A KING'S CHARTER THAT REFUSES TO DIE
The Newhaven case is a true God-send, it thoroughly confirms The
Informer's research and my own
findings that we are subjects bearing financial obligation for the debt
owed to the king of England and
his heirs and successors, as well as the main party of interest, the
Pope. Which confirms
"The United States Is Still A British Colony":-
"YIELDlNG AND PAYING yearly, to us, our heirs and Successors, for the
same, the yearly Rent of
Twenty Marks of Lawful money of England, at the Feast of All Saints,
yearly, forever, The First
payment thereof to begin and be made on the Feast of All Saints which
shall be in the year of Our Lord
One thousand six hundred Sixty and five; AND also, the fourth part of
all Gold and Silver Ore which,
with the limits aforesaid, shall, from time to time, happen to be
found." (The Feast of All Saints was
celebrated on November 1 each year.) The Carolina Charter, 1663.
"And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the
titles or possessions of individuals
holding or claiming under the laws heretofore in force, or grants
heretofore made by the late King
George II, or his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of
them." Declaration of Rights
1776, North Carolina Constitution.
I have been declaring this in spite of being slammed by
pro-Constitutionalist patriots, who refuse to
accept the facts. The king is still head of America Inc., the author of
its Charters, and the creator of his
cestui que trust. The king continues to be the benefactor along with his
heirs and successors of the
largest corporation in the history of the world. The Pope as well is
co-benefactor with the king, thanks
to the king's concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.
"We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter,
furnished with our seal, that inasmuch as
we had offended in many ways God and our mother the holy church, and in
consequence are known to have
very much needed the divine mercy, and can not offer anything worthy for
making due satisfaction to
God and to the church unless we humiliate ourselves and our kingdoms:
we, wishing to humiliate ourselves
for Him who humiliated Himself for us unto death, the grace of the Holy
Spirit inspiring, not induced by
force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and
by the common counsel of our
barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter
and Paul and to our mother the
holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic
successors, the whole kingdom of
England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and
appurtenances, for the remission of our
own sins and of those of our whole race as well for the living as for
the dead; and now receiving and
holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, in the
presence of that prudent man
Pandulph, subdeacon and of the household of the lord pope, we perform
and swear fealty for them to him
our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the
Roman church, according to the
form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able
to come before him, we shall do
liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife
forever, in similar manner to
perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that
time, and to the Roman church
without demur." Concessions of May 15, 1213 to the Pope.
The States and it's inhabitants claim this land as theirs, patriots
claim the have allodial title to the land.
How can this be when they never owned it to begin with?
"But this State had no title to the territory prior to the title of the
King of Great Britain and his
subjects, nor did it ever claim as lord paramount to them. This State
was not the original grantor to
them, nor did they ever hold by any kind of tenure under the State, or
owe it any allegiance or other
duties to which an escheat is annexed. How then can it be said that the
lands in this case naturally result
back by a kind of reversion to this State, to a source from whence it
never issued, and from tenants who
never held under it?" MARSHALL v. LOVELESS, 1 N.C. 412 (1801), 2 S.A.
70.
The world continues to pay the benefactors of the king's Charters, for
the king's investment in America,
via taxes. I have got news for you America, if Conquest, war or the
dividing of an Empire cannot pry the
possessions from a Corporate trust, the king never lost or was in danger
of losing his possessions. Also,
the king's money that was in existence and being used by the states and
their inhabitants, prior to the
Revolutionary War, remained the king's possessions, real property, on
loan to America and her
inhabitants, for which the king expected and demanded his return for his
investment, under his corporate
Charters and the trust he set up for his heirs and successors. Was this
the only infusion of money into
this Country? No. Beginning in 1778, just two years after the
Revolutionary War began, the states were
borrowing money from the king of France. The House of Rothschilds
located in France was the money
source. France (Rothschilds) continued to loan money to the U.S.
government with the debt reaching 18
million dollars. This is the foothold Hamilton had over Washington
during the debate on whether or not to
allow the banking families to incorporate in the U.S., and float this
country's debt. You don't have to be
a rocket scientist to figure it out, look back at what has happened
since, and you will see this is in fact
what took place.
Seems to me as a matter of law, a contract entered into voluntarily by
someone voids any conflict or
injury to that individual's rights. The king always intended to retain
his minerals and money, and he knew
(as stated by other quotes in this article) that the barristers would
retain his land under the corporate
trust.
Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North
America, signed at Versailles July
16, 1782:-
ARTICLE 1
"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:
1. 28 February 1778 750,000
2. 19 May do 750,000
3. 3 August do 750,000
4. 1 November do 750,000 Total 3,000,000
5. 10 June 1779 250,000
6. 16 September do 250,000
7. 4 October do 250,000
8. 21 December do 250,000 Total 1,000,000
9. 29 February 1780 750,000
10. 23 May do 750,000
11. 21 June do 750,000
12. 5 October do 750,000
13. 27 November do 1,000,000 Total 4,000,000
14. 15 February 1781 750,000
15. 15 May do 750,000
16. 15 August do 750,000
17. 1 August do 1,000,000
18. 15 November do 750,000 Total 4,000,000
19. 10 April 1782 1,500,000
20. 1 July do 1,500,000
21. 5 of the same month 3,000,000 Total 6,000,000
Amounting in the whole to eighteen millions, viz 18, 000,
000.
By which receipts the said Minister has promised, in the name of
Congress and in behalf of the thirteen
United States, to cause to be paid and reimbursed to the royal treasury
of His Majesty, on the 1st of
January, 1788, at the house of his Grand Banker at Paris, the said sum
of eighteen millions, money of
France, with interest at five per cent per annum."
Source: Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States of
America. Edited by Hunter
Miller Volume 2 Documents 1-40 : 1776-1818 Washington: Government
Printing Office, 1931.
Notice also folks, this is just one year before the 1783 Treaty of Peace
is signed, the king of France
(Rothschilds) made sure his debt was protected before he signed on to
the con of the millennium. The
king of England's Charter on one side, the Rothschild's debt obligations
on the other, both vying for a
piece of America. The king of England for his trust, the Rothschilds for
their corporate take-over and
control of the king's trust, the Pope as the main benefactor of both
sides. The Pope remains even further
in the background than the Rothschilds, however he stands to gain no
matter what happens.
Here are a few quotes from William Manley German, in a speech to the
House of Commons December
1913.
"....Referring to Canada's bank acts: I believe the plan outlined
follows the English system, a system
applied to the great banks of England. Mr. White, House of Commons,
December 17, 1912, in response to
a question from the Honorable William Manley German. i.e. they were
creating an English system which is
to say a Rothschildian cartel...."
"Senator Robert L. Owen continues: "It was not very long until this
information was brought to the
Rothschild's Bank, and they saw that here was a nation ready to be
exploited; here was a nation setting
up an example that they could issue their own money instead of the money
coming through the banks."
"The Rothschild's Bank caused a bill to be introduced in the English
Parliament, which provided that no
colony of England could issue its own money." "Thus, they had to use
English money. The colonies were
compelled to discard their money and mortgage themselves to the
Rothchild's Bank of England to get
money." "Then, for the first time in the history of the United States,
money began to be based on debt.
Benjamin Franklin stated that in one year from that date the streets of
the colonies were filled with the
unemployed."
"Franklin later claimed that this was the real cause of the War of
Independence. He said: "The colonies
would gladly have borne the little tax on tea and other matters had it
not been that England and the
Rothschild's Bank took away from the colonies their money which created
unemployment, dissatisfaction
and debt." William Manley German, in a speech to the House of Commons
December 1913, Brigham Young
University, web site Http://library.byu.edu/~rdh/eurodocs/uk.html.
Nothing changes, the Rothschilds have always played both sides against
each other, they did the same
thing during the Civil War, see my research paper, "A Country Defeated
In Victory, parts I & II."
Before I go any further lets look at the facts that prove the king never
lost his Corporations created by
his Charters, or lands held by his Corporations, by and through the
supposed loss of the Revolutionary
War, or the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Peace, or the 1794 Jay Treaty.
"The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by
the sixth article of the Treaty of
Peace of 1783, in the same manner as those of natural persons; and their
title, thus protected, it
confirmed by the ninth article of the Treaty of 1794, so that is could
not be forfeited by any
intermediate legislative act, or other proceeding for the defect of
alienage." The Society for
Propagating the Gospel, &c v. New Haven, 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
(Footnote-annotated,
Definitive Treaty of Peace).
