore, can do anything he pleases
with total impunity. In truth, the Bush administration signals the end
to both open government and constitutional government - and few people
seem to even notice.

Christians cannot comment on Government in USA

Congress has decided to silence you, me, and any other Christian who
dares express a moral view that may impact a political campaign! The
U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate have both passed a so-
called "campaign finance reform" bill ... and now President Bush has
said he will sign it into law! In spite of all the propaganda in the
media, this legislation actually silences Christian and conservative
organizations - banning them from commenting on key moral issues
during election campaigns ... while allowing the liberal media to
speak out freely.

This new law is a SLAP IN THE FACE to our right to free speech. It is
absolutely, blatantly UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

* This legislation effectively strips church and conservative leaders
and organizations of religious free speech during elections.

* For me or any other conservative spokesperson to comment and inform
you with a Christian perspective would be illegal ... and the threat
of jail a reality!

* Even your own pastor cannot inform you on key political and moral
issues when it comes time to vote!

So where will you get all your information about the political and
moral views of candidates? FROM THE BIASED, SECULAR MEDIA!

From The Wilderness Publications, www.copvcia.com, see a related
article on how scientists and academics are viewing the possibility of
reducing the world's population by more than four billion people and
doing so selectively with DNA biological weapons. See how hundreds of
microbiologists are being assassinated world-wide to keep this plan in
the hands of only a few people. www.rense.com www.narconews.com

Now to really sink the doubts

The Learned Protocols of the Brotherhood of Zion

http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/przion1.htm#Table%20of%20Contents

and learning what re...gistry means

GIST, pleading. (Begging,bowing)Gist of the action is the essential ground or object of it, in point of law, and without which there is no cause of action. Gould on Pl. c. 4, §12. But it is observable that the substance or gist of the action is not always the principal cause of the plaintiff Is complaint in point of fact, nor that on which he recovers all or the greatest part of his damages.

2. It frequently bappens that upon that part of his declaration which contains the substance or gist of the, action, he only recovers nominal damages, and he gets his principal satisfaction on account of matter altogether collateral thereto. A familiar instance of this is the case where a father sues the defendant for a trespass for the seduction of his daughter. The gist of the action is the trespass, and the loss of his daughter's services, but the collateral cause is the injury done to his feelings, for which the principal damages are given. In stating the substance or gist of the action, every thing must be averred which is necessary to be proved at the trial. Vide 1 Vin. Ab. 598; 2 Phil. Ev. 1, note. See Bac. Abr. Pleas, B; Doct. P. 85. See Damages, special, in pleading; 1 Vin. At. 598; 2 Phil. Ev. 1, n.

GIVER, contracts. He who makes a gift. (q. v.) By his gift, the giver always impliedly agrees with the donee that he will not revoke the gift.



Benjamin Freedman Speaks:

A Jewish Defector Warns America

by Benjamin H. Freedman (1961)



Benjamin H. Freedman was one of the most intriguing and amazing individuals of the 20th century. Mr. Freedman, born in 1890, was a successful Jewish businessman of New York City who was at one time the principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized Jewry after the Judeo-Communist victory of 1945, and spent the remainder of his life and the great preponderance of his considerable fortune, at least 2.5 million dollars, exposing the Jewish tyranny which has enveloped the United States. Mr. Freedman knew what he was talking about because he had been an insider at the highest levels of Jewish organizations and Jewish machinations to gain power over our nation. Mr. Freedman was personally acquainted with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more movers and shakers of our times. This speech was given before a patriotic audience in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Though in some minor ways this wide-ranging and extemporaneous speech has become dated, Mr. Freedman's essential message to us - his warning to the West - is more urgent than ever before. - K.A.S.




Contents.

Zionists Rule the US

The First World War

Stalemate in 1916. Zionist Offer to get USA into the War

USA Railroaded into World War I after Balfour Declaration

Versailles

Effect on Germans when they understood Jewish Activity

Freedman says World War I was started against Germany

German Camps in 1933

Germans fought Jewish Control

1933: Jews Declare Sacred War (and Trade War) on Germany

Reichskristallnacht and Rearmament

1961: Nuclear War? For Israel?

Secrecy (e.g. 1916 Zionist deal with USA) can happen again

History of 'Jews'

Kol Nidre: Evidence of Disloyalty

George Washington's Vision






Zionists Rule the US

Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




The First World War.

What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.

Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally, but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one week's food supply and after that, starvation. At that time, the French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the Italian army had collapsed.

Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England, in the summer of 1916 was considering that - seriously. They had no choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being totally defeated.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Stalemate in 1916. Zionists Offer to get USA into the War

While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and (I am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the documents to prove any statement that I make) they said: "Look here. You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young; we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain, that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the Zionists for bringing the United States into the war.* However, they did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that (I don't know how many here remember it) the United States, which was almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.


* Benjamin Freedman obviously did not know that the British peoples are the true Israel whose land it is. Even so, they had no right to give it to the Zionists whose land it is not, even though it was prophesied by Ezekiel that the Zionists would do this and succeed - 11:15 Son of man, thy brethren, [even] thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the House of Israel wholly, [are] they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the "I AM": unto us is this land given in possession (Idumean zionists - 1948).


I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.

Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time, everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns. They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies' hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war on Germany.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




USA Railroaded into World War I after Balfour Declaration

The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our war. We were railroaded into (if I can be vulgar, we were suckered into) that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.

After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter, which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour Declaration.

The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Versailles

That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory, said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game! That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists wanted Palestine* and were determined to get it at any cost.


* Without Adolf Hitler, who was half Jewish and his Jewish generals, there would be no Zionist State in Israel. Why was Rudolf (Walter Richard) Hess (1894-1987), who was Adolf Hitler's second-in-command, kept incommunicado in Spandau Prison until his death in 1987, after parachuting into Scotland to seek peace in 1941? Even the prison guards were not allowed to speak to him. What did he know that had to be kept so secret and made him seem so dangerous? Was the formation of the Zionist State the REAL reason for WW2? Was that what Hess knew?- JAH.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Effect on Germans when they understood Jewish Activity

That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews had never been better off in any country in the world than they had been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this country. You had Mr. Balin, [Albert Ballin-RW] who owned the two big steamship lines, the North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr. Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers - the biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a sellout."

It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union. And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit. We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And throwing them into the war brought about our defeat.* A crushing defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot encompass.! Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.


* Ironically, as is prophesied to happen both by George Washington's Vision (see end of article) and the Holy Scriptures.


Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine* as a so-called "Jewish commonwealth."


* Ezekiel 11:15 Son of man, thy brethren, [even] thy brethren, the men of thy kindred, and all the House of Israel wholly, [are] they unto whom the inhabitants of Jerusalem have said, Get you far from the "I AM": unto us is this land given in possession (Idumean zionists - 1948).


Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921, 1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers (and the press was filled with their statements) that the feeling against the Jews in Germany is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling. There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisroel" or "Our Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing defeat (and the reparations, which ruined and crippled Germany financially).


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Freedman says World War I was started against Germany

And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade. You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's, they were doing business all over the world, they could undersell anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of that?

There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the map politically.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




German Camps in 1933

When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat, they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition. They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers, and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international affiliations.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Germans fought Jewish Control

Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols. Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up practically everything.

The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the Germans resented that.

The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an enemy and brought about our defeat.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




1933: Jews Declare Sacred War (and Trade War) on Germany

After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam. Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July 1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what the Germans told them.

So what did the Jews do?
In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer, who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said, "The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are dependent upon their export business." And it is a fact that two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember, where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the words "made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth, something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany." Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20 years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time, not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there was nothing.

Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Reichskristallnacht and Rearmament

The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and having street fights and so forth.

Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II, because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that "Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon, unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000 little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




1961: Nuclear War? For Israel?

For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.

What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere, are determined that they are going to again use the United States to help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known all over the world.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Secrecy (e.g. 1916 Zionist deal with USA) can happen again

What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it. You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.

Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was "confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.

Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told one lie, disregard his testimony.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




History of 'Jews'

What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them as so-called Jews*, because I know what they are.) The eastern European Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe. They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe - so big and so powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they were.

* Revelation 2:9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan.
3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but do LIE (Idumeans); behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith - either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny, miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620 A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia, from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and imported from the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't become a different people. They were the same people, but they had accepted Christianity as a religious faith.

These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe. Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the Khazars became what we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their ancestral home and, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough. You wouldn't call black black anymore you'd start to call black white. And nobody could blame you.

That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all the misery that has befallen the world.


[Back to start] [ Back to Table of Contents]




Kol Nidre: Evidence of Disloyalty

Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath, vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from fulfilling them.* How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in 1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and for the same reason.


* Exodus - The Ten Commandments - 20:16 Thou shalt not tell lies [even to thyself].
Matthew 5:37 (Jesus said) But let your Yes, be yes; and your No, be no: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.
15:1 Then came to Jesus lawyers and politicians, which were of Jerusalem, saying,
15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the Tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
15:3 But he answered and said unto them, Why do ye also transgress the COMMANDment of God by your Tradition?

Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right

Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right
Affidavit (As of 18/11/08) with amendments by dates
Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right
Affidavit DTH 181105 - NUI&CR

I, :Dave-Thomas :Hutchings., a living, sentient, flesh-and-blood Soul, having no corporate status, do hereby make oath and state the following is my Truth and my Law. (Each point of understanding and intention and each claim of right are numbered for easy reference.)

