PDA

View Full Version : The US is still a 'Crown' Colony



steve_a
18th August 2010, 13:56
Hi Everybody,

I just read recently that five of the men that signed the Declaration of Independence had in fact swore an oath and alegiance to the 'Crown', not to be mistaken for the British Monarchy. The Crown is the legal owner of the United Kingdom and all 'British' territories.

All lawyers and barristers in the UK and many non-UK lawyers swear an oath to the 'Crown' so they are able to practice law, that is those who belong to the Bar Association.

As these five signed the Declaration of Independence, the document is null and void, as legally lawers cannot sign a document when they are part of both parties, in this case the Crown and the US.

As I am only in the first throws of this research I haven't got all the names of these five, nor all the nitty gritty, however, if other members of the forum have any useful information to keep me on the right path I would be grateful.

Best regards,

Steve

MariaDine
18th August 2010, 15:03
A United Kingdom overseas territory (formerly known as a dependent territory or earlier as a crown colony) is a territory that is under the sovereignty and formal control of the United Kingdom but is not part of the United Kingdom proper (Great Britain and Northern Ireland).

Overseas territories should be distinguished from crown dependencies (the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, which have a different constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom), and protectorates (which were not formally under the sovereignty of the United Kingdom). They should also not be confused with Commonwealth realms, which are independent states sharing the same sovereign as the United Kingdom.

At one time, most crown colonies were directly administered by officials appointed by the British government. Today, however most overseas territories are self-governing colonies, only relying on Britain for defence, foreign affairs, and some trade issues.

Overseas territories have never been considered integral parts of the United Kingdom, and have never had representation in the British Parliament, on the grounds that they are separate jurisdictions. This is in contrast to other European countries, such as France, Denmark, and the Netherlands, whose dependencies have varying degrees of integration with their so-called 'mother countries'. Only in Malta was integration ever seriously considered by the British Government, in 1955, but this was later abandoned, while in Gibraltar it was rejected in 1976.

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Crown_colony

Best of luck on your research Steve
MD

MariaDine
18th August 2010, 15:24
http://www.quiltbus.com/freedom.htm

In the end of the page there are names and biographies of the signers
Maybe this will give you clues

JoeNashville
18th August 2010, 16:35
Hi Everybody,

I just read recently that five of the men that signed the Declaration of Independence had in fact swore an oath and alegiance to the 'Crown', not to be mistaken for the British Monarchy. The Crown is the legal owner of the United Kingdom and all 'British' territories.

All lawyers and barristers in the UK and many non-UK lawyers swear an oath to the 'Crown' so they are able to practice law, that is those who belong to the Bar Association.

As these five signed the Declaration of Independence, the document is null and void, as legally lawers cannot sign a document when they are part of both parties, in this case the Crown and the US.

As I am only in the first throws of this research I haven't got all the names of these five, nor all the nitty gritty, however, if other members of the forum have any useful information to keep me on the right path I would be grateful.

Best regards,

Steve

I think I've read what you cited and have since learned it's more complicated... (no surprise there!)

This is an area I am also studying, however I don't believe the US is technically a crown colony yet, as it is not held in a similar form yet. That is quickly changing for a variety of reasons which I'm sure we are all aware!

In your example the 'crown' would be the Bank of England which holds most of the debt of the UK and therefore 'owns' the crown. I believe the 'headquarters' would be the 'City of London'.

I just read an article this morning that predicted the debt of England would be 90% of GDP within three years! Unbelievable! The 'Crown' will surely foreclose at that point. Of course at the rate we're going the U.S. is not far behind!

However, there is no doubt that Canada and Australia among others are crown colonies. They are officially Constitutional Monarchies which is no different in practical terms...

The wiki page on Canada use to have as it's first line: "Canada is a Crown Colony" I was shocked when I first pulled that up that they would be so direct. They have since changed it, not to surprisingly. It would seem the people of Canada know it and are okay with it...

You don't have to look to deep to find the evidence. The wiki page on Canadian government states directly Canada is a crown colony:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_Canada

Interesting recent story that clearly states despite minor errors that the Governor General of Canada has the authority to overrule the elected officials including the Prime Minister and make decisions at the behest of the crown...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100708/wl_canada_nm/canada_us_politics_governor

Even though wiki pages are not defacto evidence I find them to be great sources and are generally very accurate.