"The capacity of private individuals (British subjects), or of
corporations, created by the crown, in this
country, or in Great Britain, to hold lands or other property in this
country, WAS NOT affected by the
revolution. The proper courts in this country will interfere to prevent
an abuse of the trusts confided to
British corporations holding lands here to charitable uses, and will aid
in enforcing the due execution of
the trusts; but neither those courts, nor the local legislature where
the lands lie, can adjudge a
forfeiture of the franchises of the foreign corporation, or of its
property. The property of British
corporations, in this country, is protected by the 6th article of the
Treaty of Peace of 1783 in the same
manner as those of natural persona; and their title, thus protected, is
confirmed by the 9th article of
the Treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any
intermediate legislative act, or other
proceeding, for the defect of alienage. The termination of a treaty, by
war, DOES NOT divest rights of
property already vested under it. Nor do treaties, in general, become
extinguished, ipso facto, by war
between the two governments. Those stipulating for a permanent
arrangement of territorial, and other
national rights, are, at most, suspended during the war, and revive at
the peace, unless they are waived
by the parties, or new and repugnant stipulations are made." The
Society, &c., v. The Town of New
Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
The king holds the rest of the world to different standards, as does the
Pope. He holds us to the king's
law on trusts and does not apply the same law to himself, so he can
retain his lands and possessions, as
does the Pope, under British-made International law.
"It is a familiar principle that the King is not bound by any act of
parliament unless he be named therein
by special and particular words. The most general words that can be
devised (for example, any person or
persons, bodies politic or corporate) affect not him in the least, if
they may tend to restrain or diminish
any of his rights and interests. He may even take the benefit of any
particular act, though not named.
The rule thus settled respecting the British Crown is equally applicable
to this government, and it has
been applied frequently in the different states, and practically in the
Federal courts. It may be
considered as settled that so much of the royal prerogatives as belonged
to the King in his capacity of
parens patrioe, or universal trustee, enters as much into our political
state as it does into the principles
of the British Constitution." U.S. v. Chamberlin, 219 U.S. 250 (1911),
"Dollar Sav. Bank v. United States,
supra".
Do the king and the Pope have proper claims to their land holdings? No.
The king's claim would not exist
accept for his barristers (lawyers), his backers, the bankers, the Pope,
via his churches' land holdings
and financial backing of the early banking families. The reason I also
say no, is fraud and deception are
involved. How did the king come by his claim? By the Conquest of Britain
by William the Conqueror in
1066, and thanks to the Pope's partnership with England, as trustee for
Rome, working inside of Britain
with her Jesuit priests. Conquest does not change land held in trust. So
the lands held by the Brits and
trusts (wills of testament), and traditions of the father's land going
to the sons, could not be overturned
by the Conquest of William the Conqueror. But even further than that,
God Almighty granted to Adam
and his descendants the entire earth, it was given away to Satan, but
later reclaimed by Jesus Christ as
the second Adam.
Just as the king held on to his possessions after the Revolutionary War
for his heirs and successors, and
just as conquest does not change ownership of lands and possessions held
in trust. The fraud is, the king
is taxing us for a trust he created, based on an earlier conquest.
"As further evidence, not that any is needed, a percentage of taxes that
are paid are to enrich the
king/queen of England. For those that study Title 26 you will recognize
IMF, which means Individual
Master File; all tax payers have one. To read one you have to be able to
break their codes using file
6209, which is about 467 pages. On your IMF you will find a blocking
series, which tells you what type
of tax you are paying. You will probably find a 300-399 blocking series,
which 6209 says is reserved.
You then look up the BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in
6209. You would have seen
prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, non-refile DLN. Meaning
everyone is considered a business
and involved in commerce and you are being held liable for a tax via a
treaty between the U.S. and the
U.K., payable to the U.K.. The form that is supposed to be used for this
is form 8288, FIRPTA - Foreign
Investment Real Property Tax Account, you won't find many people using
this form, just the 1040 form.
The 8288 form can be found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS,
chapter 3. If you will check
the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) paper, in the Department of
Treasury, List of Active
Information Collections, Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you
will find this form under OMB
number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return for
dispositions by foreign persons of U.S.
real property interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by
foreign persons, of U.S. Form
#8288 #8288a These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF
300-309, Barred
Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for 1040
form. IMF 310-399
reserved, the BMF 300-309 reads the same as IMF 300-309. BMF 390-399
reads U.S./U.K. Tax
Treaty Claims. The long and short of it is nothing changed, the
government just made it plainer, the 1040
is the payment of a foreign tax to the king/queen of England. We have
been in financial servitude since
the Treaty of 1783." The United States Is Still A British Colony, part
I.