Whereas:
It is my understanding that:
1. The geographical area known, as Canada and The Government of Canada are both common-law jurisdictions.
2. Equality before the law is paramount and mandatory.
3. The law of agent and principal applies and that service upon one is service upon both.
4. For something to exist legally it must have a name.
5. All governments are corporations, which provide services.
6. All governments and corporations are bound by the Criminal Code of Canada.
7. A statute is defined as a legislated rule of society which has been given the force of law over members of that society and those who beg to have those rules applied to them.
8. A society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal.
9. The Law Societies and Bar Associations of Canada are the ones who create the statutes and therefore the statutes are applicable only to those members and to those that both beg and consent.
10. The language/s created by the Law Societies is/are not English and are sometimes called and hereby known as “Legalese.”
11. Legalese closely resembles English but is in fact not English and cannot represent English.
12. Only members of the Law Societies can fully understand Legalese.
13. It is deceitful and fraudulent to use Legalese in place of English without thoroughly informing directly affected parties of such and properly communicating all information in English.
14. Legalese cannot be lawfully used to create liability over anyone who is not a member of a Law Society because of a lack of understanding of Legalese.
15. Any contracts, agreements, charges, bills and so on are null, void, discharged and by all other means re-quitted if one of the affected parties who is not a member of a Law Society, and was ill-informed due to a lack of Legalese comprehension, declares.
16. Constitutional Law has supremacy over and is separate from Statutory Law with the exception that Constitutional Law governs, limits, and often voids Statutory Law.
17. The only form of government recognized as lawful in Canada is a representative one.
18. Representation requires mutual consent.
19. In the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist.
20. All Acts are statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the Constitution Act.
21. Section 32 of the Constitution Act limits all acts to members and employees of government.
22. Those who both consent to representation and have a SIN (Social Insurance Number) are in fact employees of the federal government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the federal government.
23. It is lawful to abandon a SIN.
24. It is lawful to reclaim a said abandoned SIN.
25. People in Canada have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed.
26. If anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints.
27. A claim of right establishes a lawful excuse and that this factual truth is expressed in Section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
28. If one is in possession of property under a claim of right, they have the authority to appoint any one to protect that property with protection from criminal responsibility for defending that property, even against a person entitled by law to possession of it and that factual truth is expressed in section 39 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
29. If one has lawful excuse one is not obliged to obey a court, tribunal, statute, Act or order, and that this factual truth is expressed in Sections 126 and 127 of the Criminal Code of Canada.
30. Section 15 of the Criminal Code of Canada clearly establishes that it is lawful to disobey a de facto government or court.
31. All presently existing courts and governments are de facto only and not de jure.
32. Any court or government has a legal responsibility to identify itself as de facto or de jure and not doing so when asked is fraudulent and in fact a criminal offense of fraud.
33. Any and all binding agreements, contracts, claims, and so on, are accordingly requitted to null and void if they are in unfair or unreasonable violation of a human’s constitutional, natural or God-given rights if the said affected human declares so.
34. A Functional Sovereign has lawfully revoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations, and limitations.
35. I, :Dave-Thomas :Hutchings am a Functional Sovereign.
36. Acting peacefully within community standards does not breach the peace.
37. To breach the peace one must, without others’ permission, greatly threaten the safety of others, impede on the rights of others, or act in a disturbing, riotous manner in the presence of others.
38. All transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties.
39. Any action for which one can apply for and receive a license must itself be a fundamentally lawful action.
40. I am a Sovereign Freeman who operates with full responsibility and not a child of the government, I do not see the need to ask permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially from those who claim limited liability.
41. A by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation.
42. Corporations are legal fictions and require contracts in order to claim authority or control over other parties.
43. Legal fictions lack both a soul and sentience and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge.
44. The Government of Canada is actually a corporation with the name CANADA (Central Index Key 0000230098) registered on the Securities Exchange Commission and its business Address is CANADIAN EMBASSY 1746 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON DC 20036, and,
45. “Geographical Canada” or “Canada” refers to the geographical area commonly referred to as Canada, and “CANADA” or “the Government of Canada” refers to the Corporation with the name CANADA; and CANADA, though operating throughout geographical Canada, is not geographical Canada, and has authority limited to employees, members, registered persons, and so on.
46. Notices served to Corporations, or persons acting as principals or agents for said Corporations, retain legal validity, effectiveness, and authority of any established Claims and/or Understandings and/or Intents, without prejudice, if positions or persons holding certain positions of the said Corporations are replaced, succeeded or changed in any way.
47. The Corporation of CANADA has the legal responsibility to provide any and all public services listed in any acts to human beings in geographical Canada when requested to do so by the party/s to receive the service.
48. A Sovereign Freeman does not have to register, apply, beg, pay or be governed to exercise their God-given, claimed, natural, common-law or Constitutional rights.
49. Being served by CANADA does not forfeit the rights of a Functional Sovereign.
50. All services provided by CANADA are to support human rights and should be free for all humans and are free for a Functional Sovereign or are paid for by CANADA.
51. I have a right to use my property without having to pay for the use or enjoyment of it.
52. I have a right to claim 160 acres of uninhabited land anywhere in the geographic area commonly referred to as Canada.
53. I can freely claim the right to collect a pension if I have paid into it and claim that said right is not affected if I abandon my Social Insurance Number.
54. It is both a common-law and a God-given right are to travel freely by any peaceful means.
55. A Functional Sovereign and his or her guests can travel freely through the Common-wealth and Canada, unmolested.
56. It is a lawful to travel through the use of a non-commercial “Private Travel Conveyance,” which is an unregistered, private automobile held under a claim of right mentioned in the criminal code.
57. A Private Travel Conveyance can be lawfully unmarked and void of license plates.
58. It is lawful for a Functional Sovereign to mark and identify his Private Travel Conveyance as he or she wishes, such as through the use of identification plates, similar in appearance to license plates.
59. A Functional Sovereign may travel peacefully anywhere in the Common-wealth and Canada unmolested, including through the use of his or her Private Travel Conveyance of the day.
60. A Notary Public can and when requested will perform duties found under any Act, thus they have the power to hold court and hear evidence and issue binding lawful judgments.
61. A summons is merely an invitation to attend and the ones issued by the British Columbia Securities Commissions create no obligation or dishonor if ignored.
62. If the Notary fails in their Duty, then they have abandoned their post.
63. If a person in office, such as a Judge, fails in their duty or commits fraud, an affected Sovereign Freeman can claim and thus lawfully acquire any bonds or security funds that hold/held that person in office.
64. It is the duty of the Minister of Transport to ensure the safe traveling of the public.
65. The Minister of Transport must upon demand create and post insurance bonds to aid any Functional Sovereign in exercising their common-law rights to travel by any means whilst keeping the public safe, and that failure or refusal to do so is to accept and declare that insurance is not needed for a Functional Sovereign to lawfully travel.
66. Peace officers (Police Officers) have a duty to distinguish between statutes and law and have two roles, first as a Peace Officer and secondly as Policy Enforcement Officers and Policy Enforcement Officers those who attempt to enforce statutes against a Functional Sovereign are in fact breaking the law.
67. I have the right to bind by appointment any and all Peace Officers under Section 39 of the Criminal Code.
68. The Government of Canada has the legal responsibility to thoroughly inform all humans in Canada of the Government of Canada’s legal, financial, political, and so on, plans, policies, actions and all other relevant information, with the exception of some covert military operations.
69. Peace officers are required to aid any humans who request aid within the geographical area of Canada with any distressing, potentially dangerous, or law-enforcement issues in order to keep the peace.
70. A Sovereign Freeman has the right to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers that have not observed them breach the peace.
71. Permanent estoppel by acquiescence barring any peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Sovereign Freeman under any Act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time.

Furthermore:
72. I claim that my actions, especially points 110., 111., and 112., are not outside my communities’ standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.
73. I claim the right to demand from the Government of Canada updated and proper paper copies of the entire constitution of Canada, any and all Bills, receipts and other publicly accessable documents.
74. I claim the right to engage in the actions stated in points 110., 111. and 112., and further claim that all property held by me is held under a claim of right as mentioned in the Criminal Code of Canada.
75. I claim the common-law right to travel through the use of a “Private Travel Conveyance,” which is an unregistered, private transport device held under a claim of right mentioned in the criminal code.
76. I claim the right to use a different Private Travel Conveyance of the day, meaning that I will sometimes be using others’ Private Travel Conveyances, or more of my own.
77. I claim the right to demand that the Minister of Transport create and post an insurance bond of unlimited value [for example, $10 000 000 or “TEN MILLION DOLLARS”] in Canadian dollars of and in surety to be released accordingly in the case that any members of the public or property of the public be damaged, injured, disabled or otherwise hindered in an incident which I and/or my Private Transport Conveyance/s, or ones I am using, are involved and that perfection of this claim is in fact that demand.
78. I claim the right to appoint the Minister of Transport the Fiduciary over the said insurance bond and that perfection of this claim is in fact that demand.
79. I claim that the use of a Private Transport Conveyance does not endanger the public because of a lack of a classical corporate insurance policy in agreement with an insurance company and is in fact as safe as “persons” driving with a corporate insurance policy.
80. I claim that Guests under the care and traveling with a Freeman-on-the-Land in or on his or her Private Travel Conveyance of the day enjoy the same freedom from statutory compliance as a Freeman-on-the-Land and thus cannot be subject to Policy Enforcement Officers.
81. I claim that my Private Travel Conveyance of the day is reasonably safe and mechanically approved for use through safety certification.
82. I claim the right to identify and mark my Private Travel Conveyances as I see fit, such as through the use of identification plate/s, and to inform the Minister of Transport of how I will be identifying my Private Travel Conveyance and to have the Ministry of Transport identify my Private Travel Conveyance thusly and that perfection of this claim is such: I :Dave-Thomas :Hutchings, Sovereign Freeman, will be identifying my first Private Travel Conveyance with the identification plate labeled “Functional Sovereign… SOVEREIGN CA.”
83. I claim the right to generate Lawful Excuse, which is a general term, which includes all of the defenses, which the common law considers sufficient reason to excuse a human being from criminal liability.
84. I claim the right to unconditionally claim 160 acres of uninhabited land anywhere in the geographic area commonly referred to as Canada.
85. I claim the right to de-register anything that has been registered by me or any of my belongings.
86. I claim the right to demand all dividends and transfer payments be directed to.
87. I claim the right to demand all the moneys I paid into the Canada Pension Plan.
88. I claim the right to demand the return of all property, shares, land and monies held in trust for me by Her Majesty in right of Canada and/or the Government of Canada and perfection of this claim is in fact that demand.
89. I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or color of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.
90. I claim the right to demand at any time that peace officers identify themselves thoroughly using THREE (3) required and matching documents: a badge number, business identification number, and Government-issued identification indicating that they are a policing agent of the Government, or some variation thereof.
91. I claim that an out-of-uniform peace officer or one who refuses to identify themselves cannot claim authority as such over anyone for any purposes, especially a Sovereign Freeman, and that attempting to do so is fraudulent and a criminal offense of fraud, and furthurmore that I claim the right to refuse intercourse with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace.
92. I claim that, the Crown’s claim of; “All property reverts to the Crown for want of a competent heir”, as referred to in the escheats act, stands as a lawful claim, and,
Whereas Canada is an insolvency, an estate, where everything is owned by God and currently held in trust under the Crown until a competent heir(s) shows up and lays a lawful claim of jurisdiction.
93. I claim that the corporation known as “THE CROWN” and/or “HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II” and all human beings acting as persons, holding the subordinate position, [office of a person] in Canada are in fact deemed incompetent by all legal means and therefore require a legal trustee (third party to an action), to legally represent the incompetent one to any and all other corporations and corporate persons such as “The Courts of British Columbia” and/or “Government of British Columbia” and/or “Government of Canada” and so on.
94. I claim that all “persons” acting as Governments, corporations, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming, “retained legal counsel” have, by virtue of their own and/or their principals’ actions, claimed “total incompetence”, in handling any of their own affairs in law and have become an instant ward of the court, hence, they are imprisoned by their own actions in hand or lack thereof.
95. I claim that due to the self evident and the facts in truth at hand, that all persons, the Crown, Governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming limited liability or immunity are doing so under the pretense of being in fact deemed totally incompetent and under law made instant wards of the crown and/or court and therefore, cannot claim good faith or colour of right over anyone who is thus blessed to being a competent heir.
96. I claim the universal maxim of law, to wit; “the partner (Government) of my partner (agent: DAVID THOMAS HUTCHINGS) is not my partner (Sovereign Freeman)” applies herein and is in full force and effect.
97. I claim that the present courts in Canada are de-facto and bound by the Law and Equity Act and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.
98. The right to establish for me or anyone under my care a FEE SCHEDULE for any transgression(s) against me, my family or anyone under my care that is or are perpetrated by peace officers, government principals, agents or justice system participants, those fees being ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1 000.00) PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated, and TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10 000.00) PER HOUR if handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarized consent, and a minimum of ONE MILLION DOLLARS($1 000 000.00) for any violence brought against me, my family or anyone under my care, and TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10 000.00) PER DAY if any personal property is being taken away from me without my express written and notarized consent, and that perfection of this claim are those establishments.
99. I claim the right to choose a lawful method of payment upon demand.
100. I claim the right to use a Notary Public, Commissioner or any two (2) people not related to me by blood or marriage to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or anyone under my care or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.
101. I claim the right to engage the services of a Notary Public, Commissioner for taking affidavits and/or any two (2) people not related to me by blood or marriage to attest to my signature for verification purposes and does not constitute adhesion, contract or change in status in any manner.
102. I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, Government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.
103. I claim the right to provide for myself or anyone who wanted it any service provided by the Government of Canada.
104. I claim the right to use any service provided by the Government of Canada that I deem necessary without such affecting my status as a Sovereign Freeman.
105. I claim the right to keep and use as I see fit any and all inheritances given to me.
106. I claim the right to determine what is best for me, my family and anyone under my care.
107. I claim the right to govern myself accordingly and to refuse any service or intervention by any level of government.
108. I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on videotape said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.
109. I claim the right to have, in the event of my death, all of my property and inheritances that I pass on, protected by this Claim and that my Will is my final word.