I think study of the U.S. Constitution all the way back to it's beginnings is most timely and interesting right about now. As the courts 'give and take' our rights away at will, the question has to be do we have any solid ground of rights to stand on? And ultimately who owns and controls those rights or us if the constitution is not all that it's purported to be?? As we continue to loose our 'constitutional' rights...

Fredkc
18th August 2010, 17:50
JoeNAshville;
Good points.

I just read an article this morning that predicted the debt of England would be 90% of GDP within three years! Unbelievable! The 'Crown' will surely foreclose at that point. Of course at the rate we're going the U.S. is not far behind!
The idea of "foreclosure" in this context has always puzzled me. Mostly because I come up with "dumb questions" like:
Foreclose against whom?
By who's authority?
Using what "higher power"?

A bankrupt person, or company essentially becomes a "ward of the state". So if a state becomes bankrupt, in whose custody do they fall? If the accepted answer is "The creditors", then we're dumber'n we every suspected.

Where does one go to get such a determination? And once secured, how would it be enforced? Surely the insolvent entity, "the state" can't retain the power to enforce confiscations upon a third party without their consent. (Doesn't mean it wouldn't be tried, just means folk have to "settle for slavery")

Would not an "unassailable force" exercised by some group be as valid whether they decided to submit to such a decision as if they resisted?

What I am sneaking up on here is the ability of "the people" to be such a group. If they can, then would not a formal "Go to hell!" like a Declaration Of Independence (http://fredsitelive.com/politics/decofind.html), be just the ticket? Particularly if they are willing to "enforce" it with their... uh... lemme see here....oh yeah! "with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." ?

In essence, whether you be Gandhi, or Patrick Henry, "No means no", if delivered with resolve. It then devolves, or maybe "ascends" to a matter of who blinks first.


I think study of the U.S. Constitution (http://fredsitelive.com/politics/usconst.htm) all the way back to it's beginnings is most timely and interesting right about now. As the courts 'give and take' our rights away at will, the question has to be do we have any solid ground of rights to stand on? And ultimately who owns and controls those rights or us if the constitution is not all that it's purported to be?? As we continue to loose our 'constitutional' rights...
Welcome to my 2 cents worth on what I consider the biggest failing of education in America; What does the "Bill of Rights" (http://fredsitelive.com/politics/usconst.htm#amd0) mean?

The common teaching is that the B.O.R. amount to a list of "rights" granted the people within the document defining our government. Nothing could be further from the truth! (no kidding, honest)

In fact, if that were the case the Constitution would have never been ratified. As in so many other things, the truth is 180 degrees away. Brace yourself...

You get no rights in the Bill Of Rights!
Yup! Absolutely true. They are not about me'n thee. The dirty little secret is, you had them already. Not only that, they were not "surrendered" in ratifying the document.

The idea to codify certain rights in the document was proposed, and flatly rejected by the majority. Reason? The very condition which has occurred due to people's ignorance. They feared that, over time, government would expand to a point where it would be assumed that the stated rights were the only ones the people enjoyed. (and look where we are)

This is why, when you read them, they are all written in the negative. They are not about what "you get". They are about specific things that government has no authority to ever legislate upon.

Look at the language"
"Congress shall make no law ..."
"... shall not be infringed"
"No Soldier shall..."
"...shall not be violated..."
on and on.
Think about this one for a minute: "... shall not be infringed"
You cannot "infringe" upon something unless it already exists!

They were so adamant in this approach, they even wrote a catch-all to cover anything they hadn't thought of. Have a look:
Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

What you wind up with is unless Govt goes through the formal amendment process, anything they attempt that changes anything mentioned is beyond their authority.

Sadly it also means that "the only way evil prevails is for good men to do nothing."

Anyway... Civics 101 from
Fred
(Heading for more coffee, again)

LeeEllisMusic
18th August 2010, 19:35
Hi Steve,

I remember reading about the "City of London" and "The Crown" ~ One square mile in the heart of London~ deep, deep rabbit hole there. Lots of stuff out there if you google those terms. This is not connected to the british monarchy - but rather to the largest financial institutions in the world - central banks, multi-nationals like BP, illuminati, Rothchilds etc... may be linked to the Vatican as well.

Also, there is something related to this - I think- that the USA is actually a CORPORATION, and that we (those who think ourselves to be free citizens) are in fact ALL OWNED by this US CORP - something about our names on legal documents being in capital letters...

