Vatican Concordats and Modus Vivendi’s

September 25, 2016

Vatican Concordats

Notice that the Concordat is with Britain. None With the United States, Or the United States of America.. That is because they own own Britain and Britain owns the United States and the United States of America.. Two separate companies.. Corporations.. They own the Hudson Bay Company, The British Eat Indies Company. And several others.. Like George Washington’s Virginia Land Company, and his Vandalia Company..Massachusetts Bay Company Ohio Company of Virginia Mississippi Company Potomac Company Dutch East India Company Virginia Company.. They own a lot of companies. The United Nations Company..

Concordats by country click on a country to open article

Côte d’Ivoire
Czech Republic
Dominican Republic
Israel & Palestine
Netherlands – Belgium – Luxembourg
Trinidad & Tobago

These church-state accords often give the Catholic Church massive state subsidies and other privileges. They can also permit Church employees to be hounded about their private lives. Yet as “international treaties”, concordats bypass the democratic process, making parliaments powerless to modify, let alone revoke them. They are traditionally concluded under various names with the Vatican, but can also be made with the Order of Malta.

“International treaties”

A 16th c king kneels to kiss the pope’s foot, acknowledging the Church’s claim to be superior to the state.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) says that a concordat cannot be an international treaty, as it is not between equals. Therefore a concordat binds the state, but not the Church. Only later, to give it legal precedence, did the Vatican style it a “human rights treaty”.

International law has been called “war by other means”. [1] Among the most effective of these “other means” are the papal documents called concordats. A concordat is an agreement between the Vatican and a foreign state. Since the Vatican claims to be a country [2], these accords are supposed to be as binding as international treaties ? yet also to exist on a higher plane and possess a “spiritual” dimension: “A concordat refers to a cordial agreement, a union of wills, the successful meeting of hearts and minds in Christian harmony.” [3] Concordats are thus treaties but, in view of the strategems used to get concordats past democratic legislatures, it could be argued that in some respects they resemble the treaties of the colonial era whose “primary aim was less the creation of legally binding commitments and more the economic and political infiltration”. [4] The Roman Catholic Church tries to make concordats with any state wherever and whenever this becomes politically possible. This strategy has proven so successful that now other powerful churches (even ones that don’t claim to be countries) are clamouring for equivalent “church-state treaties”. These include the Lutheran Church in Germany and the Orthodox Church in Belarus, Armenia and Georgia. In fact, if a future concordat is signed between the Vatican and the Czech Republic, even the Seventh Day Adventists have said that they want one, too. [5] As a recent study by a Catholic theologian concludes, “the Catholic Church has opened the way for all religious communities to enjoy the same rights”. [6] By sharing the spoils, this delivers a fundamental blow to separation of church and state.
Set in stone

Concordats differ in detail from state to state, as they codify the already existing church privileges ? and try to slip in as many more as the local political climate will allow. This is erosion of church-state separation is dangerous because it is a one-way street. For in a democratic country there is always the possibility of any privilege being revoked if circumstances change. [7]

But the main point of a concordat is to remove Church privileges from democratic control. It does this by means of a contract which cannot be altered except by mutual consent. All other laws are under parliamentary control and can be amended by it. However in a concordat, because one of the parties is the Church, it is hardly going to be willing to give up any of its privileges. A cardinal frankly admits that the advantage of concordats resides precisely in this independence from democratic control:
[Other agreements] are subject to local law and therefore will always be fragile, insofar as they are dependent upon the hazards posed by the political regimes or parliamentary majorities of the future. [8]

By the back door
Originally concordats were agreements between two monarchs: the pope who ruled the Papal States and the ruler of the other country. John Paul II was able to make such an agreement with King Hassan II of Morocco in 1983-1984. In such cases there is no parliament to complicate matters. Today, however, with both absolute monarchs and dictators hard to come by, concluding a concordat is not so easy: the pope is the only remaining absolute ruler in Europe. This has obliged the Vatican to develop many ways of getting concordats approved by sceptical parliamentarians.
Sometimes the text of the concordat may be kept secret until it has been signed which prevents any discussion of its terms by parliament or the public. By the time the legislators and the public find out what the concordat says, it can no longer be altered, only approved or rejected as a whole. And sometimes parliament is even expected to vote on this complex ? and permanent ? legal document too quickly for any real scrutiny. If that doesn’t work a concordat may sit unratified for years until some opportunity presents itself to get it cast in stone. In addition to the hundreds are already in force worldwide, others, like the Slovak “Conscience Concordat”, are drawn up and waiting for the right political climate to be ratified. For more on this, see Sixteen tricks to get a concordat through.
Tithes without worshippers
By hook or by crook the Church tries to get itself concordats. This convenient document allows the Church to extend its privileges, including massive state subsidies, even as, in some of the wealthier countries, its membership is decreasing ? and it also locks these payments in. This is why the Slovakian government wants to introduce a “church tax” (a fixed percentage of the income tax paid by church members), whereas the Church wants to maintain the status quo, (an annual donation according to present needs). [9] If the Church succeeds in getting “present need” funding enshrined in the upcoming concordat on finances, there will be no realistic possibility of reducing the state contribution ? ever.

A concordat does three things.

First, it installs a ratchet. The concordat itself cements previously-granted privileges and adds new ones. And the ratchet effect doesn’t end there, for a “general concordat” may be used to sets up the framework for more detailed ones to come. The general concordat acts as the thin edge of the wedge: its terms are vague enough to make it easy to get through parliament [10], but if the parliamentarians later balk at the more detailed concordats, they are told that they have already agreed to them in principle. And if the general concordat has included an “aim” to conclude them within a certain time, this can be used to apply more pressure, by presenting it to the media as a “promise”. [10] A framework concordat is like a Russian doll containing more.
Second, and even more ominously, because a concordat claims the status of international law, it prevents Church privileges, including massive state subsidies, from ever again being brought under democratic control.
And third, a concordat stipulates that “Church institutions” are governed by Canon Law (the law of the Catholic Church). However, since the Church is permitted to run various social services ? with state support, of course ? the laws which govern these Church institutions also affect those who work and those who are served by them. This legal manoeuvre means that a concordat can set up a theological fiefdom where certain Human Rights do not apply ? and where they can never be reintroduced without the consent of the Church.

By means of concordats Vatican diplomats and lawyers are mounting an attack on many of the freedoms that we have won since then ? rights that we had come to think were unassailable. The Vatican’s concordats pose an increasing threat to both democracy and Human Rights.

1. John Fonte quoted in Scott Malcolmson, “Lawfare”, New York Times, 12 December 2004. Muriel Fraser, “The Vatican’s triple crown: church, government and country”.3. The History of Ideas, Vol 6: Treaty – Linguistic Issues, Science Encyclopedia.
The concordat is supposed to pass its provisions spiritually, requires no diplomatic “handling,” and its conclusion is avoided by the Holy See if it foresees complications in the ratification process from the other side. It is a euphemism through which papal treaty practice is rendered sui generis, supposed always to operate in concord, thus rhetorically separating itself from the worldly bargaining and crude pursuit of national interest associated with conventional treaty-making.

4. The History of Ideas Vol 6: Treaty – Jurisprudence, Science Encyclopedia.

5. “Czech Republic: Adventists continue to seek own agreement with state”, Adventist News Network, 4 November 2003.

6. Roland Minnerath, “The Experience of the Catholic Church in Structuring its Relationship with States in the XX Century”, 2000. [The author is Professor at the Catholic Theological Faculty of Marc Bloch University, Strasbourg.]

7. For example, the Vatican tried, by way of a “conscience concordat” in Slovakia, to ensure that patients could be denied treatment or even health information if this was in conflict with the religious scruples of the health providers (or the Catholic institution that employed them). If ratified, enshrining it in a concordat would have made it irreversible. By contrast, the similar “conscience clause” which was passed by executive order in the final days of the Bush regime is being reversed by his successor. See “Abortion foes, supporters, clash over new rule”, AP, 18 February 2009.

8. Jean-Louis Pierre Cardinal Tauran, speech before a French bishops’ conference in Lourdes, 5 November 2003. Translated excerpts available at “Vatican Foreign Ministers on concordats: Tauran (1990-2003)”.

9. Frans Hoppenbrouwers, “Nationalistic tendencies in the Slovak Roman Catholic Church”, Religion in Eastern Europe, Volume XVIII, Number 6, December 1998. [The author is a Roman Catholic Church historian and secretary of studies of the Dutch Roman Catholic relief organization, Communicantes.]

10. See the Introduction to the [Slovak] Basic Concordat (2000)

11. “US Lawmaker prods Israel on pact with Vatican”, Catholic World News, 20 June 2006.
Concordats promote authoritarianism
Authoritarianism concentrates power in one man or group. This pattern of subordination tends to replicate itself to create a hierarchy. Blind obedience comes to be seen as the necessary glue for keeping society together, and it is applauded by the mini-dictators throughout such a society. However, as recent research shows, a lack of power is deeply damaging to the individual.

“The one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.”
Pius X, Vehementer nos, 11 February 1906

“Sheep are easier to move if they have a lead animal or a person to follow.* Traffic in chutes should be in one direction only. Sheep should not be allowed to see individuals travelling in the opposite direction.”
Sheep Care Practices , University of California

A concordat helps to promote authoritarian structures throughout society. It fosters a system of state-funded religious schools which instil a culture of obedience. It also isolates children from contact with non-Catholics, so that their own religious microcosm is all they know. It mandates state-funded, Church-run hospitals which deny women reproductive choice and burden them with unplanned children which locks them into dependence. It sets up a network of state-funded “faith-based social services” which force an anxious appearance of piety on employees, job-seekers and even their families. And some concordats deny those married in a Catholic church the chance to escape from abuse and have a new life by getting a divorce. Respect for authority has long been instilled by the Church in Latin America and this is the society from which political scientist Howard J. Wiarda draws his examples.
First, authoritarianism is a form of dictatorship, of absolutism, of tyranny. It implies concentrated power in the hands of one man, a clique, an elite group, military officers, or a party, as distinct from the dispersed, competitive, pluralistic power found in a democracy.

On his 2007 visit to Brazil Benedict XVI held a canonisation mass for the country’s first native-born saint, Frei (Friar) Galvão. The faithful can now ask a local saint – Church-certified as being powerful enough to work miracles – to approach God on their behalf.
This is a heavenly mirror of the feudal patron-client relationship traditional in Latin America. In this model, the patron provides selective access to goods and opportunities, by diverting resources and services to his clients, who return the help by working for the patron at election times or boosting his prestige.

Second, authoritarianism, when present, is not usually just limited to the top of the political pyramid but is often apparent throughout society, at local, social and familial, and regional levels as well as national ones. Husbands may exercise authoritarian control over their wives, fathers over their children, landowners over peasants, elites over masses, and local godfathers, caudillos (men on horseback), or mayors over their people. […]
Authoritarianism at the top usually reflects a society that is also authoritarian at other and lower levels. I recall how one politician in the Dominican Republic put it during a campaign speech while waving a cattle prod in the air: “I need authority for my cattle and I will need authority for my people!” The audience of peasants and cane cutters cheered. In other words, authoritarianism is often society-wide and a cultural phenomenon, not just limited to one man, the dictator, or the political structure. [1]

In fact, in an authoritarian society, the nature of democracy can be completely misunderstood:
The simple principle that democracy, besides power of majority, means protection of rights of minority, is completely alien […]. Politicians elected by majority who then deprive minority of access to media sincerely think that they are democrats; moreover, their electorate is in complete agreement with them. [2]

Authoritarianism empowers a few — once they have finally managed to scramble to the top of the ladder — but it makes most people powerless. And new research shows how damaging this can be: it can cloud their minds in ways that keep them from getting ahead. A lack of power impairs people’s ability to keep track of new information, to figure out what’s relevant, and to successfully plan ahead to achieve their goals. This is how hierarchies perpetuate themselves. The powerless passively accept their lot. They “are guided by situational constraints and circumstances, rather than by their own goals and values, and view themselves as the means for other people’s goals”. [3]
Ordination 15 May 2005
“Obey your leaders and submit to them”
John Paul II, quoting Hebrews 13:17 to justify “obedience”,
Redemptionis Donum, 13.
“I have to obey the pope. The pope told me that it is my
biggest religious obligation not to have my own opinions.”
Cardinal Ratzinger to Max Seckler, former dean of the Catholic
Theological Faculty at Tübingen University, about 1995.

* But how were sheep led without expensive chutes? Alex notes how it was done in Russia:
When I was a child, I was told that at a local meat-packing plant sheep were led to slaughter by specially trained goats (at the last moment, they were removed from the chute via a side door and given a lump of sugar as a reward). There was even a special term: goat-betrayer.