Addendum
1. I claim the right to play golf, shoot, boat, garden and kayak by my own rules. (Added 29/11/08)
2. I claim the right to learn. read, interpret and formulate conclusions at my own pace. (Added 22/12/08)
3. I claim the right be referred to as a Sovereign Freeman in place of Freeman-on-the-Land (Added 26/12/08)
4. I claim the right to be called Dave-Thomas of the Hutchings family, to be written :Dave-Thomas :Hutchings (Added 29/12/08)
5. I claim the right to us 'By:' to mean to be a agent for ____________________ . (Added 09/01/09)

Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and affected parties, that I, :Dave-Thomas :Hutchings. a Sovereign Freeman do hereby state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent:

110. To peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter.

111. To travel peacefully and lawfully within the geographical area commonly referred as Canada by whatever means I deem necessary.

112. To be a Steward of the land and waters of the geographic area of Canada and the Commonwealth including the land, which I claim.

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) days of service of notice of this action. Reponses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than ten days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.
Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute, by-law or Act against My Self Sovereign Freeman
:Dave-Thomas :Hutchings

Directions for response

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or to make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) DAYS of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the notary's office herein provided no later than ten days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service, and;

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgment securing forevermore all rights herein claimed and establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence forevermore barring the bringing of charges under any statute, Code or Act against myself a Sovereign Freeman known as Dave-Thomas of the Hutchings family, and;
Use of a notary is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of foreign jurisdiction.

The place of claim of right, geographical area known as Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Autographed and verified this _____ day of the month of ________________ in the year two thousand and eight.

:Dave-Thomas :Hutchings __________________________________
(Claimant) (Autograph of claimant)
Without prejudice, reserving all unalienable God given rights,
powers and privileges waiving none ever. In my correct
capacity as beneficiary of the original jurisdiction.

In verification to the above signature:

_________________________________
(Verifier - print) (Autograph of Verifier)




_________________________________
(Verifier - print) (Autograph of Verifier)



Send counterclaims and/or disputes to:
:Dave-Thomas :Hutchings
c/o __________________ , Victoria city, British Columbia province
Sovereign Freeman, Non-consenting and ungoverned
All Rights Reserved, Exercised at Will and Fully Defended, By the Grace of God, The Rule of Law and the Law of the Land.

ATTENTION
:Dave-Thomas :Hutchings

God's Law on Restitution

God's Law on Restitution

By Dr. Stephen E. Jones

Table of Contents

History of Modern Prisons
The Injustice of the Prison System
The Bible's Solution
The Law of Hammurabi
Destruction of Property: Exodus 22:5 and 6
Stolen Property Held in Trust
Unsolved Loss of Property
Borrowed Property Damaged
Kidnapping
Lost and Found-and Retained
The Advantage of Repentance
It's About Forgiveness
Conclusion