And there may be a connection that this US CORP is actually owned, in turn, by THE CROWN...:(

Sorry I don't remember more, but I think David Icke has talked on this as well. Probably Alex Jones and others. Kymatica and similar videos worth checking out perhaps???

Thanks for starting this thread~ Keep us informed!
And Good Hunting!
Cheers~

Operator
18th August 2010, 20:45
The idea of "foreclosure" in this context has always puzzled me. Mostly because I come up with "dumb questions" like:
Foreclose against whom?
By who's authority?
Using what "higher power"?

A bankrupt person, or company essentially becomes a "ward of the state". So if a state becomes bankrupt, in whose custody do they fall? If the accepted answer is "The creditors", then we're dumber'n we every suspected.

If a state can't pay it's employees (like in California if I remember well) then there are creditors I guess. If this all fails a state or other (sub)government can't fulfill their task resulting in failing or no effective governance.
So I imagine there will be huge consequences ... if there is less and less organized/centralized power.

Fredkc
18th August 2010, 21:13
If a state can't pay it's employees (like in California if I remember well) then there are creditors I guess. If this all fails a state or other (sub)government can't fulfill their task resulting in failing or no effective governance.
Ok, by "state" I meant a country, or sovereign nation. But the same holds true for states.

"Remember" ???
Hell California's insolvency is just getting started! ;)

And the only kind of "effective governance" I am happy about is filling pot holes, and street sweeping. Most everything else is just a damned nuisance ;)
Fred

Rimbaud
18th August 2010, 23:04
There's a fantastic HBO series called "John Adams"...a solicitor who successfully defended a troop of British Soldiers against a charge of mass murder against a group of Bostonians..He went on to be President of the USA of course. If one looks back during those tumultuous times..it's not just the British influence that were involved..but also the Spanish and French. The fact that you're not recognising dear Steve-a..is that you were all British at that point of history apart from the Spanish and French in the deep South.

One only has to look at ones own National Archives to glean the facts at hand...in any case; it's History pure and simple. The devolution between the UK and the USA have probably the most complete recordings of modern history..I can't say any better than that..other than to say..why drag it up now?

Best Regards

Rimbaud

wynderer
18th August 2010, 23:49
on the website voxnyc [raided & shut down by 40 FBI, CIA, & Special Forces agents soon after 9/11], someone presented very thorough & comprehensive proof that all USA attorneys swear their oath to either the Crown or the City of London -- is anyone familiar w/this?

Rimbaud
19th August 2010, 00:29
on the website voxnyc [raided & shut down by 40 FBI, CIA, & Special Forces agents soon after 9/11], someone presented very thorough & comprehensive proof that all USA attorneys swear their oath to either the Crown or the City of London -- is anyone familiar w/this?

?..what on Earth was that?

Rimbaud

Operator
19th August 2010, 00:53
And the only kind of "effective governance" I am happy about is filling pot holes, and street sweeping. Most everything else is just a damned nuisance ;)


See ? .... There is a bright future ahead, they won't have the money to bother with you anymore .... :rolleyes:

Rimbaud
19th August 2010, 01:29
?..what on Earth was that?

Rimbaud

Absolutely not!! Can you possibly imagine any US Citizen relinquishing their rights to the UK? I thought not!

Rimbaud

steve_a
19th August 2010, 01:52
Hi Rimbaud,

I brought the subject up because I was resaerching what happened to England when it was sold off by King John to the Roman Church and the people who are now owners of the Crown Temple in London.

Wynderer is right. All lawyers and attornies in the US give an oath to the 'Crown' not to be mistaken with the UK. The 'Crown' apparently is the real owner of The UK and all it's colonies like Canada, US, Australia etc.

As I was saying in my initial post, I'm led to beleive that the declaration of independence of the US is unlawful and therefore null, as some who signed it were lawyers of part of both sides, ie. Lawyer of the 'Crown' and also lawyers on the side of those who signed the declaration. It's more information on that which I am looking for, not necessarily the politics, or who became president etc. Just the legality or lawfulness, as I beleive the two terms mean different things.