[1] Howard J. Wiarda, “Introduction“, Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America—Revisited, University Press of Florida, 2004, pp. 7-8.
[2] Alex, private communication.
[3] Pamela K. Smith, Nils B. Jostmann, Adam D. Galinsky, Wilco W. van Dijk (2008) “Lacking Power Impairs Executive Functions”, Psychological Science 19 (5), 441–447. Access requires payment, but a synopsis is available online free of charge: Association for Psychological Science, Press Release, “Having less power impairs the mind and ability to get ahead, study shows”, 15 May 2008.
Pope’s claim to temporal power based on 8th-c forgery
This “most remarkable of forgeries for its practical effect on world-history” was used to justify the pope owning his own kingdom. In fact, this forged “Donation of Constantine” even let the pope claim to be the overlord of emperors and kings, the supreme ruler in former Western Roman Empire. The book that finally exposed the document as fraudulent was banned by the Vatican.

Constantine kneels to give his crown to Pope Sylvester I. This fresco dates from 1246, after the pope had excommunicated Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II four times and sent several papal armies against him. Its message is clear: the pope is supreme and, in accordance with the Donation of Constantine, has every right to rein in the emperor. (complete fresco)

It’s been called the “most remarkable of forgeries for its practical effect on world-history” [1] and it was used to justify the pope owning his own kingdom, the predecessor of the State of the Vatican City. This document was called the “Donation of Constantine” because it purported to be a grant by Emperor Constantine in favour of Pope Sylvester I. Actually, there is no evidence that Constantine, the first Christian emperor, ever attended a church service and, in fact, he was baptised only on his deathbed in 337. It has been claimed that, like Napoleon, Constantine saw Christianity as a tool to unify his empire and let him exercise social control through the bishops. [2] However, one thing is certain: he did not follow the script of “the most famous forgery in history”, the Donation of Constantine, as it was written more than 300 years after his death. [3]
This document announces that the Emperor is withdrawing to a new capital at Constantinople in order to give the pope “the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts and cities of Italy or of the western regions”. Constantine also purportedly decrees that the papal reign in Italy and the Western Roman Empire was to continue “until the end of the world”.
This forgery was used to justify the pope’s direct rule over much of Italy for more than 1000 years as king of the Papal States, the forerunner of his present State of the Vatican City.

Charlemagne ’s only contribution to his “signature” was the awkward little two-stroke “v” in the central diamond. That completed a small angular “O” and also made the top half of the lozenge into an “A”, leaving the bottom half as a “V”. Then it reads “KAROLVS”, Latin for “Karl”.
The churchmen made the most of their monopoly on literacy. In fact, more than 60% of the documents supposedly stemming from Charlemagne’s predecessors are forgeries. For their monasteries the monks faked back-dated tax exemptions and land grants, and to get pilgrimage income, documents authenticating wood from Noah’s ark and feathers from the Angel Gabriel. On a much larger scale some unknown late 8th-century pope had his scribes produce the Donation of Constantine to grant himself the whole Western Roman Empire.*

This document also grants the pope jurisdiction even over territories that he did not rule directly. Constantine supposedly concedes to the pope power over kings and emperors or, as he puts it, “a supremacy greater than the earthly clemency of our imperial serenity”. This enabled the pope to claim temporal authority over European kings. In accordance with this doctrine of papal supremacy, Gregory VII tried to get William the Conqueror to swear fealty to him and hand over England .[4] By the High Middle Ages some had begun to question the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine, but it was dangerous to express this openly. In 1229-1230 a couple of doubters were burned alive at Strasbourg. [5] It wasn’t until 1517 that this forgery was publicly proven to be a fake, (the same year that Martin Luther launched his own protest against papal power). The brilliant humanist Lorenzo Valla (who had the protection of a royal patron) argued that the document’s barbarous Latin meant that it could not possibly date from the time of Constantine. The Vatican responded by placing Vallo’s work on the Index of forbidden books. [6]
Of course, discrediting the basis for the pope’s temporal power was one thing, but ending it was another. Exposing the Donation of Constantine as a fake did nothing to help those living in his theocracy in the Papal States. [7] They were only freed by force of arms. In 1870 Pius IX refused to negotiate a peaceful surrender, and Italian troops were obliged to breach the walls.
In terms that echo the claims of the Donation of Constantine, Pius IX rejected the legitimacy of his overthrow in the name of democracy. He had long maintained that the Church was a perfect society, entitled by Christ to exercise temporal power and to use force while doing so. [8] Even after he was deposed, Pius IX continued to insist that he was still King of Rome: “This corner of the earth is mine; I received it from Christ.” [9]
Theologian and Cardinal Yves Congar felt that this was a missed opportunity for Pius IX to reconcile himself with his loss of power and return the Church to its true role of preaching: “When the events of the time invited him to abandon the terrible lie of the Donation of Constantine… he did not respond…but plunged the Church into demands proper to a temporal power.” [10]

Cardinal Yves Congar: “When the events of the time invited (Pius IX) to abandon the terrible lie of the Donation of Constantine…he did not respond…but plunged the Church into demands proper to a temporal power.”

For 58 years after the loss of the papal kingdom, successive popes refused to leave their enclave, claiming pathetically to be “prisoners of the Vatican”. The papal boycott only ended when the dictator Mussolini signed the Lateran Pacts [11] which once again gave the pope an autonomous state. The pope’s original kingdom, based on a forged grant by the emperor Constantine, was replaced by a microstate based on a real grant by the dictator Mussolini. Superficially the restored kingdom is only a shadow of the Papal States that stretched all the way across central Italy. The present Vatican City State is the smallest microstate in the world and it has no lay inhabitants. Even so, as “Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City” [12] the pope still exercises temporal power indirectly. He adroitly uses his revived “state” to lobby in international bodies and to exert pressure through international “treaties”. [13] He no longer wields temporal power directly as he once did over his subjects in the Papal States, yet still manages to do so indirectly over millions of people worldwide. Though now historically discredited, the Donation of Constantine helped to lay the groundwork for the temporal power of the pope today.
? MF


* Matthias Schulz, “Schwindel im Skriptorium”, Spiegel, 13 July 1998.
1. Philip Schaff et al, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Constantine/Prolegomena/The Mythical Constantine, 1885, Wikisource.

2. Anthony Gottlieb, “When the Lights Went Out in Europe”, review of Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind, New York Times, 15 February 2004.
3. “Donation of Constantine”
4. “How the world’s first concordat came about (documents and commentary)”, Concordat Watch.
5. Philip Schaff et al, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Constantine/Prolegomena/The Mythical Constantine, 1885, Wikisource.
6. Vatican Exhibit/The Vatican Library/A Library Takes Shape/Index of the library under Paul III (Sixteenth century).
7. “Canon Law in action: Were the Papal States a ‘perfect society’?” Concordat Watch.
8. Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, #19 (1854), #24 (1851).
9. Maurice Paléologue, Ian F. Morrow, Muriel M. Morrow, Cavour, 1927, p. 283. Google reprint
10. Yves Congar, Mon Journal du Concile, Paris: Cerf, 2002, vol. 1, pp. 114-116.
11. “How the Lateran Treaty made the Catholic Church into a state”, Concordat Watch.
12. “Titles of some 19th-century divine-right monarchs”, Concordat Watch.
13. “The Vatican’s triple crown: church, government and state”, Concordat Watch.
The left gets a modus vivendi, the right a concordat
The Vatican makes concordats with rightwing governments, whether absolute monarchies or fascist dictatorships. However, it snubs equally authoritarian governments on the left. It only makes quiet working arrangements with communist countries, since their regimes compete with the Church ideologically, rather than complementing it.
Ordination of priests at St. Peter’s in Rome. Dictators
also want to keep people humble and rightwing ones have
traditionally allied themselves with the Church through concordats.

A dissident 17th-century French priest describes the pact between the Church and the King of France – but he could just as well have been talking about other authoritarian rulers like the Emperor Napoléon or the Nazi puppet, Marshal Pétain:
Religion supports political power […] and the government, in return, protects religion.[…] On the one side, the priests command on pain of curses and eternal damnation obedience to the magistrates, princes and kings, as established by God to govern the rest, and on the other side, the princes ensure that the priests are respected and granted good appointments and good revenues…. [1]

A pact with an authoritarian is ruler can be useful for getting concordats, as an eminent Vatican lawyer admits:
The Apostolic See, to avoid the risk of open mockery, usually enters into solemn undertakings only where a civil government is under no obligation to seek the consent of a representative body, or where there can be no reasonable doubt that such consent will be granted. [2]

This was the inside view from a famed canonist at the Gregorian University in Rome who became superior general of the Jesuits and a trusted adviser to Pope Pius X.
It’s much easier to sign a concordat with a dictator — then there’s no worry that a democratic legislature might refuse to ratify it. This is why concordats are so often made with strongmen. Here on Concordat Watch you can find ones concluded with despots, large and small: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Duvalier, Trujillo, Dollfuss, the Ivorian President-for-Life Houphouët-Boigny, the Argentine Generals Aramburu and Onganía and the Peruvian military junta under General Bermúdez two days before he had to step down. (The first five gentlemen even made it into the Killers of the 20th Century.)
These rightwing dictators generally got on well with the Vatican, despite occasional theoretical differences. For instance, their problem with the Jews: the Church was anti-Jewish, blaming the Jews for communism, democracy and “killing Christ”, whilst the Nazis were anti-Semitic, blaming them for ancestry that wasn’t German. When it came to the crunch, this subtle distinction about exactly what they should be accused of didn’t help most Jews very much. [3] In practice, it just meant that a few of the Jews who had converted to Catholicism were saved through Church intervention, while the rest were left to their fate under Hitler.
This marriage between fascism and religions has been called clero-fascism or clerical fascism. More detail can be found at the site of the Clero-Fascist Studies Project.
While John Paul II draped his interventions in Poland and Eastern Europe in the garb of “liberty” and “independence,” the reactionary essence of his political orientation was revealed openly in South America. There he sided with the ruling elites and disciplined so-called “liberation theologians” who had lined up with the oppressed in their struggles against right-wing military dictatorships. [4]

However, any alliance with the Vatican remains a marriage of convenience, one which is promptly annulled when support for the dictator threatens to become a liability. Thus the standard sequence is for the Vatican to conclude a concordat with a dictator who is anxious for the legitimacy conferred by a concordat with the Holy See. Yet when his hold on power slips and it’s clear he’s soon going to be to be replaced by popular demand, the Church turns on him. To get more leverage with the impending new government and be seen as supporting the oppressed, the Church switches sides. It suddenly remembers the dictaor’s atrocities and issues grave warnings from pulpits across the land. This happened in their declining days to Spain’s Franco, Haiti’s Duvalier, the Dominican Republic’s Trujillo, Argentina’s Juan Peron, Venezuela’s Marcos Perez Jimenez and Colombia’s Gustavo Rojas Pinilla. [5] Of course, when the Vatican turns on its concordat partners it does not renounce the concordats, as well. Long after the rightwing dictators have been deposed, these remain.
With leftwing dictatorships the relationship was less cosy. The Church opposed Socialism and Communism from very early on, long before the Soviets came to power and began abusing people. [6] This fact suggests that the Church objected to Marxism, not because it was against oppression, but because it wanted to check any competing ideology, especially one which was hostile to religion.
However, the Vatican still wanted to find out what was going on and exercise what influence it could and thus it arranged a modus vivendi — a working agreement — with the various Communist regimes of Eastern Europe. This was a kind of diplomatic note lacking the full force of an international treaty, (which is what a concordat purports to be). The modus vivendi acted to secure whatever could be got, it kept the lines of communication open and yet it withheld the diplomatic recognition conferred by a concordat. The modus vivendi was intended as a stopgap until a leftwing regime collapsed. Then the Vatican could offer a new and more compliant successor the prospect of international recognition and the stabilising support of the Church — at a price — the price of a concordat.