Page 1 of 12
God's Law on Restitution
It is a well-known principle of natural law that labor is our most basic property right and is the source of all lawful
wealth. We are born with a certain amount of inherited wealth (which represents the labor of our forebears) and
a capacity to labor, representing potential property, or wealth.
Theft is taking property that belongs to another, or using it without the consent of the rightful owner. Theft is the
opposite of labor, and thus, in Scripture, labor is the antidote to theft.
History of Modern Prisons
It occurs to few people that there might be an alternative to the modern practice of handing out prison
sentences for property crimes. And yet, strange as it may seem, this practice is only about 200 years old. Our
modern penal system is the most expensive and perhaps the least effective method of handling crime in the
history of the world. It is also far from humane by biblical standards, though we admit that it was certainly more
humane than the way it was usually handled in Europe prior to this time. Putting a man in prison for stealing a
loaf of bread in America was far better than hanging him in Europe. Even so, the Bible has a far better solution.
Prisons have existed for thousands of years, but rather than using them to warehouse criminals as we do today,
they were used almost exclusively to detain political prisoners.
In 1776 Massachusetts had a law that thieves be whipped or fined for their first offenses. On second offenses
the thieves had to pay three times the value of the stolen property to their victims as restitution and forced to sit
on the gallows for an hour with the rope around their necks. On their third offenses they were hanged.
William Penn, the founder of the state of Pennsylvania, is the father of the modern penal system, although
Queen Anne prevented him from implementing his ideas in Pennsylvania. A century later, however, after the
Revolutionary War, there was a reaction against the excessive and cruel penalties being meted out in the name
of "justice." (This was also a reaction against what was considered to be "British thinking.") Unfortunately, the
most influential reformers were more schooled in the philosophy of the Humanist Enlightenment than in Bible
Law. Thus, they began to advocate prison sentences as punishment for most crimes, rather than restitution to
the victims, as the Bible demands.
In 1796 Philadelphia established the first "penitentiary" in history, its purpose being to give criminals opportunity
to be penitent. The criminal was put into solitary confinement with nothing to do but read the Bible and pray.
After he had been given ample time for soul searching, he was given small work projects, under the theory that
the prisoner (now bored to death) would appreciate anything to do. Thus, he was in a position to learn
industriousness before being returned to society.
The lawmakers in New York had some different ideas. They allowed the inmates to work and eat together,
though they were not allowed to converse or even to glance at each other. In their utopian desire to create a
perfect environment to rehabilitate the criminal, they felt that Pennsylvania's system of solitary confinement was
too damaging psychologically to the offenders.
And so the great debate raged over the proper method of producing a crimeless society. At the time there were
few who questioned the value of prisons themselves. But within a century the utopian dreams of a crimeless
society had long been forgotten. Few prisoners had become penitent or rehabilitated when released, and the
problem seemed only to have been aggravated.
But in spite of the failure of the Great American Prison Experiment, the system goes on for lack of a better idea
(or for ignoring the better idea set forth in Scripture). So long as the majority of the people manage to stay out of
prison, they care little for those who are sent there. In our self-righteousness we curl our lips and point our
fingers at the "criminals," having little sympathy for them. The only ones who seem to care at all are the liberalsthe
philosophical children of the Enlightenment that had launched the experiment in the first place. The
conservative Christians generally advocate locking them up and throwing the keys to the crocodiles.
Page 2 of 12
Meanwhile, God judges us with an ever-increasing crime rate that costs more and more money to build more
and more prisons. Taxes can only go higher, which in turn spawns a tax revolt among the people who must pay
for a system that does not work. The system is destined to fail eventually, and Christians had better have a
good system to replace it. The purpose of this book is to give Christians the solution that God set forth in His
Word many years ago. Hopefully, this will inspire many to work with government officials and representatives to
make the necessary changes that will stop victimizing the taxpayers and inmates alike.
The Injustice of the Prison System
Suppose a thief steals $100 worth of merchandise from a department store, but that he is caught some time
after he has "fenced" the goods. He has by this time spent the money and is flat broke when brought to justice.
The owner of the store knows that he will never be repaid for his losses, but the only way to discourage such
thieves is to press charges and put him in prison. So the store must pay an attorney to handle the case, which
may cost him more than the stolen goods were worth in the first place.
The thief is then assigned a court-appointed attorney, since he cannot afford to hire one himself. Thus, the
taxpayers (including the department store owner) are made liable for the crime, as though somehow "society" is
at fault for providing a poor environment, forcing the thief to steal for a living.
The thief is finally convicted and sentenced to a year in prison, where the innocent taxpayers (or "society") must
house him, feed him, clothe him, and guard him at the cost of about $60,000 per year. During this time spent in
the cage, he is given a number, dehumanized, and treated like the scum of the earth in order to ensure "law
and order." Instead of praying penitently, he is embittered and taught to hate those responsible for putting him
there. But all is not lost, for he has also been given an unprecedented opportunity to learn how not to get caught
next time. Prisons are well known as Crime Colleges.
Meanwhile, the family of the thief has lost its means of support and must go on welfare and food stamps,
provided to them by the innocent taxpayers, who have been made liable once again for someone else's crime.
Is that family grateful? How could it be grateful to a society who has taken a husband from his wife and a father
from his children? The divorce rate among inmates is horrendous. Family units are a huge casualty of the
prison system.
Let us suppose, however, that the thief manages to overcome the bitterness of prison life and come to know
Jesus Christ. Let us suppose he becomes truly "reformed" and sincerely desires to follow Christ and the laws of
God. When he is released from prison, he must then find work in a lawful occupation. Now he finds that no one
wants to hire him because of his past "criminal record." He must now go through the rest of his life
handicapped. The prison sentence continues for the rest of his life, and society continues to punish him long
after he has supposedly "paid his debt to society."
He finds that the people seldom forgive the thief, because they have all been victimized without receiving
restitution. The taxpayers have had to pay huge sums of money to imprison him, and they also know that few
inmates are able to overcome the huge odds against them and emerge from prison truly reformed. Most
emerge full of bitterness and anger and must also adjust to the freedom itself. It is difficult, after being told to do
nearly everything for so long, to make even basic personal decisions. They are largely unprepared for normal
life in society.
Little wonder, then, that the odds of an inmate being rehabilitated and turned into a productive citizen are so
slim. According to Judge Albert Kramer of Quincy, Massachusetts, "the failure-rate of jails is about 90%." He
was not talking about a failure to house them without their escaping. He was talking about the failure of jails to
rehabilitate them. It is often said, even on television, that the system is flawed, but it is the only system we have.
While this is true, this does not mean we cannot change the system. In fact, we must do so as quickly as
possible, not only for the sake of the general public, but also for the sake of the inmates.
Page 3 of 12
Legislators appear to have no answers. The conservatives in America-many of whom claim to be Christiansusually
advocate stiffer sentences and want to make prisons as close to sheer hell as possible as a deterrent to
crime. The liberals, knowing that criminals are not rehabilitated by harsher sentences, can only advocate
spending more money on prison programs and educational opportunities. This is quite unpopular to the
taxpayers who must fund everything.
Both sides have lost their early idealistic vision of a crimeless society. The problem seems insurmountable. No
matter how we build the prison cells, we have not solved the most crucial problem-Justice. Instead of a single
victim of the crime, we now have three: the original victim, the taxpayer, and the criminal himself. Is there any
answer to this horrible situation?
William Penn did not have the answer, because (as a Quaker) he relied only on "inner light" and put away the
divine Law. Thus, in his zeal to follow the voice of the Holy Spirit, he mistakenly ignored the words which the
Holy Spirit had written in the past to guide our way. In so doing he preached Christianity, but then often
practiced the principles of Humanism in real life. And we are paying the price for that error today.
It may be hard to believe, but the Bible has the answer. God's justice restores all losses to the victim of the
crime without making the taxpayers liable, and the thief is restored to a productive position of full citizenship
with justice and forgiveness to all.
The Bible's Solution
In a nutshell, it is a principle of Bible Law that justice has not been done until full restitution has been made to
all the victims of injustice. In other words, the original lawful order must be restored, rather than creating new
injustices to try to balance or patch up the old ones. Whenever the nature of the crime is such that restitution is
impossible, or when the thief refuses to make restitution to restore the lawful order, the penalty is death. And
finally, the thief must take full responsibility for his actions and is the only one liable for his crime.
The basic guideline for handling property crime is defined in Exodus 22:1-4.
1 “If a man steals an ox or a sheep, and slaughters it or sells it, he shall pay five oxen for the ox
and four sheep for the sheep.” 2 “If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he
dies, there will be no blood-guiltiness on his account.” 3 “But if the sun has risen on him, there will
be blood-guiltiness on his account. He shall surely make restitution; if he owns nothing, then he
shall be sold for his theft.” 4 “If what he stole is actually found alive in his possession, whether an ox
or a donkey or a sheep, he shall pay double.”
The Scripture mandates double restitution be paid to the victim, provided the thief is able to restore the
original item that he stole. If he has already damaged the item or sold it, and it is not possible to recover the
stolen item, then the thief must repay four or five times the value of the stolen item. Normally, this would be
four times the value of the stolen item, such as a sheep or a car. However, if has stolen the tools of a man's
trade-such as an ox in ancient times-the thief must repay five times the value of such tools.
Thus, the Bible did not sentence thieves to prison, but mandated that they repay their victims a precise amount
calculated upon the value of the merchandize that was stolen. The judge had no right to increase or decrease
that amount. To decrease that amount would defraud the victim; to increase that amount would defraud the
thief. Only the victim had the right to forgive the debt in whole or in part, even as the repentant thief would have
the right to give the victim more than what the law required.
Page 4 of 12
The Law of Hammurabi
Let us compare God's Law with the law code of Hammurabi-the common law of Canaan during the days of
Moses. Paragraph 8 reads:
"If a man has stolen ox or sheep or ass or pig or ship, whether from the temple or the palace, he
shall pay 30-fold. If from a poor man, he shall render 10-fold. If the thief has not wherewith to
pay, he shall be put to death."
It appears from this paragraph that the average common thief who stole from a neighbor had to pay ten-fold
restitution. However, since the majority of thieves could not repay such an amount, it is probable that many of
them were executed, rather than rehabilitated through labor. Thus, the Bible shows much more mercy toward
the thief than does the law of Hammurabi.
The Code of Hammurabi also discriminates between the rich and the poor in a great many of its laws. It
demands thirty-fold restitution for theft of a rich man's property, an amount so unreasonable that it surely
amounted to a death sentence in almost all cases. The death penalty was mandated in cases of theft of
property from a temple or palace, as we read in Paragraph 6:
"If a man has stolen the goods of temple or palace, that man shall be put to death. Further, he
who has received the stolen thing from his hand shall be put to death."
Perhaps the most prominent feature of the Code of Hammurabi is its class distinctions. In these two paragraphs
we see at least four classes of people: the poor, the rich, the temple priests, and the political rulers of the
palaces. This is in sharp contrast with the divine Law, where all men are guaranteed equal justice before the
Law. There are tribal distinctions, of course, along with the distinctions between Israelites and non-Israelites
(citizens and aliens), but in the matter of justice, all are equal.
In Exodus 22:2 and 3 we read that if a man is killed while burglarizing a home at night, it is considered
justifiable homicide (self-defense). This is because at night it is difficult to see if the burglar is armed or not.
Thus, burglars enter at their own risk.
On the other hand, if the burglary occurs during daylight hours, when he can be recognized and more easily
apprehended, he is not to be killed unless it is clear that he is threatening someone's life. God rules that
burglary is not to be penalized by death, nor can a man shoot the burglar in order to prevent him from escaping.
This was quite different from the law of Hammurabi, where the burglar was to be executed on the spot and
buried next to the place where he committed the crime (Par. 21). No distinction was made between night or day
burglaries.
The Bible also makes a merciful provision for rehabilitating a thief who cannot repay his victim. Whereas the
Code of Hammurabi prescribes the death penalty, God's Law demands that he be "sold for his theft" (Ex.
22:3). In other words, the court would determine the total debt owed, and then his labor would be sold to the
highest bidder. Whoever would be willing to pay him the highest wages for his labor hired him until his debt was
paid.
For example, if the thief owed $5,000 in restitution, the price of his sale would be fixed at $5,000. The bid may
begin at six months' labor, then five, until the least amount of labor time had been bid. The winner of the auction
would then take the debt note from the judge and pay the victim the $5,000 owed. The thief would then have to
work for his new master (employer) for the amount of time that he had bidden. The thief's family would go with
him, live with him, and be supported by the one who had bought his labor, so the bidder would have to take
those expenses into consideration while bidding for the man's labor. Thus, the thief labors to redeem himself
without wasting time in prison like a caged animal.
Page 5 of 12
This was not slavery in the sense that we think of it today, because those working off a debt fell under the
protection of the labor laws in the Bible, which protect servants (employees) from being mistreated. The only
real inconvenience was that the thief who had been "sold" could not change jobs or escape that job until his
time had been completed. If he should try to escape, or if for any other reason he should refuse to restore the
lawful order by paying restitution, the penalty was death (Deut. 17:12).
This penalty was not imposed for the theft itself, but for contempt of court, which is the refusal to repent and be
obedient to God. Society has the right to be protected from those who refuse to restore the lawful order (i.e.,
hardened criminals).
On the other hand, the thief likewise has the right to be treated like a human being, rather than as an animal.
Many have maligned God's Law as being cruel and merciless, when, in fact, it is man's laws that are cruel. God
is very merciful and has revealed His loving character in His Law. Anyone who has spent time in a modern
prison for theft will see this immediately. Given a choice, most of them would be happy to work off a debt, rather
than sit in a cage. Prison sentences are a sin.
The benefits of God's judicial system are obvious. The victims of crime are recompensed quickly and cheaply;
the innocent are not made liable for the sins of the guilty; the thief is treated as a debtor working to repay a
debt, rather than being caged like an animal and fed at the expense of the taxpayers.
Under this system, all the victims are recompensed at least double as soon as the auction is concluded. The
convicted thieves are taught to work in the real world, as opposed to being given work projects at eleven cents
an hour behind bars like true slaves. His family does not need to go on welfare, which makes the taxpayers
happy. So justice is done without creating more victims and without creating an embittered, hardened criminal.
Is it any wonder that King David wrote in amazement in Psalm 119: 97 and 98, “O how I love Thy Law! It
is my meditation all the day.” 98 “Thy commandments make me wiser than my enemies; for they are
ever mine.”
Is it any wonder that the Apostle Paul, lost for words, wrote in Romans 11:33, “O the depth of the riches,
both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His JUDGMENTS, and
unfathomable His ways!”
Destruction of Property: Exodus 22:5 and 6
There are a number of other situations in which restitution must be paid to victims. Not all can be classified as
theft, but in each case there is a question of liability for destruction of property, whether accidental or deliberate.
Before we go to our first example in Exodus 22:5, we must take note that this verse is incomplete in the King
James Version. The KJV was based upon a Hebrew text which had a copyist's error of omission. However,
thanks to the Septuagint and the Samaritan texts, we may now reinstate the lost words of the Law. These lost
words are written below:
5 “If a man lets a field or vineyard be grazed bare, and lets his animal loose so that it grazes in
another man's field, he shall surely make restitution out of his whole field according to its yield;
and if the whole field is eaten, he shall make restitution from the best of his own field, and the
best of his own vineyard.”
This is simply another way of saying, Thou shalt not harvest another man's crop for your own purposes. The
judge was to assess the damage and assign an equal portion of the offender's field or vineyard to the victim as
restitution. This law is similar to that of Hammurabi, where the offender had to harvest and purchase at a set
rate per acre the entire crop which his cattle had partially eaten. Many stores today have adopted the basic
principle of this law by demanding that "if you break it, consider it sold."
Page 6 of 12
It is a basic Law of God that all restitution be paid in kind to replace (as closely as possible) the property that
had been destroyed or damaged. The two parties could, of course, agree upon a monetary sum on their own,
but if not, the question would be settled by payment in kind. For instance, if a man broke your wrench, he would
be required to buy you another one of equal value, or reimburse you with money.