Best regards,

Steve

Carmody
20th August 2010, 13:50
I'm sure you are aware then, also, of the gold fringe around the flag meaning 'ship's law'. This is, apparently, a blatant attempt by Skull and Bones to to institute, legally..in specific jurisdictions and locations.. 'ship's law' or pirate law (in this case the pirate law of skull and bones) in any of those locations. They are, apparently attempting to take naval law of over 500 years depth and place it on shore and upon their desired offices of government. It has the dual aspect of indicating 'illumination' via the radiating gold lines coming from the fringing, that point outward from the given center symbol (local police car with gold fringed US flag on the side, very discreet) indicating such. This, apparently, tells one that they are entering a zone or area where the law is wholly unto that space alone.

I hear that the offices of the Supreme Court of the United States are under that jurisdiction or separate 'state'. (apparently, if you walk in, the gold fringed flag is prominently placed) As are most of all US federal offices. This has now, apparently, crept down into being on some US city-state police cars. This, if all above is true, is a direct symbolism indicating the entire given office or entity has been taken over by Freemasons -or worse.

steve_a
20th August 2010, 16:14
Hi Carmody,

If I understand you correctly you are talking about Fleet Law, or the Law of the Seas. I read from a couple of sources about this, but this is going away from my original post.

Is the Declaration of Independence a legal document or is it null?

As far as I can see, it's null, however as I'm not a lawyer, I can't really be sure if this is the case. If the information I have collected is in fact true, then the US is still a colony of the UK, which could explain the inseperable bond between the 'two' nations.

As for the Freemasons 'taking over', I wouldn't worry too much about that. They were there a long time ago... but that's another story for another thread already active in this forum.

Best regards,

Steve

Carmody
20th August 2010, 16:56
As for whether or not it is null and void, or it's legal opposite, the proofs of such, this late in the game would tend to make the entire thing speculation at best.

If the aim is to raise it as a question outside of being a legal curio for lawyer lunch talk...I think it might not do to much for energizing the public at large.

i understand your concern and your efforts, but we can't even begin to energize the public at large over and on things that are happening in the now that have evidence directly at hand..thus my point that this angle of attack may remain nothing but a legal curio.

I do understand that this is exploratory on your part and the situation may change at any moment and become an actual legal concern. Paper would need to be found. After all, America is one giant experiment in Religiously driven Contract Law. Something that can be documented, is what you seek, obviously. It likely is documented but finding such would be tricky, at best, as the concerned agencies at large are also in charge of the whereabouts of such papers and information you seek -for the larger part..as a guess.