Note on the picture of boots: These seem a better symbol of modern Fascism than the traditional “fasces“. Springer boots, originally for paratroopers, have thick soles to absorb the shock of landing. Neo-Nazis use them to absorb the shock to their feet of treading on their victims.
1. Jean Meslier (1664-1729), Mémoire contre la religion. (The original title was: Mémoire des pensées et des sentiments de Jean Meslier, prêtre, curé d’Étrépigny et de Balaives, sur une partie des erreurs et des abus de la conduite et du gouvernement des hommes où l’on voit des démonstrations claires et évidentes de la vanité et de la fausseté de toutes les divinités et de toutes les religions du monde pour être adressé à ses paroissiens après sa mort, et pour leur servir de témoignage de vérité à eux, et à tous leurs semblables.)
2. Francis Xavier Wernz, SJ, Jus Decretalium I, 166, (Rome, 1905).
3. Muriel Fraser, “Vatican anti-Judaism versus Nazi anti-Semitism: a subtle theological distinction“, National Secular Society Newsline, 21 July 2006.
4. Marius Heuser and Peter Schwarz, “Pope John Paul II: a political obituary”, World Socialist Web Site, 6 April 2005. The article continues:
In the course of his first visit to Nicaragua in 1983, John Paul II publicly reprimanded the priest Ernesto Cardenal who, together with two other priests, held ministerial posts in the Sandinista government. In 1995, during another visit to Nicaragua, the pope condemned the Iglesia Popular (People’s Church) and what he called the mistaken ecumenism “of Christians engaged in the revolutionary process.” At the same time, he elevated the right-wing archbishop and bitter opponent of the Sandinistas, Miguel Obando y Bravo, to the post of cardinal.
Numerous liberation theologians were sacked from their posts by John Paul II and replaced by conservative bishops or priests. Writes François Houtard in Le Monde Diplomatique: “Grass roots church groups which had come into being in South America characterised by autonomy and the protection of the interests of the poor were isolated and even destroyed in some cases. Priests who sided with them were removed and forbidden access to community facilities, and occasionally new groups were set up under the same name…”
At the same time, supporters of right-wing dictatorships ascended to the highest offices of the Church. The papal nuncio to the Argentine military dictatorship, Pio Laghi, and the nuncio to the Chilean military dictatorship, Angelo Sodano, are today both cardinals.
Sodano had praised Pinochet’s despotic and murderous rule in Chile with the words: “Masterpieces can also have small errors. I would advise you not to dwell on the errors of the painting, but concentrate on the marvellous general impression.” When an arrest warrant for Pinochet was issued in 1998 while the former dictator was in London, the pope himself publicly supported the Chilean fascist general.

5. “Bishops’ Warning“, Time, 15 February 1960.
6. David Ranan, Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church, (Theo Press, 2000), p. 18.
Perspectives: The Second Coming of papal politics
Christoph Prantner of Der Standard offers this view from Austria, which has long experience of Church involvement in politics. The debate about Islam, he says, is also reviving political Catholicism. In Madrid, Paris and Rome the boundaries between church and state are becoming blurred, raising the danger of a return to theological politics.
Christoph Prantner
“Perspektiven: Die Wiederkunft der Pfaffenpolitik”
Der Standard (Austria), 22 January 2008

“Today the Vatican bureaucracy is determined to reintroduce a centralised style of government that models itself, unwittingly or otherwise, on pre-Christian Roman imperialism, with the bishops as mere enforcers of policy, like provincial governors of old.
“Papal infallibility, recently invoked by Benedict XVI on the issue of women’s ordination, has given the successor of Peter an aura of divinity that is not dissimilar to the aims of the imperial cult honouring the divine Caesar: the intention, the language and the symbolism are all cut from the same cloth; Roma locuta est, causa finita est, (Rome has spoken, the case is closed.)”

— Dr Seán Freyne, professor (emeritus) of theology at Trinity College Dublin, 2012

It’s beginning to look as if we’ve gone back to the time of the political Reconquista: In Spain, France and Italy political Catholicism is being revived. Clerics are intervening unabashed in politics, politicians are cosying up to the True Faith – and doing it as a matter of course, in a way not seen for a long time in secular Europe. At the beginning of 2007, for instance, the bishops tangled with the ruling Socialists over their family politics. The Spanish Church showed ill-concealed sympathy with the opposition Partido Popular a few weeks before the parliamentary elections in March 2007. Cardinal Antonio Canizares, vice president of the Spanish Bishops Conference even accused the government of Zapatero in front of 160,000 archconservative demonstrators of “threatening democracy with their radical secularism”. [1]
Clouds of incense
Meanwhile on a visit to pope Benedict XVI and also in his New Year’s address Nicholas Sarkozy was so caught up in religious rapture that some French citizens began to fear that under their quasi-born-again President the secular state could disappear in a cloud of incense. He had said that only believers can have hope. And that every civilisation is based on something religious and that God is a bulwark against – of all things – arrogance and madness.
And finally, in Rome the Church is making it clear that nothing can be done against its will. When it comes down to it, the political agents of the Vatican don’t hesitate for a moment to have the government of the liberal Catholic stalwart Romano Prodi overturned. At one time ex-EU Minister Rocco Buttiglione boasted about having direct access to Carol Wojtyla at all times. Today ex-Justice Minister Clement Mastella bows eagerly before the papal throne.
“Mariazell Manifesto”
It was not until 1952, through the Mariazell Manifesto, that the Catholic Church [gave up its claim to being the national church and] brought to an end the ill-fated political Catholicism (For example, Prelate Ignaz Seipel as Chancellor.) [This was the “Roman Catholic priest, twice chancellor of Austria (1922–24 and 1926–29), whose use of the Fascist paramilitary Heimwehr in his struggle against Austria’s Social Democrats led to a strengthening of Fascism in his country.”] [2]
In the worldwide Catholic Church there is nothing else that explicit. It’s true that the Viennese theologian Paul Zulehner refers to the Second Vatican Council, according to which the Church is to be “political, but not politicised in the sense of party politics”. However, others interpret this as mainly an attempt on the part of John XXIII to limit the damage from the close relationship to the Nazis cultivated by his predecessor Pius XII.
Why is this new offensive, this “Second Coming” of papal politics, coming just now? One factor is the debate about Islam in the last few years. Those who want to argue against terrorists inspired by Islam — like President Nicholas Sarkozy in his most recent speeches — fall back, without thinking, on “Christian values”. That, of course, encourages the churchmen. […]
Whenever politics becomes a matter of religion — as it is with the Islamicists — the field of action is dramatically narrowed. This is because religious demands are non-negotiable.
This may not worry people with a terrorist’s view of politics. It should, however, concern the Catholic Church which is still committed to the rationalist tradition of Europe. Luckily, in addition to this there are still enlightened citizens — and not only in Spain, France and Italy — who after centuries under the power of the Church no longer wish to rely on the blessings of its wisdom.

[1] A later charge of Cardinal Canizares, reported on 14 January 2008, is that “The Government intends to transmit a radical secular vision of man which gives no importance to God”.
[2] “Ignaz Seipel”, Encyclopedia Britannica.

Honest George Washington

September 24, 2016

What is the Illuminati? It is simply levels of initiation by degrees in free masonic enlightenment. G.W. was one of the boys.

George Washington’s Division Of States Into Districts And Myths About His Loyalty
March 10, 2016 by Rattler Rider

People that believe in patriotic myths need to read what George Washington actually declared, I did not declare it, I did not write it, so I do not have anything backwards. The myth believers have been taught the opposite of what he declared and acted on.

First of all, the Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the federal government could use the militias to crush the tax protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington’s order. Washington said he was dividing the United States into District States. He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE STATES, not creating districts in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you would not DIVIDE THEM, because the states were already divided.

How can you DIVIDE, SEPARATE the states, made by the state and federal Charters/Constitutions? Why do this when Congress already had the power to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution? This was an excuse to DIVIDE the states into DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia/Congress and delegating to the President, authority given to Congress to suppress insurrection, under Art. I, sec. 8.

Secondly, the use of any military power before Congress declares war, by direction of the President is done by him as Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stop the President unless they impeach him, or when they declare war they can stop the President with their power of the purse, unless the President were to then declare a national emergency, as Commander-in-Chief, overriding Congress, in effect declaring himself king, or in our case anyone holding that office, which we now have. I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergency powers claimed by the President, but unless the Judiciary declares the President out of line, you or I cannot change this, unless you or I were elected President, and declared this power un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to protect public policy.

Around and Around it goes.

Again this power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction, insular capacity, see DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), which was allowed by the Judiciary, beginning with what Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare what Congress was doing as un-Constitutional, and up to Washington to not take power delegated to Congress. This power was affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the 1850’s by the insular cases. This set the stage for Lincoln to begin the executive orders, and here we are.

Third, the Districts Washington created answered directly to the Commander-in-Chief, not Congress. In order for these Districts to be created by the President, Congress had to give the President power outside of the Constitution, as declared by Washington himself. Martial law can be used as soon as the military is called upon to put down insurrection or fight a war. Washington created District States, not state districts, and the military occupied the Pennsylvania District until the insurgents went home, Washington said these Districts were created for putting down the rebellion, however they were never disbanded when the rebellion ended.

Below you will see how Lincoln codified the war powers. You can download the whole general order 100, Martial Law – Military jurisdiction – Military necessity – Retaliation;

“Article 1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.
Art. 2. Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

Art. 3. Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.”

{Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General’s Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office.}

“The first use of the Emergency and War Power Act was by George Washington in 1791. Washington used the Emergency Power portion of the Act. This was to enable Washington, at Hamilton’s insistence, to use an existing private bank, controlled by the Crown through its British Board of Trade, to become the first bank of the United States. Jefferson and two other men wrote constantly to Washington telling him that there was no such authority in the Constitution to create a bank. Neither Jefferson nor the other two men could sway Washington. Washington, using the Emergency Powers Act, went ahead and created the First Bank of the United States. Also at this time he overlaid the states into “districts of the United States.” He did this so that those state banks, who after the creation of the first Bank, were forced to contract with the First Bank in New York so they could continue to operate with United States money. Washington did this because the United States deposited all the money it collected into all the private banks in each of the states from before the Revolutionary war to the institution of the first Bank of the United States. The United States wanted to centralize all its accounts in this First Bank while allowing the hundreds of other banks scattered throughout all the states to continue to hold its money. This is much like the corporate takeovers of today, where a large bank absorbs small banks that continue to operate as satellite banks with all the accounts having to clear through the parent bank. This then allowed the foreign British controlled bank to more easily collect and pay back the debt owed the British Crown by the State and United States as was directed in Article VI of the United States Constitution.”—INFORMER

George Washington’s loyalty

“In May, 1775, Washington said: ‘If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure [as separation from Great Britain], you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked’- He also said: ‘It is not wish or interest of the government [meaning Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence’” Ingersoll, North American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in Sources of the Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis Stevens, 1927, page 36.

In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, 1789-1897 I discovered the following:

Gentlemen of the Senate:
Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled “An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same,” I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:
The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of the State of Georgia .Page 99 March 4, 1791

In George Washington’s Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he declares the district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further:

“And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States….”

This explains completely why after a short time in office Washington created federal District States for all the states.

The point being Congress outside their authority, extended and gave monarchial powers to the President of the United States, in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. One day after George Washington is given this authority, he declares the States are now controlled by the District State. This makes the State Courts, marshals, right down to the counties subject to the federal government. Because the District State was a overlay of State boundaries it removed the State borders, in violation of the Constitution wherein it is declared, the State are guaranteed a Republican form of government. Creation of the District States was and is a violation of the 1787 Constitution of the United States, and the trust it created. This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of ……This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of……, but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of….. was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. Washington extended this District without Constitutional authority. This is how Congress under Article 1, sec. 8.1 taxes everything. This why the Courts have said the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power.

Also, the counties and the sheriffs became subject to, and creations of the District States, Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the State Districts. As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, a tax was imposed on liqueur, and under direction of Washington the District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States.


Thanks go to James Montgomery and the INFORMER. And including those of us who took the time out of our personal lives to verify these facts.

Let Your Life Be A Friction Against The Machine

September 24, 2016

Written By A Real Man While In Jail

September 4, 2016


The cold reality of truth hits you when you see your freedom and liberty taken from you by reprobates. Reprobates abound in this country, so much so that they permeate the legislative, executive and judicial branches of an entity called government. Who are reprobates? All lawyers and the king and his congress or state legislators. The Almighty, called different names by various religions, asked the people why they wanted a king? After they gave their reasons He said fine, but you can’t have two masters so don’t expect anything from me. Well in today’s world the people’s king is the president of the United States. They had the governors of the states as their first king until the United States took control of the states and made them political subdivisions. The people, not all by the way, view the various kings with awe. They vote the governors and president into office at election time. They have no idea they are the chief executive officers (CEO) of a corporation, just like the CEO of General Motors. How can they be free when they elect the king and his knights (congress or legislatures of the states, who in turn dictate to the people what, when, where, and how to live their lives? They don’t tell the people why.