It's a big con. Only God Almighty owns the land, by grant and charter,
also trust, the land is reserved
for us and our use. How can you take that which does not belong to you?
It is a shame we could not have
learned from the American Indian, that no man owns the land.
"....In Harden v Fisher, 1 Wheat Rep. 300, which was also under the
Treaty of 1794, this court held that
it was not necessary for the party to show a seisin in fact, or actual
possession of the land, but only that
the title was in him, or his ancestors, at the time the treaty was
made...." The Society, &c., v. The Town
of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
"....In Terrett v. Taylor, it was stated that the dissolution of the
regal government, no more destroyed
the rights of the church to possess and enjoy the property which
belonged to it, than it did the right of
any other corporation or individual to his or its own property. In the
later case, the Chief Justice, in
reference to the corporation of the college, observes that it is too
clear to require the support of
argument, that all contracts and rights respecting property remained
unchanged by the revolution; and
the same sentiment was enforce, more at length, by the other judge who
noticed this point in the cause...."
The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond.
Rep. 489.
As a matter of law these treaties were written in such away they could
not be overturned using civil law,
so the Revolutionary War changed nothing concerning the king's
investment and creation of America Inc.
"....His lordship observes that that was a case in which the old
government existed under the King's
charter, and a revolution took place, though the new government was
acknowledged by this country. Yet
it was held, that the property, which belonged to a corporation existing
under the King's charter, was not
transferred to a body which did not exist under his authority, and,
therefore, the fund in this country
was considered to be bona vacantia belonging to the crown...." The
Society, &c., v. The Town of New
Haven. Et Al. 8 Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
"....The treaty of 1783 forbids all forfeitures on either side. That of
1794 provides that the citizens
and subjects of both nations, holding lands (thereby strongly implying
that there were no forfeitures by
the revolution), shall continue to hold, according to the tenure of
their estates; that they may sell and
devise them; and shall not, so far as respects these lands and the legal
remedies to obtain them, be
considered as aliens. In the case Kelly v. Harrison, 2 Johns. cas 29.,
Mr. Chief Justice Kent says:" I
admit the doctrine to be sound (Calvin's case, 7 Co. 27 b.; Kirby's Rep.
413), that the division of an
empire works no forfeiture of a right previously acquired. The
revolution left the demandant where she
was before...." The Society, &c., v. The Town of New Haven. Et Al. 8
Wheat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489.
I remind America what Edmond Burke said:
"....Let the colonies always keep the idea of their civil rights
associated with your government -- they
will cling and grapple to you, and no force under heaven will be of
power to tear them from their
allegiance. But let it be once understood that your government may be
one thing and their privileges
another, that these two things may exist without any mutual relation --
the cement is gone, the cohesion is
loosened, and everything hastens to decay and dissolution. As long as
you have the wisdom to keep the
sovereign authority of this country as the sanctuary of liberty, the
sacred temple consecrated to our
common faith, wherever the chosen race and sons of England worship
freedom, they will turn their faces
towards you. The more they multiply, the more friends you will have, the
more ardently they love liberty,
the more perfect will be their obedience. Slavery they can have they may
have it from Spain, they may
have it from Prussia. But until you become lost to all feeling of your
true interest and your natural
dignity, freedom they can have from none but you. This commodity of
price, of which you have the
monopoly. This is the true Act of Navigation, which binds to you the
commerce of the colonies, and
through them secures to you the wealth of the world. Deny them this
participation of freedom, and you
break that sole bond which originally made, and must still preserve, the
unity of the empire. . . Let us get
an American revenue as we have got an American empire. English
privileges have made it all that it is;
English privileges alone will make it all it can be." Edmund Burke,
speech on conciliation with America,
pages 71-72, March 22, 1775, web site,
wysiwyg://54/http://odur.let.rug.nl/%7Eusa/D/1751-
1775/libertydebate/burk.htm.
America what about that? "You have been conned" do you not understand?
What will it take for you to
wake up? king35.htm
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