And when that sort of 'rubber meets the road', so to speak, you may find yourself in a similar position as Garey Busey was in the film 'The Firm'. If you know what I mean.

~~~~~~~~~~
Edit: I do not know if you are speaking of, as an adjunct or central point, of the ownership of the US still remaining in the hands of 'The Virgina Company' and the Crown being the major shareholder of that company.

This is apparently true, from my little bits of exploration on empirical evidence. And legally binding, it would be. And if all lawyers pledge allegiance to 'the crown' then this would all be a legal and extant precedent that is still carrying through..but much time has passed, so no-one understands it still exists and means something far more serious. The meaning has been lost, when it comes to general public knowledge of the basics. Even for the swearing lawyers.

As in the term 'Amen', at the end of Christan prayer. They have no idea that they are finishing their prayers by invoking the name of an Egyptian God. All due to Moses having to create a religion out of the Judaic lore and add in the bits on Egypt for that crew, as they had been immersed in Egypt for over 400 years and had no real religion except that which they had adopted, which was that of Egypt.

I suspect that point you make is along the same lines. In this specific case, it is legal, binding....and deep.

RedeZra
20th August 2010, 17:34
who is this Crown - if it's not the Queen


after a wiki criss cross

the Crown is a corporation sole that in the Commonwealth realms, as well as in any provincial or state sub-divisions thereof, represents the legal embodiment of governance, whether executive, legislative, or judicial.

it's the trinity of government - rule law order - in the 16 sovereign states known as the Commonwealth realms


but but how can a state like Canada be sovereign - like the Queen - when the Crown represents the government's trinity of rule law and order


the Crown evolved naturally first in the United Kingdom as a separation of the literal crown and property of the nation state from the person and personal property of the monarch; a concept which then spread via British colonisation and is now rooted in the legal lexicon of the other 15 independent realms.


some time some how the Monarchy lost it's Crown to someone else - someone is actually ruling the United Kingdom Canada Australia and 13 other so-called sovereign states in the name of the Crown - and it's not the Queen


seems the US is not a member of this illusive Crown - but the Crown owns this Bank in Basel that owns and operates the FED - and the rest of the central banks of the illustrious G7 - Cash is King and sure buys allegiance


upon which head sits this Crown now - and can't we just shake it off

---

the Crown is a corporation sole - a legal entity consisting of a single ('sole') incorporated office, occupied by a single ('sole') man or woman.

legal entity - the characteristic of a non-human entity regarded by law to have the status of a person with rights, protections, privileges, responsibilities, and liabilities under law, just as natural persons (humans) do.

the concept of legal entity is perhaps one of the most fundamental legal fictions - a fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to apply a legal rule.


such a smart scheme of sophistry

perhaps the Crown is a non-human entity


---


As in the term 'Amen', at the end of Christan prayer. They have no idea that they are finishing their prayers by invoking the name of an Egyptian God. All due to Moses having to create a religion out of the Judaic lore and add in the bits on Egypt for that crew, as they had been immersed in Egypt for over 400 years and had no real religion except that which they had adopted, which was that of Egypt.


ahem gimme a break

it's not true - this is just unfounded gossip

Amen is Hebraic and means Truly

---

I see there is some speculations around the net that the gold fringe flag means martial law

oups

observer
20th August 2010, 18:22
Absolutely not!! Can you possibly imagine any US Citizen relinquishing their rights to the UK? I thought not!

Rimbaud

Rimbaud, dear brother,

I will attempt to show how this is accomplished. You must be willing to do the research, however. The big picture is a mosaic of small pieces that (when individually viewed) do not reveal the true image of the larger reality. The understanding that I'm attempting to lead you to is not easily expressed in a few short paragraphs of text....


....If I understand you correctly you are talking about Fleet Law, or the Law of the Seas. I read from a couple of sources about this, but this is going away from my original post.

Is the Declaration of Independence a legal document or is it null?

As far as I can see, it's null, however as I'm not a lawyer, I can't really be sure if this is the case. If the information I have collected is in fact true, then the US is still a colony of the UK, which could explain the inseparable bond between the 'two' nations.....

Best regards steve_a,

As I suggested to Rimbaud (above), the information you seek is not easily explained in a few words.

The subject of your Thread is a microcosmic view of a small piece of a much larger "puzzle". To examine only each individual pieces inevitably leads to further misunderstanding of the bigger picture. You must be willing to do the research to gain a clear understanding of the greater reality. I'm not suggesting that any particular individual has not done the research, I'm only attempting to lead any willing participant to the greater knowledge.

The following links should give you better understanding of how Admiralty Law relates to the The Temple Bar and how The Crown (otherwise known as 'The City') is the owner of ALL "title" in the Western World. Of course, one must also have an understanding of how The Crown is only one element in a triad of sovereign "city states" that control all global order. (The Old World Order is nothing different from the New World Order - it's all a shell game)