The people become slaves and peons to the corporation they vote into. They just can’t pull out like when they own stock in GM and call it in. It is different, because whom do the fall back on for their protection, other than themselves? Do they try to fall back on the Almighty? Yes, but what did the Almighty say 2000 years ago? Did you make your choice? Do you know why your prayers are not answered now? People want to be controlled because they would rather be secure, not take responsibility for their own lives. Now the king and his henchmen, which are the murderers and robber barons that Lysander Spooner talked about in his book, ” No Treason:

The Constitution of No Authority”; hide behind that “government” veil for protection and claim you owe your soul to support their greed. They claim to follow the bylaws of their constitutions and claim that the constitution is YOURS, the peoples.

Of course this is nonsense and an absurdity at its ultimate. It’s only yours if you join their commercial organization of law merchants. They tout that it protects you, but the cold hard reality hits home when you can’t do the simple things like work without a license (SSN), traveling without getting a license, getting married without a license, building a private home without a permit, or fixing that home without getting a permit, paying a rent tax on property they claim you own, but in reality they do, just to name a few.

This corporation of CEO’s, kings if you will, control Grand juries and their own courts. There is no such thing as the private people’s courts wherein justice can be obtained. There are no courts for the people of America to protect their rights given to them by the Almighty. Why? Because they wanted another master,which turns out to be a commercial entity called government with their king president and/or governors. When the Constitution for the United States was created by those select few wanting to take control of the States, Patrick Henry said he was no longer a Virginian but only an American, see 1788 Virginia Debates.

I have been in the trenches for 10 years, on the front lines for 5 years. The only thing I have learned is that there is no foundational stability in the “patriot” movement. By that I mean, and the following questions has to lead into it because most all “patriots” understand this part. The non patriot does not.

1.What are the two most important commandants that the others are based upon?
2.Have you elected someone to take control over your life by representation?
3.Did you vote for the corporate CEO of a State?
4.Did you vote for the CEO of the main headquarters located in the city of Washington, D.C.?
5.Do you know that even your county government is a political commercial subdivision of the state?
6.Do you have control over your neighbors property?
7.Can you limit his freedoms to work, travel and the like? 8.Does he have the same, if any, control over you?
9.Have you elected someone in government, whether Federal, State, County or town to control his life?
10.Why have you voted for a group of men in the county that have taken control over your neighbors property by taxing his land?
11.Have you read II Kings 23:32, 33?
12.Do you really know what the real reason the States and United States were created?
13.For your protection?
14.When your freedoms are taken, how is that protection? Think again!
15.When was the first time you ever thought and answered these question and had not done any research other than what other people have told you?

Putting all the yeses and no’s together, side by side, how did you fare? If the yes outnumbered the no’s, then why complain your rights have been taken? You got what you deserved when choosing a new master over the Almighty. If the no’s outnumbered the yes’s, then you are screwed by mob rule of democracy and there is nothing you can do about it. You will never win in the lawyer-merchant courts. That is the cold hard reality, believe me, I am living proof of that, as are thousands, if not millions of others in my position that the CEO’s underlings have persecuted.

Grand Jury protection? Lets get real, as the many case law and state attorneys general will tell you, the Grand Jury is an arm of the court and controlled by the courts so the other reprobates, the prosecutors, can use it as their tool. This is why you can’t get into a Grand Jury hearing to protect yourself. This hearing is nothing more than a probable cause hearing controlled by the executive branch lawyer prosecutor. The Attorney General of South Carolina told a man that in order for him to present a case to the State Grand Jury, he must first apply to the prosecutor to decide whether the complaint is worthy of presenting. This is not the people’s Grand Jury, it is the commercial State’s Grand Jury. Are you people, who are not “patriots”, starting to see that YOU are the PROBLEM. Here is a case that states; “Grand Jury exercises broad investigative powers and generally has both right and duty to procure every man’s evidence.”

In re: Grand Jury, 821 F2d 946, since the very purpose of the Grand Jury is to ascertain probable cause, Blair v. U.S., 250 U.S. at 282. If you are considered “every man,” why can’t you appear at a grand jury investigating you? Because the kings you elected into office usurped power and decreed you lost your rights to present exculpatory evidence. You have a new master. This goes against what the court stated in Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390, “Certainly the most celebrated function of the grand jury is to stand between the government and the citizen, and thereby protect the latter from harassment and unfounded prosecution.” I believe in Hale v. Hinkle, 201 U.S. at 61, they said that your kings have “destroy[ed] the proper functioning of the grand jury, as it is to be the servant of neither the government, nor the courts, but of the people.”

People, come on, use some logic. This can and has happened because YOU, the masses of asses voted your new master into office and allowed the king and his henchmen, all the way down to the county level, to sell you out to a greater king called the United Nations. This was done with the express cooperation of the reprobates (every member of the private bar assoc.) from 1947 to present. This allowed your vote to be used against you to be involved in a joint venture with other nations kings. Don’t you just love what you did? I’m talking mostly to those who are not in my choir and patriots that love to be citizens (stockholders) of the commercial establishments called states. Now it is simple logic that tells you that if you are all of the same persuasion, you all can sit on the Grand or Petit Jury against other law merchant peers and can do secret hearings against them so they don’t destroy your scam to control others that are not of your persuasion, HUH?

Now your representatives you elected can and have the right under YOUR by laws that you consented to at Article I, section 2, clause 3, to tax you and the same goes for the states. Representation and taxation goes together and you voluntarily consented. Just like the First Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that ALL jurisdiction is based upon consent. For the life of me, I still cannot understand why “patriots” still insist on becoming stockholders (citizens of) a particular commercial organization (state), when Patrick Henry refused to claim to be a citizen of the state of Virginia. He was a true Patriot, if that’s what you want to label him. Didn’t you voters join a “political party?” Have you ever read Albert J Nock’s “Our Enemy the State?” Didn’t he say the “political body” destroys rights and is not designed to protect rights? I think you better read it to get some foundational basis for “political body.”

Land: Who provided the land you live on in the first place, those previous people elected into office? Try reading the Bible, again II Kings. Do your kings claim you owe them and their henchmen a tax to live on their land? Yup, they sure do because you consented to a new master who usurped the real master’s position. Try reading Deuteronomy 17:14 to 20. What law should a king use according to scripture? Does your king abide by this Bible verse? Who took the land He gave you to live upon and claimed you owed “them” a tax? Who is “them?” Who voted “them” into office? Why? If you didn’t vote “them” into office but your next door neighbor did, why did you allow him to hire thugs to steal your property when individually neither he nor you can? Did you vote “them” into office so you could steal your neighbor’s property (money, etc.) to offset some debt “them” created for your welfare? If you did, then by your consent, freely given that you are the citizen (stockholder) who elected the CEO of the commercial political body to do as they wish to protect and support the commercial law merchant establishment at your and his expense. Just like the CEO of GM has to protect the corporation at the expense of the individual stockholder, even to the confiscation of some stock by manipulating stock buyouts. This is called inflation to control the citizen stockholder.

The real people who created this monstrosity called the states and United States, the law merchants, wrote the bylaws (constitutions) so that the law merchants would not be allowed to encroach upon non law merchants. As you can see, law merchants are crafty people. Look at used car salesmen and lawyers. If they can coerce or intimidate you into buying or using their services it is caveat emptor. If the king CEO and his henchmen (congress and legislators of states) can convince you that you are part of their system and you consent, so be it. Oh, they say, it’s your duty to vote! Why don’t you just come down to register? It’s so easy and you would keep our party in power. We can’t let the other side win and take away your rights, now can we? AHHH, shrewd criminals, aren’t they. Remember, there was only one group of people and no “parties” in the beginning. Parties make no difference when the same commercial organization is to create debt.

SO, you want justice? If you believe that the people in general created the constitutions, (you do believe in Santa don’t you?) then “we” have the right to form our own Grand Jury of America, indict the reprobates from the CEO all the way down to the lowly scum of the earth that the Almighty wished seven Woe’s upon, the judges/lawyer merchants, and take back our country. We need the militia to be the equivalent of the U.S. Marshals, which, by the way is a private concern like the IRS, to enforce the arrest and trial of the usurpers and tyrants in our, the people’s court under the law of the Almighty, Deut. 17:14. Kick out the United Nations. Create our own banks as was done in 1841 and 1846 to deal in real substance and totally control corporations that left this country and want to come back in when we start to prosper. KEEP THE INCOME TAX!

What, you say? That’s right it is a corporate income tax for those people who want limited liability to do business under license. After all how would this country and its law merchants survive in a commercial world? Put those on notice, the CEO and all those under him and Congress and State legislators that any more encroachments on the Liberty and Freedom of a private man would be treason and subject to either the death penalty or banishment from this country after all his possessions and wealth have been taken from him. Now, don’t you think that will keep them on the straight and narrow?

Oh, one thing more, no lawyers allowed in the congress or legislature, and none allowed in the executive branch of government. Furthermore, the violation of the practice of law be abolished. The next friend could represent you in OUR courts, which would be separate from the law merchants courts they have today.
The great writ of Habeas Corpus would be set up to assure it works. Judges would not have to be lawyers, just like it was in the old days of logic and common sense. The bane of mankind has always been lawyers, See Matthew 23 and Luke 11:27 to 54. As Bastiat said let’s try freedom for a change, by limiting congress and legislators of states to two terms maximum at the mean average income of the American worker. That way they have to suffer with the laws they write as their only job is to protect this country from foreign invasion and from domestic invasion. We have been subjected to domestic invasion from foreign operatives.

It is not a life time job to legislate no matter how good they seem to be. Plus they get no retirement, they go back out on the street and get a job like the rest of us. Now let’s touch briefly the great writ of habeas corpus. It is not what people in the patriot community thinks it is. It does not get you out of jail in three days or even twenty days. Generally those applying for writs of habeas fail. From 1947 to 1957 only 1.4% were successful. You can check this out in the case of Fay v Noia, 83 S.Ct. 822 (1963) which is one of the leading cases referred to in other cases. In most cases, if you were fortunate to be one of the 1.4% to win the release, it will not be immediate. The lawyer merchants have seen to it that the Federal District Courts will permit the State courts an opportunity to correct the constitutional error found by the District Court. Typically the district court will order the State court to retry you within a specific time frame and at the end of that time if they don’t, then you are set free. Not what you thought it to be, is it? The way the courts work it could take months to upwards of two years. So forget about the great writ helping you. I know first hand what they can do and the above is correct as it happened to me and others I have come to know. You stand a better chance on appeal in their state appellate courts. How much better? Maybe 1.8%, but I’ll go 2% to be safe.

What do you want people, cold hard reality or nice mushy lip service of what things ought to be? Even when I filed a 28 USC 1651 writ that does not require exhaustion of state remedies, the Federal Court still insisted on using a 28 USC 2254, even though I was not a state prisoner, not yet even to trial, and when convicted they still used 2254 even though I was not sentenced. I was in physical custody, but that is NOT required for a habeas. You can be on parole, 371 US 236; at large on ROR pending sentencing, 411 US 345; released on bail pending final disposition, 95 S.Ct. 886; or on probation, 372 F2d 641.

The real question is how much restraint of one’s Liberty is necessary before the right to apply for the writ is required. Remember, your failure to raise terms of federal constitutional questions can constitute a procedural default as only federal constitutional rights violated can apply to a habeas, Murry v Carrier, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2547-2648 (1986). The king you elected controls everything. I even used the Magna Charta in a case and lost. The adversaries attorney commented to another attorney by letter, of which I have a copy, stating “So much for the Magna Charta.” Well, what did you expect from law merchant reprobates? Today the king you elected has abdicated his office and allowed one of his henchmen to take over. That is the governor of the International Monetary Fund doing business as the Secretary of the Treasury. This office holder, Robert Rubin, is the knight of the real king, the United Nations controlled by the World Bank owners. Who are they? The money changers!

Well what else do you want to hear, that He, the Almighty will come down and rapture you out of the mess YOU created by electing kings and joining their baal? Read Daniel 3:1 to 13. Let’s face it, that is cold hard reality, and those “patriots” that really know what is going on, don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell to correct it on winning in “THEM’S” courts. Never forget this people of minds like mine, all courts in this country ARE THEIR’S, they are NOT YOURS by any stretch of the imagination just like the constitution is not yours.