Continuing in Exodus 22:6 we read: “If a fire breaks out and spreads to thorn bushes, so that
stacked grain or the standing grain or the field itself is consumed; he who started the fire shall
surely make restitution.”
The one who lights the fire is considered to be the owner of the fire (by the law of creation). He is therefore
responsible for it and liable for it if he allows it to get out of control. Thus, the same law which gives us the right
to own that which we create, build, or grow with our labor is also the law which makes us responsible to
oversee our possessions and govern them properly. Rights and respon-sibilities always go together in equal
amounts.
Stolen Property Held in Trust
In ancient times when a man had to make a trip and could not take all of his household goods with him, he
would leave them in the care of the chief steward or a trusted neighbor. The neighbor usually did not mind
doing this favor, because the day might come when the favor would be returned. Thus, laws were needed to
define or limit liability in case some goods were stolen while the neighbor held them in trust. No doubt cases
came up occasionally when a neighbor might not be as trustworthy as previously thought and had secretly
stolen and sold the property he was guarding. The basic law on this matter is found in Exodus 22:7-13, which
we will quote and comment upon as we proceed.
7 “If a man gives his neighbor money or goods to keep for him, and it is stolen from the man's
house, if the thief is caught, he shall pay double”. 8 “If the thief is not caught, then the owner of
the house shall appear before the judges [elohim] to determine whether he laid his hands on his
neighbor's property.” 9 “For every breach of trust, whether it is for ox, for donkey, for sheep, for
clothing, or for any lost thing, about which one says, 'This is it,' the case of both parties shall
come before the judges [elohim]; he whom the judges [elohim] condemn shall pay double to his
neighbor.”
God's Law, of course, simply follows the principle of restitution that was established in Verses 1-4, quoted
earlier. It is evident that if the goods were damaged before recovery, the thief would have to pay four or five
times the value, rather than merely double.
If the thief is not found immediately after the goods are missed, the owner and the neighbor are to go before the
judges in court, and the neighbor is to take an oath that he has not stolen the goods. This procedure is simply
the Biblical manner of appealing to the Supreme Court of God. One may do this in any judicial case and allow
God to adjudicate the matter directly in His own way and time. If the neighbor truly were guilty but denied it
under oath, God requites the guilty party after giving him a certain amount of time to repent and confess his sin.
Note also that the judges are called elohim (usually translated God or gods). This is because they represent the
Creator and His government in the administration of His Law. Elohim literally means a subjector, or one who is
in a position of power or authority over others. The Creator has this title, but it is also applied to those under
Him in positions of government.
In the law of Hammurabi (Par. 122 and 123), whenever someone deposited money or goods with another, he
had to have a receipt of deposits and witnesses, without which he could not claim his property. This law seems
to be in the context of a commercial bank or storage business done for profit. Under Bible Law, if a person were
to utilize such a bank or storage business, he must be sure to be able to prove in some manner that the goods
are his, to guard against possible theft by the businessman.
Page 7 of 12
However, if identification could be made positively, a person would not need a receipt of deposit and witnesses.
It would appear from the law of Hammurabi that if a man should lose his receipt of deposit, he would lose his
goods no matter how many witnesses could confirm that the goods were his. The law of Hammurabi (Par. 124
and 125) also says that the one holding property in trust is totally liable if it is stolen while in his
possession. It is his responsibility to track down the thief, and if he cannot find him or the property, he must
pay the owner in full, providing the owner has his receipt. This is different from God's Law, of course, in that if
there is no evidence that the trustee stole the goods, he is only required to swear in court that he did not
steal it or help the thief to steal it.
Unsolved Loss of Property
Exodus 22:10 and 11 legislates on the question of unsolved loss of property that has been held in trust.
10 “If a man gives his neighbor a donkey, an ox, a sheep, or any animal to keep for him; and it
dies or is hurt or is driven away while no one is looking,” 11 “an oath before the Lord shall be made
by the two of them, that he has not laid hands on his neighbor's property; and its owner shall
accept it, and he [the trustee] shall not make restitution.”
So if the property is damaged or lost while in the care of a trustee, and no witness can testify in the matter, an
oath of innocence is all that shall be required of the trustee. The matter is placed in the hands of the Supreme
Court for God's direct adjudication.
The Law here does not specify what to do if the loss were caused by the carelessness of the trustee. It only
rules on accidental loss, where the trustee is not liable. This is a gap in the Biblical legislation that may yet be
resolved by the Holy Spirit through prayer, appealing to God for such a ruling.
However, in other situations, when carelessness results in injury or loss, the careless person is fully liable. (See
also Exodus 21:33 and 34.) Applying the principle of liability to the apparent gap in Exodus 22:10 and 11, we
could reasonably assume that loss of property through the trustee's carelessness is his responsibility, and that
he must replace the lost or damaged goods.
Perhaps the reason the Bible does not clearly specify the problem here is because the custom already dictated
correctly what to do. That is, the law of Hammurabi needed no altering on this point. It says in Par. 263 and
267: “If he has caused an ox or sheep which was given him to be lost, ox for ox, sheep for sheep,
he shall render to their owner.” 267 “If a shepherd has been careless and in a sheepfold caused a
loss to take place, the shepherd shall make good.”
We may conclude, then, that the principle of law regarding carelessness in the divine legislation was the same
as was found in the Hammurabi Code. This principle of liability was already a well-established custom in the
minds of the people, and so God felt it unnecessary to repeat it in the Mosaic Code.
Borrowed Property Damaged
Exodus 22:13 simply establishes that a trustee does not have to make good an animal that has been killed by
a wild beast. Again, this is assuming that the trustee was not negligent. We read then in verses 14 and 15:
“And if a man borrows anything from his neighbor, and it is injured or dies while the owner is not
with it, he shall make full restitution.” 15 “If its owner is with it, he shall not make restitution; if
it is hired, it came for his hire.”
In other words, when a man borrows something from his neighbor, and he damages it while using it, or-in the
case of an animal such as an ox-it dies, he is only liable if the owner was not present to supervise its use.
Page 8 of 12
The Bible uses examples of such things as oxen, but today we would think more in terms of a tractor to pull a
plow. If a man borrows a tractor and breaks it while using it, he must fix it or pay to have it fixed. But if he hires
his neighbor to come with his plow and work the field, and the tractor breaks, then the owner of the tractor is
liable to fix his own machine.
The law of Hammurabi does not specify clearly whether the owner was hired with the animal or not, but the
terminology implies the same as the Biblical law. The Bible makes the point clear, whereas the law of
Hammurabi is unclear.
In Par. 244-249 of Hammurabi's Code, it is clear that the borrower is liable for any injury to the animal, except
where a lion kills it in the open field (Par. 244), or where the beast dies by itself (i.e., "God has struck it, and
it has died" - Par. 249). This would fall under the category of accidental destruction of property, which did not
involve carelessness.
God's Law does not word it like this, but it would certainly agree with Hammurabi in this case.
It is interesting that the two law systems treat different aspects of the same question without any real overlap.
This may be taken as further evidence that God's Law was not intended to be an exhaustive Law Code, but
rather was often intended to correct certain injustices or to clarify certain portions of the Hammurabi Code.
Kidnapping
The law of Hammurabi called for the death penalty if a man kidnapped the son of a freeman (Par. 14). God's
Law makes no distinction between classes of people, saying in Exodus 21:16, “And he who kidnaps a man,
whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death.”
Kidnapping calls for the death penalty, because there is no way one can pay double restitution without making
some innocent party pay for the crime of the guilty party.
Lost and Found-and Retained
Our final example of theft that we shall examine in our study of property laws is finding lost property without
returning it to its rightful owner. This sin is mentioned in Deut. 22:1-3:
1 “You shall not see your countryman's ox or his sheep straying away, and pay no attention to
them; you shall certainly bring them back to your countryman.” 2 “And if your countryman is not
near you, or if you do not know him, then you shall bring it home to your house, and it shall remain
with you until your countryman looks for it; then you shall restore it to him.” 3 “And thus you shall
do with . . . anything lost by your countryman . . . .”
Almost every child in America has been exposed at one time or another to the Humanist principle of "finders,
keepers; losers, weepers." God disagrees absolutely. All lost property is to be restored to its owner. If not, it is
theft.
No penalty is mentioned in this passage, but we may assume that the penalty is the same as any other theft. If
the property is returned intact, double restitution is due; if the property is damaged or sold, the restitution is four
or five times the value of the retained property.
Page 9 of 12
The law of Hammurabi prescribed the death penalty for those who laid claim to someone else's lost property. It
also mandated death to anyone who should purchase lost or stolen property, if he could not produce a written
receipt and witnesses to the transaction. Thus, buyers and sellers without a receipt and witnesses ran the risk
of being executed (Par. 9 and 10). Once again, the divine law is shown to be far more merciful than the
Babylonian law of Hammurabi.
How could anyone despise God's Law or claim that it is cruel and unreasonable?
The Advantage of Repentance
God's Law was not given to make punishment an end in itself. The law is rehabilitative and corrective in nature.
Yet at the same time there are many crimes committed where there are no witnesses and no conviction before
a judge. The question arises, what shall a man do if he gets away with a crime, but later repents? The answer is
found in Leviticus 6:2-5:
2 “When a person sins and acts unfaithfully against the Lord, and deceives his companion in regard
to a deposit or a security entrusted to him, or through robbery, or if he has extorted from his
companion,” 3 “or has found what was lost and lied about it and sworn falsely, so that he sins in
regard to any one of the things a man may do;” 4 “then it shall be, when he sins and becomes
guilty, that he shall restore what he took by robbery, or what he got by extortion, or the deposit
which was entrusted to him, or the lost thing which he found,” 5 “or anything about which he swore
falsely; he shall make restitution for it in full [i.e., return all stolen property], and add to it onefifth
more. He shall give it to the one to whom it belongs on the day he presents his guilt
offering.”
This law, along with its penalty, presumes that the guilty party had no witnesses who could testify against him in
court, for if there were, he would have to restore at least double to the victim. It is the judgment of God that
sinners should be rewarded for repentance and confession of sin without having to be dragged into court with
witnesses to force the issue to a judicial resolution.
The Scripture says that if a man were given property in trust and lied about its whereabouts (in order to steal it),
and if he later repents of it when he seemingly could have gotten away with it, he is required to pay only onefifth
restitution while restoring the item that was stolen.
The same is true if a man finds a lost item and decides to lie about it and keep it instead of returning it to the
owner. If he later repents and confesses his sin, he is required to pay only one-fifth restitution while restoring
the property to the rightful owner.
In Numbers 5 we are told of this principle in very clear terms.
6 “Speak unto the sons of Israel, When a man or woman commits any of the sins of mankind,
acting unfaithfully against the Lord, and that person is guilty;” 7 “then he shall confess his sins
which he has committed, and he shall make restitution in full for his wrong, and add to it onefifth
of it, and give it to him whom he has wronged.”
Verse 6 tells us that this is applicable to ANY SIN that men do as a trespass against the Lord. Some may think
this refers only to sins against God and not against our fellow men. However, the seventh verse tells the sinner
to give the fifth part "to him whom he has wronged." Further, the next verses tell us that if the person is
deceased already, he is to give the one-fifth restitution to his nearest of kin, and if he has none, he is to give it
to the temple. It is plain that this is referring to sins against one's neighbor.
Page 10 of 12
Normally, such sins would be judged with at least double restitution. It is plain, however, that if the thief
confesses his sin before being charged with it, he is to pay one-fifth of the value of the item stolen in addition to
returning the item itself. This encourages sinners to repent and shows us the mind of God in that the purpose of
God's Law is to correct and restore the lawful order, rather than merely to punish.
Another case where a mere one-fifth restitution is required is found in Leviticus 5:16. If a man commits a sin
through ignorance in regard to the holy things of the Lord, he was to bring a sacrifice for sin, return the stolen
property "and add to it one-fifth of it." This is a case where a man mistakenly took for his own use that
which had been given to God in the temple. It is also implied that no one caught him taking it, and that the man
repented when he discovered his error.
Leviticus 22:14 bears witness to this: “But if a man eats a holy gift unintentionally, then he shall add
to it a fifth of it and shall give the holy gift to the priest.”
It is clear that this cannot be a simple matter of theft, where restitution would be at least double the value of the
item stolen.
One-fifth is also the number of redemption, because it is twenty percent. According to Vallowe's Biblical
Mathematics and Don Kistler's The Arithmetic of God, twenty is the number of Redemption.
For example, in Leviticus 27:13 we read, “But if he should ever wish to redeem it, then he shall add
one-fifth of it to your valuation.”
This was in terms of redeeming an unclean animal that was normally to be given to God. But God also required
a one-fifth redemption price on the tithes. Leviticus 27:31 reads: “If, therefore, a man wishes to redeem
part of his tithe, he shall add to it one-fifth of it.”
One-fifth, therefore, appears to be the price of redemption. Applied to the thief, it gives him opportunity to
redeem himself and to obtain forgiveness without being discouraged by the greater cost of double restitution.
It's About Forgiveness
The ultimate purpose of God's system of restitution for theft is to obtain forgiveness for the criminal. There is no
forgiveness for the thief in our modern system of "justice." Why should the victim forgive the thief, when he has
lost so much stolen property and then had to spend more money on attorney fees to prosecute him? Why
should society forgive the thief, when they have been made liable to defend him, pay for his prison sentence,
and support his family while he is in prison? Why should either of them forgive the thief, when they live in fear of
the day he is released, often embittered and unrehabilitated, free now to take vengeance upon them?
And for that matter, why should the thief forgive the victim and society in general after they have caged him up
like an animal and subjected him to dehumanizing treatment by the modern prison system? Why should the
thief forgive society for sinning against God's judgments, instead of giving him meaningful work by which he
may redeem himself? Sending anyone to prison is simply a legalized form of kidnapping done by an entire
society. It is a crime worse than mere theft. Thus, the thief has been victimized more than all of us. And then,
when he is finally released, his ability to find lawful work is seriously hampered by the label: ex-convict.
Americans often look with disdain at other countries, where they chop off a thief's hand for stealing. In fact,
many people mistakenly believe that the law of God advocates chopping off a hand for theft, and this is one of
their reasons for despising God's Law. Because they have been grossly misinformed about both God and His
Law, they have allowed the modern prison system to continue victimizing everyone and rehabilitating no one.
Then when the thief is released, we create for him the "ex-con" label and severely handicap him from finding
work for the rest of his life. We have little right to criticize the Saudis for giving thieves a physical handicap
(chopping off a hand), when we ourselves handicap them in a different way.
Page 11 of 12
Under God's Law, forgiveness is mandatory (Matt. 18:21 and 22), because there is every reason to forgive
the offender once he has paid full restitution to the victims. The victim has been repaid at least doubly for his
losses, and society has not been made liable in any way for the sins of others. The thief has had to redeem
himself from the bondage of sin, and once the debt has been paid, he is restored to full citizenship, and his past
sins are no longer remembered (Isaiah 43:25).
Psalm 130:4 confirms this, saying, “But there is forgiveness with Thee, that Thou mayest be feared
[respected].”
Obtaining forgiveness is the key to rehabilitation. In any system of justice, whether at home or in society, there
must be forgiveness if we hope to restore sinners. Without forgiveness, there is only punishment, and such
systems encourage rebellion and anger. Only God's judicial system knows the true value of forgiveness in its
treatment of crime. Because there is forgiveness with God, we have respect for Him as a Divine Parent.
Conclusion
The Great American Experiment has long been a Great American Failure. There will never be enough money to
build enough prisons to house all the inmates that the unjust prison system perpetuates. The only alternative
seems to be to give them shorter sentences, or to put them on parole to make room for others. The public does
not like this, but they know of no alternative to the problem. They need to read the Bible, or at least to read this
short booklet.
Thus, we are caught on the horns of the proverbial bull. We can choose overcrowded, wretched conditions for
the inmates, which even the court system knows is cruel and unusual punishment-or we can reduce their prison
sentences and put unrehabilitated thieves back on the streets, where they have great difficulty finding work and
often end up stealing again.
There is only one true solution. As a nation we must repent of our own way and turn to God's perfect Law. We
must stop teaching that God's Law is somehow authored by a cruel or unjust God (or Satan). We must search
the Scriptures to see what God really has to say about property crime and how to resolve it as a nation. As
Bible believers, let us work toward that end.
God's Kingdom Ministries
6201 University Ave. N.E.
Fridley, MN 55432
USA
© copyright 1983 First Revision 1999 Second Revision 2002 All Rights Reserved
Printed in U.S.A
Page 12 of 12