By following through the links below you will see how any "representative" of the Temple Bar must relinquish his citizenship to his parent country. Otherwise that individual can be held in treason.

Please, for those of you who are "hypnotized" with mind control filters to view David Icke's references to Reptiles as expressions of a "lunatic", try to grasp the concept, this is simply an evolving understanding of long established dogma that much of the Mass of Humanity already subscribes to using different (yet similar) terms, such as: demons, Satanic, Luciferian, alien, extra-dimensional, etc. (semantics). Try to review this material with the open mind of a critical thinker.

For those of you who have little knowledge of how the "system" works, and for a foundational understanding, it is important to first read:

David Icke, "The Biggest Secret" - Chapter Seven: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/biggestsecretbook/biggestsecret07.htm

For a more detailed understanding, if you scroll down to the subsection beginning "Criminal Bankruptcy" and read through to the end you might see how this all works:

David Icke, Tales From the Time Loop - Chapter Two: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/tales_timeloop/tales_timeloop02.htm

Of course, anyone wishing greater understanding could go to the index (linked at the bottom of each page) and read each book in their entirety. (look for "back to contents")

Additionally, this video (for those with the patience to watch it through) gives a complete understanding of, not only the subject of this Thread, but also an in-depth understanding of the way the Legal System works:

Creditors in Commerce: http://www.creditorsincommerce.com/videos-watch-cic-lt-001.php

Note: a link to this video was recently provided by Jonathon, in another Thread

I trust everyone will find this information helpful....

steve_a
20th August 2010, 19:59
Hi redezra,

The Monarchy of England lost it's power and land through the hands of King John in the 13th century. He transfered all Royal Sovereignty to the Crown Temple and consequently to the Roman Church. The letter can be seen at the following link: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:b9N2FhuQbDkJ:www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-98818.pdf+letter+of+king+john&hl=pt-BR&gl=br&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjoRrQIyb0qrWXEBx359IKY6MUUcc19G9IZUez1 wZeuvUnTyw6GwJJ5Z4zZkdqbtak65qPs4e-UiV5qYLbx4BotftM3FWX9jmkh5CyGo4of9-gBiqrTV1DEMwxdKpo0jtJSKDqR&sig=AHIEtbSg1ugwqtb39wmLqS04Wfug69nlFQ

The letter stated that all the lands and riches would go to God through his holiness Pope InocÍncio and on condition that the Royals could keep their lifestyle and title. He also said that any Royal who went against the deal would automatically lose the Royal status for themselves and all further generations.

Six months later he went against the treaty when he signed the Magna Carta, which the Pope immediately banned. Of course legally he lost the right to sovereignty which is why even today, the Queen of England is merelya symbolic figure.

Best regards,

Steve

Rimbaud
20th August 2010, 20:20
Hi redezra,

The Monarchy of England lost it's power and land through the hands of King John in the 13th century. He transfered all Royal Sovereignty to the Crown Temple and consequently to the Roman Church. The letter can be seen at the following link: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:b9N2FhuQbDkJ:www.liverpool.gov.uk/Images/tcm21-98818.pdf+letter+of+king+john&hl=pt-BR&gl=br&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjoRrQIyb0qrWXEBx359IKY6MUUcc19G9IZUez1 wZeuvUnTyw6GwJJ5Z4zZkdqbtak65qPs4e-UiV5qYLbx4BotftM3FWX9jmkh5CyGo4of9-gBiqrTV1DEMwxdKpo0jtJSKDqR&sig=AHIEtbSg1ugwqtb39wmLqS04Wfug69nlFQ

The letter stated that all the lands and riches would go to God through his holiness Pope InocÍncio and on condition that the Royals could keep their lifestyle and title. He also said that any Royal who went against the deal would automatically lose the Royal status for themselves and all further generations.

Six months later he went against the treaty when he signed the Magna Carta, which the Pope immediately banned. Of course legally he lost the right to sovereignty which is why even today, the Queen of England is merelya symbolic figure.

Best regards,

Steve

Dear Steve,

I'm afraid that I must disagree...The symbolic nature of the British Monarchy..i.e Constitutional Monarchy was last put to the test during Queen Victorias reign (as opposed to King John) Centuries earlier. Victoria refused to recognise an elected Prime Minister and had her "wings clipped" as a result..this continues to this day.

I'm not trying to doubt your version Steve and hope not to cause offence...however there is a certain re-write of solid historical facts going on these days which need addressing...If we don't do that then real history simply becomes a fairy tale.

Regards

Rimbaud

observer
20th August 2010, 23:49
....I'm not trying to doubt your version Steve and hope not to cause offence...however there is a certain re-write of solid historical facts going on these days which need addressing...If we don't do that then real history simply becomes a fairy tale.

Regards

Rimbaud

Dear Rimbaud, my fellow Human Being,

I am compelled in my obligation as an observer to establish a few points of reference that relate to what you said in the (above) quote. Please understand that I'm making these comments in an attempt to enlighten everyone on this Forum. These comments are in no way to be construed as an affront to you personally.

First of all, allow me to establish the fact that what we all understand as "history" is a lie. History (his-story) is nothing more than the version of events the guy that has won gets to tell. I believe what you may be referring to in this statement regarding the distortion of history is the version of events presented to the Mass of Humanity through what might be called the "Oxford Template". It is well understood by most of the long-time members here on this Forum (those who came over from the "Old Avalon"), that the record according to the Oxford school of thought is a fabrication and a distortion of the facts - all in pursuit of a hidden agenda. The Oxford school of thought is designed to contain one's thinking within a box. (i.e. disciplines of science)