Lysander Spooner in a letter to Thomas F. Bayard in 1882, May 22, expressing the Constitution this way, which “THEM” can’t, by any stretch of sophistry deny;

“. . .for what is the Constitution? It is at best, a writing that was drawn up more than ninety years ago: was assented to at the time only by a small number of men: . . .Those men have long since been dead. They never had any right of arbitrary dominion over even their contemporaries; and they never had any over us. Their wills or wishes have no more rightful authority over us, than have the wills or wishes of men who lived before the flood. They never personally signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered, the instrument which they imposed upon the country as law. They never, in any open and authentic manner, bound even themselves to obey it, or made themselves personally responsible for the acts of their so-called agents under it. They had no natural right to impose it, as law, upon a single human being. The whole proceeding was pure usurpation. In practice, the Constitution has been an utter fraud from the beginning. Professing to have been `ordained and established’ by `we the people of the United States,’ it has never been submitted to them as individuals, for their voluntary acceptance or rejection.”

The final conclusion is stated by Bastiat in The Law;

“God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works.”

Forget about 1983 actions, torts and the like as they are for those slaves involved in the system. Until we have formed our own courts of justice we will never prevail against the system. You can only use their courts to prevail against another slave.

The cold hard reality is that we have only two choices. ONE, form our own courts and police officers, which would be the militia, to enforce the rulings.TWO, follow what Thomas Jefferson had to say, “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion … And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. … The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

And implement what Madison had to say in Federalist Paper #28. The Declaration of Independence rules over that miserable commercial document called the Constitution and spells out number two’s choice in its second paragraph. Forget about the masses of asses who will scream you are the anarchists when overthrowing the constitution. In reality you are NOT overthrowing the constitution, you are getting rid of scummy reprobates that have already overthrown the constitution that is to keep “THEM” in check. Don’t even think about doing it individually, because collectively we don’t have six million people with conviction to oust the reprobate usurpers. This is the five percent of the population that equates to the five percent that fought the revolutionary war. But remember, then the enemy was an ocean away. Today you elected “THEM” into your back yard. Disgusting set of circumstances you put yourself into, HUH? And you, average Mr. and Mrs. America, are dragging the rest of us down with you. Again read Daniel 3. So, elect your king by voting them back into office so you can say, as you complain and grovel before them when you are forced to pay your “fair share” into the communistic takeover, Hail to the one world order.

Have a rotten day.
Written by the Informer, in September, while in jail

George Washington’s Loyalty Was To The King Of England

September 1, 2016

“In May, 1775, Washington said: ‘If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure [as separation from Great Britain], you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked’- He also said: ‘It is not wish or interest of the government [meaning Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence’” Ingersoll, North American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in Sources of the Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis Stevens, 1927, page 36.
In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, 1789-1897 I discovered the following:
Gentlemen of the Senate:

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled “An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same,” I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:

The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of the State of Georgia .Page 99 March 4, 1791

In George Washington’s Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he declares the district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further:

“And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States….”

This explains completely why after a short time in office Washington created federal District States for all the states. The point being Congress outside their authority, extended and gave monarchial powers to the President of the United States, in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. One day after George Washington is given this authority, he declares the States are now controlled by the District State. This makes the State Courts, marshals, right down to the counties subject to the federal government. Because the District State was a overlay of State boundaries it removed the State borders, in violation of the Constitution wherein it is declared, the State are guaranteed a Republican form of government. Creation of the District States was and is a violation of the 1787 Constitution of the United States, and the trust it created. This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of ……This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of……, but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of….. was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were
now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. Washington extended this District without Constitutional authority.

This is how Congress under Article 1, sec. 8.1 taxes everything. This why the Courts have said the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power.

Also, the counties and the sheriffs became subject to, and creations of the District States, Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the State Districts. As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, a tax was imposed on liqueur, and under direction of Washington the District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States. THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED.

James Montgomery

When Was State Sovereignty Lost?

September 1, 2016


I must start out with this prelude after writing the article below on sovereignty loss. I realized that people have not understanding of sovereignty and others that still control this land and people. This is similar to the Wizard of Oz after the curtain was lifted to just who the Wizard was. The curtain has not been lifted enough for the people of America to see.

To be absolutely correct on sovereignty, the people of 1776 to the present, have never been sovereign, period. Because the United States is a controlled corporation of the Crown, the people could never have been sovereign. All the people did, after the so-called revolutionary war, was trade the Corporation of England to be controlled by the Corporation of the States. These were plantation colonies of the Crown in corporate structure before the planned war. Those agents of the Crown, the founding father lawyers, controlled by the middle and inner temples of the Crown, took control of the states (colonies) in the 1787 contract/covenant/constitution. So technically and legally, and even lawfully, the common people like you and I have never been sovereign.

Think about it and reflect on what I say. When Governor Caswell of north Carolina immediately eliminated the quit rent tax of the Crown and laid a property tax on the people and land, after becoming the first Governor, how on earth were the people sovereign? If they were sovereign there would be no way to lay a property tax and take that property if the people did not pay this tax. This happened in every state at that time, proving people were still controlled and were not sovereign. The article below was written with the mindset that all people have an understanding that the myth of sovereignty existed in this country for the common people.

When was State Sovereignty Lost?

The real beginnings of the demise of State sovereignty was 1787 with the erection of the US Constitution. The 1791 debacle of Washington was the second attack and the third started in earnest circa 1819 with the Bank case of McCulloch v Maryland. You have to know that Justice Marshall was a major stock holder in that bank with 7700 shares and was declared a A foreign stockholder.” Yes, he was a Federal US judge and “citizen” of the U.S., but the bank was the foreign controlled Exchequer of England. That’s why he was deemed a A foreign stockholder.” To rule contrary to his decision would have put his stock in peril. Money rules, correct? It does today and it did then.

Eastern and Northern States almost unanimously praised the decision of McCulloch. On the other hand, the papers of the States upholding the theories of Jefferson and the strict States’ Rights doctrines bitterly assailed it. Niles’ Register of March 13 said:

“A deadly blow has been struck at the Sovereignty of the States, and from a quarter so far removed from the people as to be hardly accessible to public opinion….We are awfully impressed with a conviction that the welfare of the Union has received a more dangerous wound than fifty Hartford Conventions, hateful as that assemblage was, could inflict . . . and which may be wielded to destroy the whole revenues and so do away with the Sovereignties of the States.” The Richmond Enquirer said: “If such a spirit as breathes on this opinion is forever to preside over the judiciary, then indeed it is high time for the State to tremble; that all their great rights may be swept away one by one, that those sovereign States may dwindle into paltry and contemptible corporations.”

{{{“This opinion in the Bank case continues to be denounced by the democracy in Virginia. An effort is certainly making to induce the Legislature which will meet in December, to take up the subject and to pass resolutions very like those which were called forth by the alien and sedition laws in I799 ….If the principles which have been advanced on this occasion were to prevail, the constitution would be converted into the old Confederation.”—Chief Justice Marshall wrote to Judge Story, May 27, 1819}}}

Please note above that the states were corporations, not that they were going to be. They were corporations of the Crown in the newly formed King’s government named the States and United States. They were absorbed under the U.S. Constitution and became members of the Motherland corporation. This goes with exactly what was stated in James Montgomery’s works on the Crown controlling. Wizard, if you so wish to see after the curtain raising.

In 1821, the great question of State Sovereignty was again the important subject before the Court; and on March 3-5 Marshall rendered his opinion in Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton, 264), reaffirming the supreme power of the Court to review The real beginnings of the demise of State sovereignty was 1787 with the decisions of the State courts in criminal as well as civil proceedings. Philip P. Barbour I and Alexander Smythe appeared for the State of Virginia, and William Pinkney and David B. Ogden for the plaintiff.

The decision caused much excitement in the newspapers of the country, and was bitterly attacked by the upholders of States’ Rights in letters and speeches. Niles’ Register said, March 17, 1821:

“The decision was exactly such as expected for we presumed that that high tribunal would act consistently and on the termination of the case about the bank of the United States, McCulloch v. Maryland, we had no manner of doubt as to the result . . . and that the State Sovereignty would be taught to bow to the judiciary-of the United States. So we go. It seems as if almost everything that occurs had for its tendency that which every reflecting man deprecates.” On July 7, 1821, Niles’ Register said:

“The decision . . . still claims the attention Of some of our ablest writers, and the correctness of it is contested with a fine display of talents and profound reasoning by `Algeron Sidney’ in the ‘Richmond Enquirer and Hampden’ in the Washington City Gazette – – to which we refer those who are not already satisfied on the subject. For ourselves, though not exactly prepared to submit, it seems as if it were required that all who do not subscribe to their belief in the infallibility of that court are in danger of political excommunication.” Of the criticism on the case, Marshall wrote to Story, June 15, 1821:

“The opinion of the Supreme Court in the lottery case has been assailed with a degree of virulence transcending what has appeared on former occasions . . . I think for coarseness and malignity of invention Algernon Sidney [Spencer Roane, Judge of the Virginia Court of Errors and Appeals] surpasses all party writers who have ever made pretensions to any decency of character.”

Corruption of the courts ran rampant then as it does now, only not quite as bad as now; see the next case. You can also see that Washington was a corporation then, as it always has been via the Crown’s control. This just bears out what James has and I have, on the corporate structure, via our researched documents. Jefferson’s views of the opinion were vigorously expressed by him two years later in a letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823:

“On the decision of Cohens v. State of Virginia in the Supreme Court of the United States in March, 1821, Judge Roane (presiding judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia) under the signature of Algernon Sidney wrote for the Enquirer a series of papers on the law of that case. I considered these papers maturely as they came out, and confess that they appeared to me to pulverize every word that had been delivered by Judge Marshall of the extra-judicial part of his opinion, and all was extra-judicial, except the decision that the act of Congress had not purported to give to the corporation of Washington the authority claimed by their lottery of controlling the laws of the States within the States themselves.

“The practice of Judge Marshall of traveling out of his case to prescribe what the law would be in a moot case not before the court is very irregular and very censurable.” The most alarming effect of the opposition to the strong centralizing tendency of the Supreme Court opinions was the steady increase of propositions to limit the powers of that Court by legislation or constitutional amendment. Those who favored such measures pointed to the fact that between 1809 and 1822 the Court had exercised its power to declare unconstitutional, in whole or in part, nine statutes in eight States (Georgia, New Jersey, Virginia, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Louisiana and Pennsylvania).

Jefferson wrote, January 19, 1821:

“I am sensible of the inroads daily making by the Federal into the jurisdiction of its co-ordinate associates, the State governments. Its legislative and executive branches may sometimes err, but elections and dependence will bring them to rights. The judiciary branch is the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us at last into one consolidated mass.” On September 2, 1821, he wrote: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, is very dangerous doctrine indeed and on which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is ‘boni judices est amplifcare jurisdictionem,’ and their power the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible as the other functionaries are to the elective control.

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to The real beginnings of the demise of State sovereignty was 1787 with the ..whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” Well, this is a revelation for those of you that just love the Supreme Court in all it’s corruption. We researchers have known this for a long time and they have become despots as have all other bar member judges.On December 25, 1820, Jefferson had written to Thomas Ritchie:

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone …. Having found from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scare-crow, they consider themselves secure for life; they skulk from responsibility to public opinion, the only remaining hold on them, under a practice first introduced into England by Lord Mansfield. An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge who sophisticates the law to his mind by the turn of his own reasoning.

A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” See Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol X, pp. 169, 184, 197, 246. And again, on March 4, 1823, he wrote:

“There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government, by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court.” Already in 1807-1809, soon after the Burr trial, attempts had been made in each branch of Congress to amend the Constitution so that all judges should hold office for a term of years and be removable by the President on address by two-thirds of both Houses. This proposition was supported by resolves of the Legislatures of Pennsylvania and Vermont, as well as by the actions of the House of Delegates in Virginia and one branch of the legislature of Tennessee.. Well there you have it, the board of directors of the corporations of Washington and States are just doing what corporate officers want
Now comes the proof as to why you all are part of these corporations that James and I have stated over and over – – that citizenship is the bane of man, whether state or United States. Go ahead and vote . But, as Lysander Spooner said, it is a vote thrown to the winds and also snares you into their corporation as you vote for the CEO of that corporation as a “stockholder.