The Catholic Church labels 911 as an inside job!

You have to listen to this Catholic Arch Bishop to truly get what is being said...Certainly worth the time it takes and you will want to pass it on as well..
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=EJhfQSspj2Q

The "Crown" explained and exposed

The Templars of the Crown

The governmental and judicial systems within the United States of America and Canada, 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”
-Revelation 17:4

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 [6] 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.

TOP ^

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!

TOP ^



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!

Do our banks really loan us money or not?

Banketeering

by
Dave Patterson
Sept 2008

The Canadian banks, in collusion with the most senior levels of your government, have engineered one of the greatest frauds in Canadian history over the last 30 years, and stolen over two trillion dollars from Canadian taxpayers, and the tap is still running.

Click on the poster to download
a 2-page summary PDF to print and share...
banketeering poster Private banks create almost all of the Canadian money supply through made-from-thin-air 'loans' deposited in the loanee's bank account. And that's a lot of money, a lot of debt - currently close to three trillion dollars a year in Canada. And banks collect interest on money they create - and that is a hell of a lot of interest for the privilege of creating money out of thin air. To put it in perspective, the government, through the Bank of Canada, creates about $50 billion per year (banknotes and coins), about 2% of the Canadian money supply. Constitutionally (BNA Act, Bank of Canada Act) the government could and should be creating much more, if not all, of the money supply. Contrary to the mythology spread around by the banks and their servants, this would not be inflationary, but would actually be much less inflationary, and lead to a much more stable economy overall.

Letting banks create our money supply is bad for many reasons (bad for us, that is to say, obviously pretty good for them):

* huge windfall profits to a small privileged group of private citizens (bank owners/'investors'), paid for by all other citizens both directly and through taxes to pay for interest on unnecessary government borrowing, which is very unfair to most Canadians who must actually work for their money
* a country that does not control its own money can hardly be called sovereign - how many policies have we seen put in place the last few decades justified through 'economic imperatives'? We have gutted many programs Canadians did/do not want gutted in the name of paying interest on the government debt, a debt which would not have been incurred if we were creating our own money - bank profits trump sovereignty.
* very important financial policies carried out without the knowledge or approval of the people, and thus highly undemocratic
* systemic, serious inflation because we must pay interest every year on our money supply leading to reduced living standards for most, as costs always rise faster than incomes
* ongoing bank bailouts as the banks abuse their money-creation powers, leading to bubbles and crashes from which they must be rescued with yet more taxpayer dollars, creating a very unstable economy and also making the inflation mentioned in the last point much more serious
* the slow but inevitable turning over of all of the country's assets to those creating the money through their collection of collateral and as governments scramble to sell things, usually at well-below-market value, to get money to pay their debts and interest, as we have been seeing with the selloff of public infrastructure to private interests the last 30 years
* and the $$2 trillion theft mentioned in the title - the infamous Canadian national debt resulted from a major financial policy change in the 1970s which allowed banks to create virtually all of our money, including for the government to borrow, through which, over the last 30 years, over two trillion dollars of Canadian taxes have been funneled to those banks and other 'investors' as 'service charges' on the debt, all of it completely unnecessary, as the government could have created enough money itself (~$100 billion) through the Bank of Canada, either at zero or nominal interest, to avoid incurring any private bank debt at all (the two trillion includes interest paid on provincial and municipal debt, which could and should also be funded by the Bank of Canada at no or nominal interest). Because of this 'terrible crushing burden' the national government, beginning with Mulroney/Wilson and then put on steroids by the tagteam of Chretien/Martin, claimed the necessity of gutting our social programs, etc, thus the current healthcare crisis, crumbling infrastructure, selloff of public assets, etc. You can believe the involved government officials incurred this debt out of stupidity, or they were well-meaning officials who simply made poor decisions, but most non-naive people would be more inclined to say that the financially smartest people in our governments and banks knew and know very well what they do, and were doing, and thus the title of this piece - the intentional changing of a central government financial policy that lead to this huge turning over of money to banks and other investors, when a much more fiscally responsible policy had been used in the past and was/is still available, and with which this debt would not have been incurred, thus the two trillion would not have been paid. Fraud - using some type of 'creative accounting' you have available to you because you have a fiduciary responsibility to someone, then betraying that trust to funnel money from its proper owners to some other entity. Criminal fraud. Massive criminal fraud. It's a hard thing to accept of our leaders, but no other explanation fits the facts once you understand the situation.
(the notion that governments creating money is wildly irresponsible and leads to immediate crushing inflation is simply nonsense, and actually contrary to the facts, as it is private banks, whose motive is private profit rather than fiscal stability, creating money which is inflationary, and it was/is highly irresponsible of the government to give the private banks this power - irresponsible or even criminal, as I believe it to be when done for fraudulent reasons, as any honest, knowledgeable assessment indicates must have been the case here).


And that may sound pretty far out, but it is all true. If you think that stealing two trillion dollars of Canadian tax money is serious, maybe you would be interested in reading on. That's only the beginning.

If you're still being resistant, thinking whoa, dude, Canada's a great country, we have honest officials, this could never happen here - I agree, with a caveat or two. Canada once was a great country with dreams to be a really great country, and is still better than most - but they are slowly but surely taking all that greatness away, while doing their best to make you, and everyone else, think things are just fine, as they once were - if you fully understood what was happening here, I expect you and a lot of other people would be beating on some doors, and not with garlands of roses. 'They' being the bankers and a small group of wealthy elite who have the money to make things happen their way, and without much useful public discussion.

This scam is relatively new, and has been initiated by some very clever people who, like any good scam artists, want to have stolen all you have and be safe somewhere beyond your reach before you realise you've been taken, and you are not reading about it in the media because they quite understand the power of the media, and control that too. If that sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory - it is. It's also true - conspiracies are real (ask any lawyer about 'conspiracy to do this and that' in the lawbooks), theories explain things (ask Newton or Einstein or Darwin how useful theories can be), and there have always been a few men who desire great wealth and power and are willing to do what it takes to get them, including lying and stealing and worse, and Canada is not immune to their attention, and that's just true, and it would be you who would be crazy if you believed otherwise.

If you have noticed things going downhill a bit, or a lot, in various ways the last few years, but can't really understand why - reading this may enlighten you - pretty much everything is related to money in the modern world, and our problems are very directly related to money-shortage. And it's getting short because it's being leached out of 'our' public accounts into 'their' private ones. And maybe once you understand this a bit better, you might get angry enough to do something to stop this banketeering scam while we still have a country left to save. Like any cancer, the longer you ignore it, the closer to the end you are.

Economy in trouble .... has been for awhile, actually manic-depressive
We all know that the economy is presently in considerable trouble, has been bouncing in and out of trouble for the last 30 years, really, since the banks took over the money supply creation, kind of like a manic-depressive person, alternating between periods of wild highs and terrible depressions. This is not good in people, and it certainly is not good for an economy, at least for most of the people (banks tend to do fine in either state, especially with a sycophantic government ready with taxpayer money when they get too excited with their speculations and require bailouts). They talk endlessly about financial and economical things in the media, inflation, interest rates, taxes, trade, productivity, cost of living, debt, etc and etc. But they never talk about the single most important thing of all - where does the money come from that is at the center of all that stuff? How much is there anyway floating around in Canada? Who decides on how much there should be and creates it? Wouldn't that be important to know as you think about what is happening? Might this have some bearing on everything? Of course it does - we all know the classic definition of inflation - too much money chasing too few goods - so who decides how much money there will be in our economy? Just in general terms, shouldn't you, as a concerned Canadian citizen, understand the source of the money supply in Canada, at least so you can have an opinion as to whether or not it is being handled well? If you don't understand this, aren't you a bit like a child, not questioning the adults about important things? Do you regard that as a suitable attitude for a citizen in a democratic society?

If you assume the government does all this stuff, and of course they are doing the best they can, then you really do need to continue reading - most of our economic problems today result from (a) the one simple fact that the government does NOT create most of our money, nor does it really regulate it very much, and (b) most people have no idea what is really going on with the money supply.

jefferson banking quote The basics ... There are two sources of 'legal' money in Canada - from the government, through the Bank of Canada which has created over the years, and currently maintains (taking in degraded bills and destroying them, issuing new ones), about $50 billion of 'cash' circulating money (bank notes and coins), and from private banks, which create spendable credit money through loans. The most recent figures I can find total to something like 2.5 trillion dollars worth of loans outstanding in Canada (about one trillion in consumer loans, 1 trillion in government debt, and half a trillion in business loans - refs at end, and it's probable the figure is closer to three trillion today). The common belief is that banks take in deposits of 'real' money and loan them out again, but if this were actually true, that would be a very good trick, making 2.5 trillion in loans from 50 billion in 'real' money. In actuality, banks just create money essentially out of thin air. There are some theoretical limits on what banks can do in terms of this money creation power, but effectively what government oversight there is (very minimal, also mostly theoretical) kicks in after the fact, and, relying on great amounts of 'consumer and business confidentiality' and the ability to instantly transfer money all over the globe with modern communication systems, the system results in banks creating pretty much as much money as they want, and the government 'overseers' having very little idea of what they are doing until well after any problems related to over-creation of credit become obvious. The banks have some self-imposed limits, they understand that too much money is inflationary to the point of destabilizing everything and will damage them eventually, but these limits are very amorphous, and tend to the very high side - there is a big grey area between what is ok and what becomes dangerously inflationary, and as investors seeking profits, dominated by the more aggressive types thinking more of making some financial killing rather than the wellbeing of the economy, it's not a challenging question to see which side of that equation the banks tend to play on, and to understand they like to 'push the envelope', which is proven by the current economic situation and a long string of bubbles and bailouts over the last 30 years, all the direct result of too much money being created for speculative purposes.