There truly is no "certain re-writing of solid historical facts" as none of those "facts" of reference are solid. Most of what we know as history is a misdirected understanding of events, obscured in almost every case by agenda of deep occult intention.

Now I realize, you Rimbaud, in particular will take offense to this statement, but it is necessary for me to point this out. There are a few members on this Forum who are genuinely seeking to find greater understanding into the nature of reality beyond the old established dogma and rituals of past manipulation (mind control). Constantly returning to the points of reference established by the manipulators of social organization serves no purpose for those seeking an understanding that exists "outside of the box". An understanding of the nature of things behind the smoke-and-mirrors.

My suggestion to anyone commenting in this Forum would be to first do the research required to make an informed impact. There are thousands of hours of interviews available that Bill and Kerry have contributed. There are thousands of hours of reference material being offered regularly as links. I would simply ask everyone to inform themselves of the understandings being discussed in the individual Threads before making comments....

I truly hope this comment doesn't cause anyone an offense.... observer

As with regard of steve_a's contention that the sovereignty of the British Royal Family was abrogated in 1207, I couldn't concur with more certainty. Any future decisions made by any Court would only be positive reinforcement of that abrogation under the rules of Admiralty Law.

See: "Tales From The Time Loop" - Appendix 1: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/tales_timeloop/tales_timeloop_appendix1.htm

Ross
21st August 2010, 00:39
observer...

Good post, Thanks for the contribution.

Regards

Ross

Rimbaud
21st August 2010, 00:40
Dear Rimbaud, my fellow Human Being,

I am compelled in my obligation as an observer to establish a few points of reference that relate to what you said in the (above) quote. Please understand that I'm making these comments in an attempt to enlighten everyone on this Forum. These comments are in no way to be construed as an affront to you personally.

First of all, allow me to establish the fact that what we all understand as "history" is a lie. History (his-story) is nothing more than the version of events the guy that has won gets to tell. I believe what you may be referring to in this statement regarding the distortion of history is the version of events presented to the Mass of Humanity through what might be called the "Oxford Template". It is well understood by most of the long-time members here on this Forum (those who came over from the "Old Avalon"), that the record according to the Oxford school of thought is a fabrication and a distortion of the facts - all in pursuit of a hidden agenda. The Oxford school of thought is designed to contain one's thinking within a box. (i.e. disciplines of science)

There truly is no "certain re-writing of solid historical facts" as none of those "facts" of reference are solid. Most of what we know as history is a misdirected understanding of events, obscured in almost every case by agenda of deep occult intention.

Now I realize, you Rimbaud, in particular will take offense to this statement, but it is necessary for me to point this out. There are a few members on this Forum who are genuinely seeking to find greater understanding into the nature of reality beyond the old established dogma and rituals of past manipulation (mind control). Constantly returning to the points of reference established by the manipulators of social organization serves no purpose for those seeking an understanding that exists "outside of the box". An understanding of the nature of things behind the smoke-and-mirrors.

My suggestion to anyone commenting in this Forum would be to first do the research required to make an informed impact. There are thousands of hours of interviews available that Bill and Kerry have contributed. There are thousands of hours of reference material being offered regularly as links. I would simply ask everyone to inform themselves of the understandings being discussed in the individual Threads before making comments....

I truly hope this comment doesn't cause anyone an offense.... observer

As with regard of steve_a's contention that the sovereignty of the British Royal Family was abrogated in 1207, I couldn't concur with more certainty. Any future decisions made by any Court would only be positive reinforcement of that abrogation under the rules of Admiralty Law.

See: "Tales From The Time Loop" - Appendix 1: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biggestsecret/tales_timeloop/tales_timeloop_appendix1.htm

Dear Observer,

Can I simply ask you why you'd think that I'd take offence over your comments?..they were pretty provocative and I must confess stupidly inaccurate. Listen..I'm happy to bail out of Avealon, as I don't care too much anymore..I don't care...the site is yours..Have fun with it

Carmody
21st August 2010, 03:19
'Godel's incompleteness theorem' may be holding sway, here. Can't say it hasn't happened before. To clarify the 'gist' of it..., you can't see the ends of something by looking from inside of it. You have to stand outside of it to see the whole. Thus the comment of the 'discipline of the sciences' and how inherently wrong and circular it's state of 'reason' can be. Ie, Statement 'G' as tied to human issues.

My take on such comes down to a comment like this: "The more impossible the problem to solve -- the more fundamental the mistake in the original query." (and other obvious variations of such a pronouncement-the basic point remains)