If you don’t believe me read on and you make the decision because corporate citizenship did not start with the 14th amendment, much to your surprise. One other decision of the United States Supreme Court during this period had immense effect on the growth of modern corporate commerce. From 1809 to 1844, it had been held by that Court, ever since the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux (5 Cranch, 61), that the Federal Courts had no jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship, in a case where a corporation was a party, unless all the individual stockholders of the corporation were citizens of a State other than that of the other party to the suit. Such a doctrine of course greatly restricted the rights of a corporation to sue in a Federal Court, and made such suit almost impossible. In 1844, however, in Louisville R. R v. Letson (2 Howard, 497) Chief Justice Taney delivered an opinion, taking the broad ground that a corporation, although an artificial person, was to be deemed an inhabitant of the State of its incorporation, and to be treated as a citizen of that State for purposes of suit. Of this case, Judge Story, wrote to Ex-Chancellor Kent, August 3I, I844:

“I equally rejoice, that the Supreme Court has at last come to the conclusion, that a corporation is a citizen, an artificial citizen, I agree, but still a citizen. It gets rid of a great anomaly in our jurisprudence. This was always Judge Washington’s opinion. I have held the same opinion for very many years, and Mr. Chief Justice Marshall had, before his death, arrived at the conclusion, that our early decisions were wrong.” Now remember people, the states and United States are corporations as stated above. An inhabitant is a resident — is a citizen of that corporation and deemed an artificial character. Just look at the case of the United States v Penelope, Fed. Case 27 no. 16024 in my book The New History of America, page 69.

“Inhabitant” and “resident” mean the same thing so said the court. Now you ask how did I become an artificial? By joint venture. This is also found in my New History at pages 10, 11, 21, 31,46, 47, 56, 69, 70, 75 and 90 because it is the lynchpin to your problems. Pull the N.C. Supreme court case 207 N.C. 831; 178 S.E. 587. In here is the explanation as to why they can tax you. In 1853, in Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio R. R. (16 Howard, 314) it was held that there was a conclusive presumption The real beginnings of the demise of State sovereignty was 1787 with the …of law that allthe shareholders were citizens of the State of incorporation; and this was further strengthened by a decision in 1857, in Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd (20 Howard, 227) that parties were to be held estopped from denying such citizenship.

Although talking about railroad the same principle applies to states. As stated above, irrefutably, Washington is a corporation and has citizens. States are corporations and have citizens. Are you a citizen of either? Are you then in a “joint venture”? Do you claim to be a “resident” or “inhabitant?” Are you then a “person” by association with either corporation? Is this word in the definition of 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (1)? Therefore, under this principle a “U.S. citizen” is a citizen of the incorporating United States and that is why in 26 U.S.C 7701 (a) 39 it states what it does.

Are you starting to get the picture? Not quite? Well read this as printed in my book. Under “joint-venture” principle all people who are “citizens of the State” are United States citizens, and are in contract with the State in its corporate capacity. Therefore, if and when they buy property privately from the United States it does revert back to the State. They are only holding the property of the State in a fiduciary capacity paying rent in the form of an ad valorem tax. This is where the government has conned us again. It is a vicious cycle. Therefore, the U.S. can tax the fiduciary holding State property because they are citizens, or joint-venturers, with the State in its corporate capacity. This is because the states are nothing more than “Districts” of the U.S. [as stated in my book when quoting the 1868 Inaugural address of Governor Holden of north Carolina at page 10] and due to the War Powers Act they are also “agents of the federal government.” This was discovered by Dr. Eugene Schroder in the “Health and Human Service Acts” of the states. This allows the U.S. to seek out and tax its subjects, people claiming “citizenship” of the state, for they are also U.S. citizens by congress’ definition of “individual,” See 5 USC 552a A 2. Definition of Joint venture found in N.C. Supreme court case 207 N.C. 831; 178 S.E. 587 “In order to constitute a joint venture, a joint enterprise, or common purpose there must be an agreement [your claim of citizenship and/or registering to vote for the CEO] to enter into an undertaking in respect of which the parties have a community of interest and a common purpose for its performance. [don’t all citizens have a common interest?]
* * *

There is no legal distinction between the phrases `joint enterprise’ and `prosecution of a common purpose.’ The effect of the formation of a joint enterprise is to make all members responsible for the negligence of any member available who injures a third person and to make the negligence of any member available as a defense by a third person to a recovery by another member.” [does this sound like social security?] End of quoting my book at page 10 and 11. These decisions not only opened the door wide to interstate commerce by corporations, but they were of vast importance in breaking down the barriers sought to be erected by the political supporters of the narrow States’ Rights doctrines, and in increasing the strength of the Federal power.

In one direction, the great growth of corporations made necessary the development of a branch of corporate law to which little attention had hitherto been paid — the limits of the scope of corporate action and the doctrine of ultra vires. As stated in the preface to the first book on this subject,

Brice on Ultra Vires published in 1874, it is said:

“The doctrine of ultra virus is of modern growth. Its appearance as a distinct fact and as a guiding and rather misleading principle in the legal system of this country dates from about 1845, being first prominently mentioned in the cases, in equity of Colman v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (10 Beavan, 1) in 1846, and at law of East Anglian Ry. Co. v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (11 C. B. 775) in 1851.” In the United States Supreme Court, however, in 1858, it was referred to as “not a new principle in the jurisprudence of this Court.”

For interesting articles on this subject see A Legal Fiction with its Wings Clipped, by S. E. Baldwin, in Amer. Law Review, Vol. XLI (1907). Abrogation of Federal Jurisdiction, by Alfred Russell, Harv. Law Review, Vol. VII (1892). Corporate Citizenship a Legal Fiction, by R. M. Benjamin, Albany Law Journal, Vol. LXIX (1907). Well that’s about enough for you to absorb and please check this out as I am not perfect.

The Informer
April 10, 2002

How You Are Controlled By Private Corporations

August 31, 2016

All U.S. citizen subject slave debtors are on welfare because they’ve all been conned.

This article is to Inform you of only one aspect of government and banking that you do not know about. How you are controlled in this country by private corporations.

This is called fascism and how Mussolini operated in WWII. We have it here today and the people (slaves in reality) think it is wonderful. With no real money in the hands of the people, its all debt, they have no idea what real money is. Gold standard is a scam devised by bankers way back in 1788 to put paper money into effect that had no value unless backed by paper on a par basis. By that I mean a coin containing a certain amount of silver or gold was the same value of a paper dollar. The paper dollar could be exchanged for a dollar of metal coin. Today you cannot do that because there is no parity and the bankers have seen to it that it cannot exist so as to unjustly enrich themselves at your expense.

Fawcet, in a work on Gold and Debt, says: “It is a trick of capital in all countries to persuade the people that their honor is at stake in the payment of war debts at the highest valuation the avarice of the holders may set on them.”

Gold advocates declare that it is dangerous to allow the gold reserve in the Treasury–created ostensibly to maintain the parity or equal value of the American dollars-to fall below $100,000,000. In March, 1894, it dropped below this amount and in February, 1894, it went down to $65,000,000–at which time the American paper dollar was bringing a premium.

At this time, as of old, through the past history of bond issues by the United States, the international bankers and saviors of the credit of nations appear upon the scene and enter into a secret contract with the Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by the President of the United States, whereby, Morgan, Rothschild, and associates buy $62,000,000 of United States bonds at about 1041/2 in gold–at which time these bonds were worth $117.00 in the open market, and a little later went up to $120.00. The syndicate, therefore, bought these bonds at about $10,000,000 less than their value and the American people were saddled with an unnecessary debt, which they have to pay, principal and interest, through taxation.

In one of my articles on the e-mail I described how the real bank of the United States, the Independent Treasury, was causing fits with these International Bankers. The real bank of the people of this country was called sub-treasuries for some strange reason. The international bankers had to get rid of it because they could not control the money supply and actually control Congress or the President until they had complete control. They did in 1921 and I described in detail how this came about and the result of it and I also mentioned it in my book The New History of America. So with that in mind I quote from another book by T. Cushing Daniel, published in 1924.

“The visit of Morgan in company with Baker, and Assistant Secretary of State, Robert Bacon, former partner of J.P. Morgan, was described in the public press as follows:


“Washington, D.C., November 22, 1907.–The establishment of a Central Government Bank has been
earnestly discussed within the Administration circle for the last week. “Two things have contributed toward making the Administration favor the plan. “First, as has been stated, the relief funds released by the Government have not been handled by the banks in a way to bring aid to the real business interests of the country, but rather to build up cash reserve and favor specialized interests, the real business demands being ignored. “Second, in the issue of the $100,000,000 certificates of indebtedness, the banks practically have demanded that the Government turn the money over to them without recompense of any sort. The Secretary of the Treasury was compelled to compromise with the bankers in order to get anything at all.
“Mr. Cortelyou announced this evening that he purposed to return to national banks subscribing for the certificates, as a deposit of public money, 75 per cent. of the cash paid for them. The remaining 25 per cent. will go for the time being to strengthen the cash balance of the Treasury. “The transaction in the certificates of indebtedness leaves the Secretary of the Treasury in a ludicrous light as a financier. Briefly, summed up, it is revealed that for the first time in the history of the world probably a Government pays interest on its own deposits in the banks.

“Taking a round million as a basis under the terms made with the banks, the following transaction takes place: The banks put up $250,000 and we promptly returned $1,000,000 in This article is to Inform you of only one aspect of government and certificates of indebtedness exchangeable for currency.” “These certificates of indebtedness carry 3 per cent interest. The other $750,000 supposed to be put up is promptly returned to the banks as deposits. “The purpose of the Treasury as announced by the Secretary to-day is to leave the money in the banks and to increase the supply in the banks in every manner possible.

“In order to carry through the arrangement with the banks in the most expeditious manner, the Secretary and the banks have completed described and the issuance of bank note currency may all be accomplished simultaneously. “The banks will include in their offers for certificates applications for increased circulation.They will make the payments for the certificates in cash and securities to the sub-treasuries, and receive in return, not the certificates themselves, but bank notes to the full amount of the certificates purchased.”

This last deal with the United States Treasury occurred less than a month after the Secretary of the Treasury had given these men the use of $34,033,000 of the money of the tax-payers of this country, at a critical time during the panic. This was in addition to over $150,000,000 that had already been deposited of the people’s money in national banks without interest, and by December 31, 1907, amounted to $245,556,944. This enormous amount of the people’s money was deposited in these banks, when by the testimony before the Banking and Currency Committee of Congress these national-banks were unable to pay into the United States Treasury the 5 per cent. cash guarantee to the Government to protect their bank-note circulation.

This brings to mind the one-sided partnership that exists between the Treasury of the United States and the banks. Here is a specimen on how the business is carried on by the fiduciary department of the Government representing the people, and the present banking system. “The United States Treasury does queer things. On August 22, 1907, I personally directed the attention of Secretary Cortelyou to some $4,000,000 of false entries made daily at the sub-treasury in New York. These entries are described in the report on fiscal system (page 76) as receipts of checks ‘converted into cash before final credit is given in the accounts involved ‘–that is, checks’ are received from the clearing-house and paid with other checks sent there for collection, the checks being exchanged or swapped without handling any money except the difference–but the amount balanced is falsely entered as gold certificates, for the most part, with additional entries
of United States notes, silver certificates, fractional silver, nickels, and copper to make up the exact sum. My letters to Secretary Cortelyou detailing falsifications to the amount of $1,279,563,526 for the fiscal year 1906 were printed in the Congressional Record March 2, 1908, pages 2829-31.

“False entries engender false ideas. The false entries I complain of are made to conceal the fact that every year checks aggregating several hundred million dollars are received at the sub-treasury in New York and paid by balancing accounts.

“In 1907 the Treasury Department had over $250,000,000 of available cash balance on hand or in banks, and $111,000,000 of United States bonds to pay off. By the use of bank deposits and checks drawn on them the operation would have been as simple as checking $111 out of $250 deposited. The Treasury seems to have considered the operation impracticable. Secretary Cortelyou paid $61,000,000 of the bonds and to pay off $50,000,000 more, instead of using the cash on hand or in banks, borrowed $50,000,000 to be repaid in 23 years (1930), with $1,000,000 a year interest, that is, the Secretary bound the United States to pay $23,000,000 before paying the principal, which was as purely a waste of $23,000,000 as if it had been stolen.

“JAMES C. Hallock, Washington, D.C.”
It can be clearly seen that Congress and the United States Treasury no longer represent the people. The greatest standing reflection upon the boasted intelligence of our people is their thoughtless submission to the present infamous currency system–money based on debts, Banks of Issue, and gold redemption. And so it is today with the people believing that somehow these banks of today are theirs. They believe they are government banks and Congress has control. Even patriots say why not audit the banks? That is like saying that the government should audit your neighbor or they should audit Wal-Mart. The government cannot audit private concerns period.