So in the end, practically speaking, the simple fact is that about 98% of the Canadian money supply - the money that gets shuffled around the country between employers and employees, citizens and governments, between bank accounts through cheques and debit cards, and etc, is almost all created by private banks, in the form of loans to consumers, businesses, and governments .

'Yea, so what? - those are big numbers, but whatever you say, the system seems to work ok ...'

- well, if you'll recall the current sub-prime mortgage crisis, of which various Canadian banks have been involved, and a series of other financial crises dating back to and before the huge Savings and Loan 'scandal' in the US or the major Canadian bank bailouts of the early 80s and 90s, you might see the system is not actually functioning all that well at all, with the current tottering financial infrastructure and millions of small investors losing their life's savings, houses, pensions, etc every time we have one of these bubble-crashes. Such crises are obvious signs that the banks create too much money as credit, creating the bubbles we have been seeing regularly since the late 70s, which inevitably crash, requiring substantial or even huge government bailouts (your tax dollars, that is to say), and also doing often great financial damage to millions of 'little people' who engage trustingly in the 'government overseen' system and get taken to the cleaners. This sort of thing should not be happening, ever, and would not if the money system was under the public control of a responsible democratic government making policy in the interest of 'we the people' rather than in the interest of maximising bank profits (when I say 'democracy' or 'democratic' I do not mean our current system, but actual 'we the people' democracy, wherein politicians are our servants not our masters and decisions made about monetary policy, including the money supply, are made in public not in secret, by 'we the people' rather than mandarins behind closed doors - would you and your fellow citizens, in a town hall meeting, allow a bank you controlled to create a few hundred billion dollars to make an attack on a foreign currency, or to fund something like the current housing bubble crisis? I think most 'average' people would not, yet such vast speculative activities are things private banks seem to eagerly embrace, even seek out, as they search for the maximum 'return on investment'). According to the Canadian constitution, our government is responsible for the money supply, and that they have effectively turned this responsibility over to private banks so that the provision and control of the money supply benefits the few at the expense of the many, and the many don't even know what is going on, is not democracy, or a government responsible to 'we the people'.

media poster A reminder ...
Something to stick in your head from the first as you ponder the existence of such a massive conspiracy is this - wealthy people control banks. The same wealthy people control newspapers and other media, and have significant input into 'your' government - when was the last time you sat down with a cabinet minister as the wealthy do regularly? If the people running the banks and running the newspapers want you to think the financial system is just fine, or at least to keep you looking in certain ways and not in others when problems are talked about, that is what you are going to hear. That's not in any way crazy conspiracy theory, it's just fact. Would you go around slagging your boss if you wanted to keep your job? Why do you think reporters would be any different? If you were running a newspaper and had things you did not want talked about, would you hire a reporter (or managing editor) who insisted on his/her right to talk about such things, or look for somebody more agreeable to your desires? Do you think senior reporters who get lots of good travel budgets to interesting places in the country and around the world and get to meet all the interesting and important people like their jobs and want to keep them? If you had such a job, would you risk it by calling your boss a crook? Or those important people?

It ain't rocket science, none of this is. Just reality in action. And although your media might talk about some real things, there are a few very important things, such as this money supply scam, it obviously prefers to avoid getting into. Actually, what the 'great free Canadian media' in your country gets up to is as bad a story as what the banks get up to, which maybe we'll get to in another essay.


Banks creating money is bad news in pretty much every way, at least for 'we the people' ....
Let me point a few things out to you that you're not getting in the CBC 'backgrounders' or 'economics' courses or government information packages about some problems with letting private banks create most of our money, aside from the obvious one of creating too much and fueling speculative bubbles and the ensuing crashes.

The first and main thing is - banks, of course, demand interest on loans. We all know this - but think about the implications of that, if they are not simply lending out money they already have on deposit, but are actually creating 98% of the nation's 2.5 trillion dollar money supply and charging interest on that.

The thing is - in the big picture, they create that (currently in Canada) approximately 2.5+ trillion bucks, and expect interest on that every year - but they don't create any extra or special money to pay that interest so - what happens? Where is that interest money going to come from? Money gets shuffled a lot in a multi-trillion dollar economy with billions of business and personal transactions every day, and over time, and every year the money supply increases due to natural growth, loans get paid and new ones created, and inflation plays a small role as it reduces the current effective demand of old loans, but eventually there is only one possible outcome - the banks gobble up collateral. It's like a huge game of musical chairs, and as the rules of musical chairs make losers inevitable, so the current rules of money creation make it completely inevitable that every year a group of players loses out as there is no money to shuffle for the unlucky ones, and the banks get their collateral. And over time, if you think of it some more, you can see the result is equally inevitable - the slow but steady turning over of all the real property in the country to the private banks (and individuals who control those businesses, for that's all a bank is, a business) allowed to create the great bulk of the Canadian money supply. As inevitable as night following day. No other outcome is possible but the transfer of all the hard assets of the country created by hard working Canadian people being turned over to those who control the money.

They know this. They prefer you don't.

But why should a small group of highly privileged individuals be given this huge power, to create a nation's money supply out of thin air, through loans to citizens who have no other place to borrow money, demand interest on that money they have created out of thin air, and then collect the property of those citizens who cannot meet that interest demand? What sort of 'democratic' decision ever gave them this power?

Keep this very clear, this is not 'normal' banking as you have been lead to believe, where the banks happily take in the deposits of citizens, and then pay interest on your deposit, and loan out some of the accumulated money to others at interest - these people are creating money, huge amouns of money, out of thin air, and loaning THAT money at interest, and then collecting real property when some of those loanees cannot come up with the interest on their loans. And that is one hell of a racket, when you think about it - and did you ever participate in some discussion about running your country wherein you said you would be happy to have this power of creating YOUR national money be placed in the hands of private banks? This is nothing like the acceptable business of taking deposits and paying interest, and loaning some deposited money back out and collecting interest - this is creating most of the nation's money from thin air and charging interest on the made-from-thin-air money and raking in huge profits thereby, including even creating huge amounts of money to loan to 'our' government - and no sovereign people should be allowing that kind of private power in their country, at their great expense.

But what alternative?
The immediate question, of course, is what alternative is there? - and the answer is equally obvious, We the People, through OUR democracy, create our own money supply, and enter it into circulation essentially interest free. People will still be able to get loans, of course, but from a 'we the people's' bank at much, much smaller rates of interest than banks charge (and therefore available more easily as well), as this is essentially 'we' loaning money to 'us', and there is no benefit to charging ourselves any interest beyond a service charge of some sort to maintain the service. Banks can still operate in the traditional way if they want to - but no money creation, as that is something no private persons or businesses should be allowed to do in a sovereign nation, only We the People acting collectively through OUR government should be creating OUR money.

banketeering illustration The Shyster objects ... and we respond
Those who support the current system of bank-created debt money immediately start mocking this idea, claiming that governments creating money only leads to high inflation. This may indeed be a danger in certain undemocratic and/or irresponsible governments, but a responsible, democratic government under the control of intelligent, well-informed and engaged citizens is highly unlikely to do so (think of yourself at a public meeting talking about our money supply - would you, after all the arguments were on the table and the possible ramifications of all options and proposals well explained, vote for wildly inflationary and risky policies and speculation, or for caution and sanity? The people who object to government controlled money think the average citizen is an idiot who would laughingly try to give him or herself a million dollars hahaha aren't we smart!!!! - I disagree ... actually, it is the out of control bankers who do such things, creating huge amounts of speculative money with no public oversight to fuel their latest speculative frenzy, and do not want democratic oversight getting in their way, as we have been seeing for the last 30 years ...).

But luckily we don't have to rely on theory or rhetoric for examples of the relative merits of the outcomes in Canada of government-controlled vs bank-controlled money creation, as we have a very solid and real example, right from our own modern history. As a quick demonstration of the relative 'responsibilies' of banks and government in terms of controlling the money supply, and a short but necessary history lesson, consider the Canadian money supply from the mid-1930s to the present.

We'll all recall the Great Crash of 29, followed by the Great Depression of the 1930s, both caused by unregulated banks first getting very much out of control and creating far too much money, and then not creating enough to keep people working through the depression years (this works ok for the banks, as when there is not enough money circulating, they gobble up collateral like pigs at a trough - not so ok for the millions of people with no work losing property, of course). In those years Canada did have a somewhat more responsible (to the people) government, and the Bank of Canada was instituted for just this reason, to assume at least some money creation power in Canada (as mandated in the original constitution of the country, the British North America act of 1867) and put some controls on the obviously seriously irresponsible private banks. And then after this the Canadian government fought in WWII at huge cost, then oversaw the creation of a very prosperous country following the war with good jobs in a strong economy, a world-class health care system, subsidized first class education, pensions, UI, modern high quality infrastructure, etc and etc - using the Bank of Canada to create a considerable amount of our money, whilst still allowing private banks to augment the money supply, under careful regulation. And the economy during this time of great growth and prosperity was strong, we had no national debt of any significance, and no serious inflation problems.

Then came the 70s, and as part of the 'new economics' that became dominant in those years in the US and spread like a malignant cancer through the world known as the Washington Consensus and its self-serving insistence that 'the market knows best!!', and under the strong prodding of a growing-ever-stronger corporate sector to reduce corporate taxation and become more 'business friendly', the Canadian government (with no useful public discussion, it might be noted, think again of the media here as well - as you ought to be realising, this most important of all government functions is NEVER discussed publicly in the media - they don't want you thinking about this at all) got out of hands-on oversight of the Canadian money supply, including creating some itself for government use. They turned that power over to private banks once again, apparently everyone forgetting the lessons of the 1920s, and it took only a few years until the beginning of the ongoing story that persists today of bank bailouts, serious inflation, speculative bubbles, currency speculation and insecurity, the establishment of the half-trillion-dollar Canadian national debt which has sucked over two trillion dollars of interest out of our taxes since the early 80s, and etc etc etc etc.

So we have, to summarize the main point, a lengthy period of time we can look at in which the government directly oversaw and was involved with the creation of the Canadian money supply, and the economy was strong and stable and non-inflationary, and growing steadily. And then we have an almost equal in length period of time in which the government stood down from their constitutionally mandated fiduciary responsibility to We the People and the banks were allowed to create the nation's money supply with little oversight, and this second period, although showing great economic growth, has also been an ongoing series of major financial problems related directly to the creation of far too much money. (unnatural and uncontrolled rapid growth is not necessarily good - think of cancer, for instance...) Based on these two time periods, you can judge for yourself whether private banks or a responsible (to the people) government is more likely to manage the economy well in the interests of the majority of non-bank-investor citizens. Banks and their investor-controllers have the primary goal of maximising their ROIs, whilst a (truly) responsible government has the goal of a stable economy for its citizens. The two approaches to policy are going to lead to very different results - as a comparison of the two suggested times clearly reveals. (and if you're thinking 'but what about the oil shock?!? of the 70s' - yes, a significant but handleable problem by a responsible government, the problems I speak of in terms of over-creation of money are separate, and much bigger - again, when you have a banking/'investor' sector whose primary goal is maximising their profit, they will deal with something like the oil shock considerably differently than would a money-supply sector under the control of the federal government, acting primarily for the wellbeing of we the people, attempting to control the disruption and maintain stability rather than using it for the financial gain of certain privileged players, and to hell, really, with how many little people suffer during it all ....)