Re Godel, metaphysically speaking, even, and that those who use their cranial hemispheres in balance and exist outside of controlled environments and systems will fare better than those inside such:"The other metaphorical analogue to GŲdel's Theorem which I find provocative suggests that ultimately, we cannot understand our own mind/brains ... Just as we cannot see our faces with our own eyes, is it not inconceivable to expect that we cannot mirror our complete mental structures in the symbols which carry them out? All the limitative theorems of mathematics and the theory of computation suggest that once the ability to represent your own structure has reached a certain critical point, that is the kiss of death: it guarantees that you can never represent yourself totally."

So, it is instructive to me, that those who exist with a multidimensional state within them as a cognitive adjunct to their 3-d reality based communiques, and allow that adjunct to balance out their viewpoint, those ones tend to have a better handle on what is actually 'inside of the box', so to speak.

iceni tribe
22nd August 2010, 15:21
here is a interesting snippet called allodial title.

Allodial title is a concept in some systems of property law. It describes a situation where real property (land, buildings and fixtures) is owned free and clear of any superior landlord. Allodial title is secured by various state constitutions. An individual's allodial title is alienable, in that it may be conveyed, devised, gifted, or mortgaged by the owner, and may also be distressed and restrained for collection of taxes or private debts or condemned (eminent domain) by the government.

In common legal use, allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land by individuals from feudal ownership, where property ownership is dependent on relationship to a lord or the sovereign. Webster's first dictionary (1825 ed) says "allodium" is "land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. It is thus opposed to "feud."

True allodial title is rare, with most property ownership in the common law world—primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland—described more properly as being in fee simple. In particular, land is said to be "held of the Crown" in England and Wales and the Commonwealth realms. In England, there is no allodial land, all land being held of the Crown[dubious – discuss]; in the United States, all land is subject to eminent domain by the federal government, and there is thus no true allodial land. Some states within the US (notably Nevada and Texas) have provisions for considering land allodial under state law, but such land remains rare. Some of the Commonwealth realms (particularly Australia) recognize native title, a form of allodial title that does not originate from a Crown grant.

In France, while allodial title existed before the French Revolution, it was rare and limited to ecclesiastical properties and property that had fallen out of feudal ownership. After the French Revolution allodial title became the norm in France and other civil law countries that were under Napoleonic legal influences. Interestingly Quebec adopted a form of allodial title when it abolished feudalism in the mid-nineteenth century making the forms of ownership in Upper and Lower Canada remarkably similar in substance.

Property owned under allodial title is referred to as allodial land, allodium, or an allod. In the Domesday Book it is called alod.[1]

Rimbaud
25th August 2010, 01:57
here is a interesting snippet called allodial title.

Allodial title is a concept in some systems of property law. It describes a situation where real property (land, buildings and fixtures) is owned free and clear of any superior landlord. Allodial title is secured by various state constitutions. An individual's allodial title is alienable, in that it may be conveyed, devised, gifted, or mortgaged by the owner, and may also be distressed and restrained for collection of taxes or private debts or condemned (eminent domain) by the government.

In common legal use, allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land by individuals from feudal ownership, where property ownership is dependent on relationship to a lord or the sovereign. Webster's first dictionary (1825 ed) says "allodium" is "land which is absolute property of the owner, real estate held in absolute independence, without being subject to any rent, service, or acknowledgment to a superior. It is thus opposed to "feud."

True allodial title is rare, with most property ownership in the common law world—primarily, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland—described more properly as being in fee simple. In particular, land is said to be "held of the Crown" in England and Wales and the Commonwealth realms. In England, there is no allodial land, all land being held of the Crown[dubious – discuss]; in the United States, all land is subject to eminent domain by the federal government, and there is thus no true allodial land. Some states within the US (notably Nevada and Texas) have provisions for considering land allodial under state law, but such land remains rare. Some of the Commonwealth realms (particularly Australia) recognize native title, a form of allodial title that does not originate from a Crown grant.

In France, while allodial title existed before the French Revolution, it was rare and limited to ecclesiastical properties and property that had fallen out of feudal ownership. After the French Revolution allodial title became the norm in France and other civil law countries that were under Napoleonic legal influences. Interestingly Quebec adopted a form of allodial title when it abolished feudalism in the mid-nineteenth century making the forms of ownership in Upper and Lower Canada remarkably similar in substance.

Property owned under allodial title is referred to as allodial land, allodium, or an allod. In the Domesday Book it is called alod.[1]

There we go!..wasn't that exactly what I said? (joke)..I'll keep the revolver from my temple for a little while yet!

Thank you Iceni tribe!

Rimbaud