The banking industry is private and the federal courts have so stated as late as 1992. Robert Rubin is Governor of the International Monetary Fund today which was created by the private federal reserve bank in 1916. You should all be aware that the Bank of England owns every federal reserve bank and affiliates in this country. They cut deals all the time that you have no idea what is going This article is to Inform you of only one aspect of government and on. The deal cut in 1908 is now put before you. It is not in its entirety but the important parts are included:

“This agreement entered into this 8th day of February, 1895, between the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, of the first part, and Messrs. August Belmont & Co., of New York, on behalf of Messrs. N.M. Rothschild & Sons, of London, England, and themselves, and Messrs. J.P. Morgan & Co., of New York, on behalf of Messrs. J. P. Morgan & Co., of London, and themselves, parties of the second part. “Witnesseth: Whereas it is provided by the Revised Statutes of the United States (section 3700) that the Secretary of the Treasury may purchase coin with any of the bonds or notes of the United States authorized by law, at such rates and upon such terms as he may deem advantageous to the public interests; and the Secretary of the Treasury now deems that an emergency exists in which the public interests require that, as hereinafter provided, coin shall be purchased with the bonds of the United States, of the description hereinafter mentioned, authorized to be issued under the act entitled ‘An act to provide for the resumption of specie payments,’ approved January 14, 1875, being bonds of the United States described in an act to Congress approved July 14, 1870, entitled ‘An act to authorize the refunding of the national debt.’

“Now, therefore, the said parties of the second part[Rothchilds/Morgan] hereby agree to sell and deliver to the United States 3,500,000 ounces of standard gold coin of the United States, at the rate of $17.80441 per ounce, payable in United States 4 per cent. thirty-year coupon or registered bonds, said bonds to’ be dated February 1, 1895, and payable at the pleasure of the United States after thirty years from date, issued under the acts of Congress of July 14, 1870, January 20, 1871, and January 14, 1876, bearing interest at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum, payable quarterly.

“First. Such purchase and sale of gold coin being made on the following conditions:
“(1) At least one-half or all coin deliverable here under shall be obtained in and shipped from Europe, but the shipments shall not be required to exceed 300,000 ounces per month, unless the parties to the second part[Rothchilds /Morgan] shall consent thereto. “(2) All deliveries shall be made at any of the subtreasuries or at any other legal depository of the United States.(1) “Second. Should the Secretary of the Treasury desire to offer or sell any bond of the United States on or before the 1st day of October, 1895, he shall first offer the same to the parties of the second part;[Rothchilds / Morgan] but thereafter he shall be free from every such obligation to the parties of the second part[Rothchilds /Morgan]. “Fifth. In consideration of the purchase of such coin the parties of the second part[Rothchilds /Morgan], and their associates here under assume and will bear all the expense and inevitable loss of bringing gold from Europe here under; and as far a lies in their power, will exert all financial influence and will make all legitimate efforts to protect theTreasury of the United States against the withdrawals of gold pending the complete performance of this contract.

“In witness whereof the parties hereto set their hands in five parts this 8th day of February,; 1895. “J. G. CARLISLE,
“Secretary of the Treasury. “AUGUST BELMONT & CO. “On behalf of Messrs. N.M. Rothschild & Sons, London and themselves. “J. P. MORGAN & CO. “On behalf of Messrs. J.P. Morgan & Co., London, and themselves.

In return for a profit of about $10,000,000 these gentlemen obligate themselves not to raid the gold reserve of the Government by the use of outstanding credit money until they complete their contract. This article is to Inform you of only one aspect of government and Footnote 1- This would allow the gold to still remain in the banks as depositories of the United States.

The only way to stop this private cartel and its private collection agency, the IRS, is to stop using banks for anything. Use cash or U.S. Postal Money Orders. Insist that Congress issue U.S. Notes that are interest free? Not on their dying bed will they do that because of their contracts are with the banking system, NOT YOU. Besides, you cannot, by law, obligate a private contract. If you could, no contract that you ever made with a friend would ever be safe. No, the only way will be
to use coin which is minted by the government and not the banking system. Start using Susan B dollars, quarters, etc., even though these are a fraud upon the people also, because these have cost the government money to coin that they cannot afford to stop using.

However, people are so used to plastic and paper checks that they will still let the banks rape them gleefully. So it is a folly to think anything will change by the writing of this article. Just think of the other contracts besides that of 1908 that have taken place behind closed doors that you don’t know about.

People will have to become so destitute, such as a mass loss of foreclosures on houses to wake them up. But alas the bankers will “come to the rescue” and lull the people into thinking they will be saved by the kind hearted banker and they will become even further enslaved by the system. And don’t think that for one moment that the fortune 500 companies don’t have a hand in controlling the people as they are tied totally to the banking system. Of course these corps and banks control Congress and is of absolutely no meaning and is a waste of time to go, write or ask anything from Congress. They could care two tinker’s damn about you. They know which side their bread is buttered on, everyone of them and that goes all the way down to local government as well.

The Informer

Rosa Koire Ripped Off Niki Rapanna

August 19, 2016

Behind the Green Mask of Rosa Koire
Leading the latest wave of American opposition to UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is a California Democrat named Rosa Koire. Rosa promotes herself as an expert. Expert in what? UN Agenda 21? Sustainability? Most certainly. She knows as much about the UN Agenda 21 plan as her expert teachers at the John Birch Society do. There’s no doubt newcomers learn a lot from her. Rosa knows exactly how the plan works to take American’s private property.

Rosa Koire read our original works on Communitarianism in 2010 and emailed me to tell me it was “excellent.” She re-named her 501(c)(4) the Post Sustainability Institute and defined Post-sustainability as “the condition of environmental, political, social, and economic systems after the imposition of Communitarianism.” (Notice it does not say “law”.)

The PSI mission declares the PSI is a “non-partisan, non-governmental think tank established to study the impacts UN Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development and Communitarianism have on liberty, by tracking the progression of the Sustainability movement and forecasting likely outcomes.” The PSI mission says Communitarianism is the “dominant form of world governance.”

At a glance it all sounds great, and even I was kind of okay with the PSI mission, at first. But the truth is, the ACL is the only place in the world that published any scientific, theoretical research about LA21 being part of global Communitarian governance. Besides our long research topic page on Agenda 21 and Communitarianism, first published at the ACL website in 2003, the ACL published the original and only existing reasoned antithesis to Philosophical Communitarianism. Where are the papers produced by Rosa Koire’s PSI think tank? They don’t exist. The PSI “think tank” has never published one original scientific study on Communitarianism showing it as the foundation for LA21.

Rosa published her book about the plan, Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21, in 2011. The first two lines of her book are “The arm of UN Agenda 21 is long and reaches into every area of the world. The Philosophy of Communitarianism pervades this plan.”

Again, there is no direct citation for Rosa’s opening statement about Communitarianism pervading the plan. She states it without ANY attribution or showing how she arrived at this original conclusion. She shows no valid scientific path she took or where she even got her idea. She cannot defend it. She simply announces the Philosophy of Communitarianism is behind Agenda 21 like she decided that was what it is with magic. Rosa cunningly states our copyrighted antithesis to Communitarianism over and over, as if it requires no direct attribution and no clear citation of her source.

I called it robbery when I finally read her book earlier this year. Rosa defended her stealing it on my blog by saying our copyrighted, original antithesis belongs to the “public domain.” As she is a “forensic commercial real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation,” Rosa made her personal fortune off the government’s “right” to TAKE private property for the public good. Now she is making money off our intellectual property, our copyrighted, private property, protected by law under the U.S. Constitution, because she decided it was necessary to TAKE it from us for the public good. Rosa seems to think her “twenty-eight year career as an expert witness on land use and property values” gives her some extra special legal insight into what constitutes the value of our intellectual property.

At first I was honored to be recognized by someone of her caliber for all the published work we have put out. After Rosa emailed me it quickly moved to voice, with us chatting it up, sharing stories and gossip. I had the impression we were going to become friends. I told her I was exhausted, sick, losing teeth and steam after our decade of intense research and writing on Anti Communitarianism. I was camping year round in Alaska (still am) and barely scraping by. Sales of our books were slow, not enough to even keep simple food on our table, so I was ready to do whatever she asked of me in hopes it would increase ACL Book sales. When she linked to the ACL and said I was a member of PSI Board of Directors, I really thought the ACL finally had a strong ally. Except… I did notice how she used our original thesis in her PSI mission without attributing it to us anywhere in her mission statement.

So, it shouldn’t have been such a shock to finally learn in 2013 that for the first 107 pages of her book she used the term Communitarianism repeatedly to back up her Anti UN Agenda 21 position, without once citing the ACL as her source for the connection between the two. When she finally does mention me, just me and NOT my co-author Nordica Friedrich, it’s as if I’m just someone who taught her about the Hegelian dialectic, because I’m the world’s “foremost critic” of Communitarianism.

On page 108, Rosa says, “I learned about the Hegelian Dialectic from Niki Raapana, the world’s foremost critic of Communitarianism. Her book, 2020: Our Common Destiny, is an excellent analysis of the supranational movement of Sustainable Development. The Hegelian Dialectic is the philosophical basis for Communitarianism. The idea is that true freedom only comes through slavery to the state because then all free will is relinquished to a higher order (government).”

Is it clear to Rosa’s readers at this point that, “The Hegelian Dialectic is the philosophical basis for Communitarianism” is our original thesis, or that everything they read about Communitarianism for the last 107 pages of her book was just an unattributed rip off of our original works? I seriously doubt it.

There are two co-founders of the ACL, two authors of What is the Hegelian dialectic?, two contributors to 2020: Our Common Destiny, and, 2020: Our Common Destiny is NOT about the Hegelian dialectic.

Rosa Koire knows how to speak up at meetings and flyer neighborhoods, but she is not capable of writing a whole new philosophical school of thought, as we did with our Anti Communitarian Manifesto. Her misleading and absolutely wrong explanation of communitarianism, using watered down milk, is so unbelievably stupid, I wonder why she bothered to try to “explain” it at all.

Why did Rosa start out in her opening paragraph denying the existence of Communitarian Law, EU Communitarian Case Law and the acquis communitaire, Communitarian Harmonization and Norms, the Earth Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights, the Communitarian Constitution of Bolivia, the International Court’s Communitarian case against Pinochet, and other existing legal documents with: “Communitarianism ‘balances’ the rights of the individual. Because the rights of the community are not defined in a constitution they can change without warning or notice; one’s individual rights are balanced against a continuously amorphous rulebook.” We’ll come back to this later.

Why didn’t Rosa cite us as the source for the additional ABCD research she ads to her personal story of Jim Diers on pages 128 to 132, especially when she says “This is Communitarianism.” on page 130?
She refers to Seattle (where we learned about ABCD in 2000), ties it all to “mapping community assets” (Chapter Three in 2020), and almost verbatim quotes my 2005 One Nation Under Siege video interview where I describe the 11 page ABCD questionnaire. She refers her readers to the copy of it posted at her website and neglects to mention we have an entire chapter devoted to it. She got most of what she writes about ABCD and mapping from us. We exposed the Obama’s training in ABCD. We devoted Chapter 4 of 2020 to the GIS and Mandatory Volunteerism. Reading Rosa Koire’s book, there is no indication that she “borrowed” so heavily from two author’s copyrighted works.

Exactly like we did in our book 2020, Rosa begins her book “teaching” Communitarianism. Then she tells the story of two womens’ local resistance to the plan, and how they found UN Agenda 21. Except for our Big Mother’s Double Tongued Dictionary and international contributors, Rosa ends her book exactly like we did too! Is it worth noting here that it was Nordica Friedrich who laid out the entire format for TACM and 2020, Nordica who made it a “story of how two women followed a paper trail from their lowly Seattle neighborhood to the elite boardrooms of the United Nations?”

Did removing Nordica’s name and private property ownership from ALL our published works make it easier for Rosa to steal it because she wasn’t stealing food directly from Nordica’s babies’ mouths? What WAS the point of her doing that? It just doesn’t make any sense. Did she take Nordica’s name off everything we published because Talmudic Law requires “two witnesses” to report a crime?

According to Property Rights expert Rosa Koire, Intellectual Property, U.S. copyright claimed by poor authors like us who can show over a decade of original, published work, can’t be controlled by the minds that actually created it and copyrighted it. It’s simply not ours anymore! Why does Rosa think our intellectual property belongs to her and the public domain? Well, our original, hard work is just so important we don’t get to own it. Is that a decision she made based on Talmudic Law?

There is one major difference between our stories. We gave up everything to do our research, we went broke to sue the City of Seattle, to build our massive website with over 10,000 exit links to direct sources, and to write our books. Rosa boasts of her fund raising skills and tells readers about how her neighbors jumped out of their seats to write checks so that she could sue her city. Rosa Koire raised half a million dollars for her lawsuit (and she’s doing it again now). We never raised a dime.