Systemic, and serious, inflation
Aside from the utter insanity of a sovereign people allowing a private entity in their midst to create their money supply at huge profits and with maximising those profits in mind rather than financial stability for the community, thus very seriously compromising both that sovereignty and the financial stability of the community, there are a couple of other very serious related problems resulting directly from allowing private banks to create our money that need to be understood.

Serious, systemic inflation is the first such problem. We know that inflation is not a good thing, although a slow and steady inflation over the years is somewhat inevitable as our economy grows more mature and complex, and need not be harmful to anyone if handled responsibly, but this 'natural', manageable inflation is going to be exacerbated to unnatural and harmful levels when almost all of your money supply demands interest each year - again, a completely inevitable process, but this time benefitting those in certain places and very much negatively impacting everyone else, as we have seen. Either you allow the economy to retract each year by the amount of money taken out of it to pay the interest on that bank-created debt money supply, and businesses allow their profits to fall each year as that interest circulates through their suppliers and their own expenses, or you create more and more money/debt just to pay interest, which is of course inflationary in itself, and everyone who can raises their prices year after year, in that 'inflationary spiral' we have all heard about (for some reason the business writers like to (quite falsely) blame workers demanding small increases in their salaries for such things, but as I pointed out earlier, you need to consider who the business writers are working for when reading or hearing such things).

To borrow from a saying the 'new economists' like to use, modern systemic inflation does not impact all boats equally. We all know that businesses are protected, and more, from inflation - if a business has an expense increase of 3% they raise their prices 5%, and on we go. The main problem with inflation is, of course, that the wages and salaries of 'we the people' NEVER keep up with rising prices (on average; there may be a few powerful unions who seem to do ok for a time, but the majority of workers do not belong to powerful unions, and even the unions fall behind over time), so the more and faster the inflation, the more and faster we fall behind. Many people reading this will remember the first of the two eras I spoke of earlier, the times when a responsible government managed the money supply in the interests of a stable economy, during which time inflation was low, and prices reasonable in relation to income, and one working adult with a half-decent job could support a family, save for retirement, put the kids through university, own their own home and have a comfortable life, and etc - but during the second time, the era of bank-created money and the attendant, systemic hyper-inflation, those days are long gone, and now it takes two working adults with above average jobs to have a comparable lifestyle for their family, prices are high and growing higher for everything, and as you undoubtedly well know, things are falling further and further behind for almost everyone, with significantly lower savings than even ten years ago, and significantly higher average debt for every family.

Which strikes me as a pretty significant problem in terms of 'So what - everything seems to be working ok...' - do you really believe that it's ok that it takes two adults working to support a modern family when one adult working could do so 40 years ago? That you need to consider a new mortgage to put your kid into university when 40 years ago the kid could do it on a summer job? You might consider that maybe it only seems 'ok' because, again, the people controlling the money control the media, and they don't want you comparing what is ok today with what was ok before they took over, and thinking about the roots of this situation, and what is happening in the bigger picture I am showing you here.

If the money supply is created and controlled by a government responsible first and foremost to We the People rather than banks and investors, this built-in, systemic, highly destructive and unavoidable hyper-inflation is removed, as 'we the people' charging interest on money we create for our own use, thereby fueling systemic inflation, would obviously be both a foolish and unnecessary move.

The Canadian national bogey man ....
The second major problem directly related to the government abandoning its money-creation function and turning it over to private banks has been the Canadian national debt, which I mentioned briefly earlier but deserves a closer look. A VERY closer look.

This national debt is almost half a trillion dollars, where it has been hovering for the last 20+ years, since Mulroney, eating up 30-40 billion of our taxes each year in 'interest' payments. Mulroney and the corporate media blamed the acquisition of this debt on 'tax and spend' Liberals (an enduring, and very false, meme, simply the corporate media demonizing those who dare to speak against the corporate agenda, but that too is stuff for a different essay ...) and Canadians living beyond their means, but in reality the debt was the result of the Trudeau government turning over the money-creation powers of the Bank of Canada to private banks during the 70s, shortly followed by a few years of usurious interest rates set by the same Bank of Canada during the early 80s - all completely unnecessary, all completely related to allowing private banks to control the Canadian money supply, and going crazy with their newfound powers (and all exacerbated by the Trudeau government at the same time beginning the era of lower and lower corporate taxes, thus seriously impacting government revenues and practical spending realities, but that too is part of a longer story - a story you need to do some self-study on, as you never get anything useful from your corporate media). But we have paid very close to a trillion dollars in interest on that national debt in the ensuing years, every penny of it unnecessary, if We the People were controlling our own money supply as we did prior to this radical change in policy. (and if you add in provincial and major municipal debt, which can and should also be provided by the Bank of Canada interest free, but they were forced to go to private banks for their needs and incur interest-demanding debt, that figure easily doubles)

Downsizing Canada .... (whilst upsizing bank and corporate profits)
And when you think of what policy changes have been done in the name of that debt, the desperate state of our health care system and other things after 30 years of these 'neoliberal' (or 'neoconservative' - same thing) policies, you can see that the repercussions of allowing private banks this power are very much not trivial - the 'so what?' is very large indeed. (for your information - of the over 500 billion dollar national debt, less than 100 billion was ever borrowed for actual program spending, over several years, which could have easily been accomodated interest free by using the Bank of Canada as earlier governments had done - all of the rest of the debt was simply interest on interest, and money borrowed to pay interest, goosed to the stratosphere during those years of double-digit interest rates I mentioned - about as fiduciarily irresponsible for a government 'of the people' as could be imagined)

And it all goes much further as well ....
Well, if what I have written so far hasn't persuaded you that we need to get control of both our democractically elected but obviously not democratically controlled government and our money supply, there's not much left to say. But consider also the frenetic pace and pressure of modern life - some people seem to thrive on the 'excitement' and insecurity, but most people are feeling considerably more stress and insecurity than they really want in their lives, I think, and it is all related to letting private banks control the economy through their money creation power and the endless feeding of the interest machine that requires, and also the corporate imperative of endless growth and out-of-control speculation anywhere they think there is a buck to be made, based on essentially unlimited 'credit' from the banks whose investors also wish to get in on the feeding frenzy, to rake in maximum takings from all the little people before the whole speculative bubble crashes down around everyone. The environmental destruction we see all over the world is also very much related - if the economy was slower, if we were more interested in simply maintaining a good and peaceful life, a safe and clean environment and community, with slow and steady and stable growth as people devised new and better ways of doing things, rather than feeding that endless growth of the corporate cancer, most of the impetus for this growth-based destruction would be removed.

You just need to ask - is this really necessary? Can we have a modern economy, modern technology, without all this pressure? Is the purpose of our economy, our country, our lives, to maximise the ROI of a small number of (already obscenely wealthy) investors, or to create a good and stable society for all of us to live in? I don't see why we can't have that stable, peaceful, prosperous society, starting simply by removing private banks from the money creation function, which would essentially turn down the heat on everything as a government controlled money supply would provide us with a stable money supply that did not demand all that extra work to pay interest on each year, whilst still providing all the money needed for normal, responsible growth. People will still look to improve their, and our, lives through new inventions and ways of doing things - and we will and can incorporate them into our lives as we wish. People would still be free to invest as they wished - but with money they had already accumulated, not great amounts of speculative money created by out-of-control banks for just that purpose, with no care about the lives of the millions of little average people which will be seriously effected when the ensuing bubbles burst, as they always and inevitably do.

Warning re false path..
There are many who say the solution to our economic problems is a return to the gold standard. I disagree, quite strongly. The problem with fiat money is not that it is not backed by gold or some other thing, it is who controls it, as should be obvious from what I have discussed above. If we control it democratically, and tie its issuance to something substantial such as the value of the infrastructure of the country, and it is simply a means of exchange (with some store of value use, any money will function this way) rather than a commodity itself, which the modern speculators have turned it into, it need not be inflationary at all. A gold standard, whilst perhaps having some value in much earlier times, has many problems in the modern world, I think. First, most gold is currently privately owned, and I don't even want to think of the screaming if some government was to attempt to claim all the gold in the country to set a gold standard - but otherwise, we are simply trading bankers as masters to gold-owners as the controllers of our economy, and neither is democratic. Secondly, the gold supply is somewhat finite, the economy is growing - it seems silly to tie an economy to something that is limited in supply. Third, what if we have a gold standard, and some modern terrorists nuke it or clever thief steals a lot of it? Or the owner of a significant amount gets in a snit and takes out of the country? The economy grinds to a halt? That seems pretty unclever. A strong economy is not based on a hammer over our heads of any sort, or trusting experts in the finance community making decisions in secret based on their 'superior' knowledge, it is based on intelligent, democratic control of our government and money supply, and the ensuing trust we all have in OUR strength and diversity.

Our problems the last 30 years have not been because we use fiat money, they have been because we have had a two-faced monster controlling our money - on the surface, they say they are doing the best for all of us, but in reality they have been concerned primarily with maximising private profits by manipulating the money supply, and not caring how much damage is done to the economy or people of the country.

It is time we put that to a stop. Understanding the money supply is the necessary first step.


Refs
You ought to google around and verify things yourself, but here are a few places to start -

The Money Masters (google if this link doesn't work, things have a way of changing) - an excellent history of the struggle between the bankers and those who preferred democratic contol of the world's money supply. We know who is winning, so far ....

An exact 'authorised' figure is hard to find for Canadian 'legal tender' in circulation (scamsters avoid verifiable stuff like the plague, as you no doubt know), but these two non-conspiracy-theory sources give figures indicating the same ballpark - Taxtips (question 1, about half way through - 40 billion) and Bank of Canada Fact Sheets - Seigniorage Revenue (last para, 35 billion 'in recent years' - prior to 2001, and we've come quite a ways since then in every way - remember, I'm only trying to get you in the ballpark here, not do an academic study of any kind)

Business debt - - Canadian business debts rise

Consumer debt - Where Does the Money Go: The Increasing Reliance on Household Debt in Canada (from the CGA, Certified General Accountants of Canada, probably reliable non-conspiracy theory data)

Government debts - anyone reading this will be aware that the federal debt is something under $500 billion now, but was around $550 billion for many years, and the debts of the provincial governments and major municipalities - all of which can and should have been assumed by the Bank of Canada more or less interest free but were part of all of this banketeering scam - amount to at least as much. Go google.

A few books with more info (there are many more, but these are a starting place):

* Web of Debt by Ellen Hodgson Brown
* Grip of Death by Michael Rowbothom - not online, but worth getting your library to order for a very good history of banking and all this money-creation stuff - he has a very good short article introducing it all at Prosperity UK, where you will also find a lot of other good info
* The Lost Science of Money, by Stephen Zarlenga of the American Monetary Institute - - I haven't read this, but it sounds very good
* James Robertson and the New Economics Foundation - - many books and articles
* Just google Monetary Reform, and you'll get lots of interesting reading


Greenways cover

If you thought this short essay useful, you'd probably enjoy a read of Green Island, a story of a modern social democracy where We the People have finally displaced the bankers from our government, and things work much better. We follow a couple of old Utopians around Green Island as they see how things are done in a truly democratic society - and then follow the excitement as, predictably, the bankers are not about to sit idly by and allow the work of centuries to be undone by a band of hippies, and attempt a regime change with their military arm, the US army. This regime change gets a bit of a shock, however. Green Island too has something a little harder under the green glove.


box cover And don't miss Dave's warning about what is happening to our society - They're Building a Box - and You're In It - wolf in sheep's clothing, iceberg approaching, water getting hotter, think of it how you will, but you need to become aware. (an earlier version of Banketeering appeared in this book)