We were just defending principles in Dawson v Seattle, not principal, so we had no great outpouring of support. We were not defending our own land, so we had zero interest from other concerned land owners. We were just poor tenants. No business leaders were on our side. We didn’t have homeowners on our side. (What about the ACLU? That’s another joke on Americans.) Nobody cared then, or cares now, if renters have privacy rights or not. There wasn’t one group in the nation willing to help us fight the Israeli Community Policing innovative new home invasion strategies. There still isn’t one.

Rosa writes on page 31: “Familiarize yourself with Communitarianism. It’s the political philosophy behind all of this. It states the individual’s rights are a threat to the global community.” {emphasis added} “It” doesn’t state that! Who is “it”? Are we an “it”? We, Nordica Friedrich and Niki Raapana, are human beings. We stated it, yes we did, that is part of our Anti Communitarian legal analysis.

Rosa Koire’s rise to the front of the Anti Agenda 21 “movement” was accomplished by promotions of her by Property Rights groups like the Eagle Forum, Tea Party, John Birch Society, Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates, and somebody she calls “Mr. X.” We were never promoted by any of these groups, except for a short time in 2008 when Michael Shaw began citing our work and his wife sent us a few sweet donations. This ended abruptly when Shaw changed his mind and began promoting the “Permanent Revolution” work of Terry Hayfield (JBS), an online wacko who had been stalking Nordica and I in internet forums and emails with a crew that all had names from the Wizard of Oz. Patrick Woods, editor of the August Review, and his son Jason can testify to that bizarre scene.

Michael Shaw dropped the word Communitarianism from his Anti Agenda 21 lectures in 2009. He began calling it “tyranny.” We never got any explanation of why he did that. Tyranny? Rosa told me Michael Shaw’s father is the one who designed her vaguely familiar book cover, but who is the real author of the outrageous claim in Rosa’s book that Zionism has nothing to do with UN Agenda 21 because Israel is a just a nationalist, tiny country! Not even Rosa Koire is that brazen, is she?

Why would Rosa Koire lie so boldly as if nobody would notice her big lies? The path to answers starts by looking at the missions of leading Right Wing “free enterprise” capitalists. We see they almost all promote a “return” to Biblical Law and Christian values. They don’t just mean the Ten Commandments, they mean Talmudic Law. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Bush II insisted the oral, mystical Talmud is the actual basis for the entire American justice system in 2002. The big lie goes unchecked.

The truth is, the deadly, silent global Communitarian coup is almost complete, and the last thing the
Communitarians need is for anyone to understand what Communitarian Law is before it’s a done deal.

Why does Zionist Glenn Beck promote Koire’s plagiarized, milky version of our work, and not ACL Books? Why does the Tea Party patriot movement promote Rosa Koire’s milk and lies alongside the John Birch Society, and not ACL Books? Why do the Libertarians, the Ron/Rand Paul Right, Rockwell, von Mises, Tom Woods etc. continue to ignore or barely name the most important economic topic of the twenty-first century? Ever heard of a Conservative Communitarian? Libertarian Communitarian?

Why, it’s such an amazingly perfect synthesis there’s even Anarcho Communitarians now. The Third Way synthesis merges all political ideologies and religions under Communitarianism. It’s not a murky combination of milk and water as Rosa teaches. It’s a murky combination of politics and mysticism. All sides play a role. Rosa has obviously learned her far right Christian Zionist pals play theirs expertly.

Our 2003 ACL mission statement is very clear that we do not endorse any race, religion or culture that claims to be superior to everyone else. Nordica often describes 2020 as “our treatise against racism.”
2020: Our Common Destiny shares our conscript experience alongside evidence of U.S. Community Police training in Israel, called “the Harvard of Anti Terrorism.” The ACL provides an abundance of evidence of Etzioni’s commitment to Militant Zionism, and it’s all taken from his own published works.

Rosa calls identification of the role of Zionism part of “the dialectic.” This is an utter twisting of our original thesis that the Hegelian dialectical formula leads to Communitarianism. How is it possible to remove the Zionist father of Communitarianism from any expose of dialectical Communitarianism?

The Zionist father of Communitarianism has not only written over 30 books about the need to rebuild America into a Communitarian society, his plan for a More Muscular U.S. Foreign Policy is cited in Daily Pentagon Briefings. In the world of Communitarian deceptions, any outrageous lie is possible.

What is global Communitarianism without Etzioni, Zionism or Talmudic Law? Watered down milk.

Rosa’s real reason for stealing all our ACL research and misleading readers into thinking it is all hers is stated clearly by her on the top of page 31, “Calling it a Zionist plot is absurd considering that Zionism is a nationalist movement that is completely opposed to the dissolution of boundaries.”

This reference Rosa made to Zionism was her perfect opportunity to show her readers her commitment to the whole truth, to full disclosure of the global governance plan, by sharing all known facts with her readers. Doesn’t she trust her readers with all the facts? Why wasn’t it important enough for Rosa to mention at this point, or at any point in her book when she said “Communitarianism,” that a lifelong Zionist, an Israeli soldier adept in Cabala, whose name means he’s the “tree from Zion,” introduced the world to Communitarianism, and maybe that’s why some people might call it a Zionist plot? But of course Rosa makes sure we get a geography lesson designed to lessen the reality of Israeli influence based on its size: “(Israel is about the size of Vancouver Island and slightly larger than New Jersey.)”

Facts are just facts. It’s impossible to deny Zionism is also a spiritual commitment to Israel made by millions of Christians, worldwide, mainly as a result of the new Schofield Reference Bible saying any Christian who doesn’t support Israel will go to Hell. Never mind that millions of American non-Zionist taxpayers are forced to support Zionism to the tune of trillions. Zionism is a lot more than a little nationalist movement, and Rosa Koire is very cunningly deceptive when she tries to bury some facts.

How is it possible to say such an idiotic thing when she’s surrounded and paid very well to speak by so many middle class American Christian Zionists? Besides the Irgun family legacy assigned to Obama, Dr. Amitai Etzioni and other notable “dual” citizens in positions of American power and influence, besides the obvious American Jewish support for Israel, there are millions of Christian Zionists in the USA. There are more Zionists in America than there are in Israel. Rosa Koire doesn’t know that?

Rosa writes on page 31, “Another reason why you may not have heard of UN Agenda 21 before is because opposition is often conflated with anti-Semitism.” The accusation of racism against Jews is a familiar tactic used whenever anyone even barely mentions Zionism in a political science paper, but this is the first time I have ever heard this! Opposition to Agenda 21 was always controlled by Zionist Christians who refused to link to our research because they said we were “anti-Semitic.”

We think this slur is entirely unfounded, considering the factual reality that many Jews worldwide are ANTI Zionist, just as we are. Zionism is NOT a race of people. It’s not even a religion, it’s a political ideology, and there’s a lot of traditional, Biblical Jews in the world who not only disagree with it, they vehemently oppose it. Jews who oppose political Zionism are sneered at by the Zionists and called “self-hating Jews.” If we have to be labeled as haters because we oppose Zionism, it would be more appropriate to call us “self-hating Americans.”

I suppose Rosa’s readers don’t need to know their holy Zionist Communitarian guru Etzioni was financed entirely by another globe trotting Zionist named George Soros, either. Rosa wants her readers in the dark forever. She ridicules any of her readers who may ask pertinent questions about Zionism. Is Rosa Koire a professional Zionist propagandist as well as an expert in public domain takings?

So much for her PSI claim to be “non-partisan!”

The extremely partisan Zionist “resistance” to LA21 has been trying to shut us up for a long time. They tried so many different tactics to get us to stop using the word Communitarianism, maybe someday I’ll write them all down. But wow, I gotta say now that having someone steal our work and revise it to fit the politically active Zionist’s need for complete impunity… that’s a first.

Zionists are not the least bit interested in exposing any facts that point to their influential role in furthering Communitarianism, and will shut down any writer who does. We’ve been working on the fringe of the Anti Agenda 21 arena for 13 years. I say fringe because our work was outright rejected by the Anti Agenda 21 leaders, because we include the taboo subjects of capitalism, Zionism, Talmudic Law, and Etzioni in our research. All we had to do to be “successful” was to shut up about the law.

I was censored by newswithviews for naming the Judaic Law Institute. We’ve been stalked online and personally visited by Zionists for 12 years now. It’s not always the same method but it always ends at the same place; we get told to back off. Sometimes our visitors are very friendly folks. In 2009, a U.S. Army Pentagon analyst and his wife came all the way to Kenny Lake, Alaska to tell me to, “back off on the Mossad.” I told Sgt Brian Bloomquist to go back to DC and put Etzioni’s name in his DoD Known Terrorist database, and then to tell the Pentagon to send me a check for doing their job.

Ten years ago, Etzioni’s office staff claimed in an online public forum that we said Communitarianism was a Zionist plot. (One Etzioni assistant, Erin Riska, confirmed some of our Etzioni research that was speculation at the time we wrote it.) So, yes, we have heard ACL research is taboo before, but the first time I heard Agenda 21 called a Zionist plot is when Rosa Koire took her place on the national stage.

Our rights to privacy and self-determination were “balanced” because U.S. COPS are taught in Israel that we have “too many rights in this country.” National opposition to UN Agenda 21 wouldn’t even begin until almost a decade after we were the pilot test for Etzioni’s SWAT home inspections.

Rosa, who entered the arena almost two decades after UN Agenda 21 was adopted at Rio, mentions all the programs we wrote about. She knows Community Policing was a topic page at the ACL since 2003, it’s the title of Chapter Two in 2020, but she never refers to us, our research, or our story, not once when she continually throws out program terms she took directly from ACL research. Leaders of the Agenda 21 resistance never include our grassroots experiences with Zionist Community Policing tactics.

Our current book project, Round Green Virgin, will be finished after we get the funds to complete it. The hardcopy edition of 2020/TACM was such a financial disaster our enemies will say we should quit publishing altogether! Certainly Rosa Koire demanded I quit. Rosa insisted I hand it ALL over, so her and the Shaws could take control of our books. (Michael Shaw is also the same man who quit citing us, quit using the term Communitarianism, and then told me the word Communitarianism would NOT be part of the Anti Agenda 21 “movement” in 2009.) Her reason? People want the books they pre-paid for and I owe her $1000 for the plane ticket to her 2011 Behind the Green Mask conference.

The fact that I was really too sick to fly was not a valid “excuse” for not going. When Nordica was all prepped and set to go in my place, Rosa refused to allow her to come. Nordica Friedrich was not welcome to speak at the first national conference focusing on Communitarianism and Agenda 21! (How’s THAT for controlled opposition?) Of course Michael Shaw was the Featured Speaker, and the rest, as they say, is history. As for Nordica’s copyright on both our books and her 100% ownership of our website and our ACL Books company… well, let’s just pretend she doesn’t exist, shall we?

Rosa never once offered to purchase the rights to reprint our copyrighted research. She showed utter contempt for the decade of sacrifices we made to create Anti Communitarianism. Our position as poor, humble, non-affiliated authors always made us look like easy targets. So, why pay for it?

Rosa spends half a page admonishing her readers to drop any valid scientific inquiry (as in What is the Hegelian dialectic?) because identifying religious and political concepts is “not productive, not realistic.” She says naming all the players, religions and economic theories that make up the
Communitarian philosophy “feeds right into the dialectic.” Rosa says we all need “to come together.”

Somebody please explain to Rosa, after she’s done singing her Beatles’ tune, that a legitimate study of Communitarianism must include all known facts about it, or it is not a scientific study.

The honest scientist is not allowed to remove hard evidence from the table just because they have a financial attachment to hiding that piece. Our work was not non-profit, grant funded, or government controlled. We’ve never been government employees! We don’t censor facts. We include every religion and every political system that contributes to the final synthesis. We examine communism, capitalism, fascism, socialism and Zionism, as they all relate to achieving the final Hegelian dialectical synthesis.

Zionism is a political system based on dialectical religious law, and there is way too much evidence of its influence on Communitarianism (and communism and capitalism) to deny it. Who determined Zionism cannot be exposed along with the theory it supports? Who decided to drop the most important word “law” from any future discussion of Communitarianism? And, why would they?

Rosa says in her acknowledgments at the very end of her book that my books “were invaluable in making sense of the source.” I find that so vague. “Sense of the source?” What source? My co-author Nordica who she removed? And, oh my God, if by I helped her make sense of the source she means Hegel, then that’s just over-the-top, because based on her stupid water and milk demonstration, I obviously didn’t help her understand our antithesis against Hegel and Communitarianism at all!

Wait! She must mean Dr. Etzioni! He is the true “source” of all modern Communitarianism, is he not?

What does Rosa Koire tell her readers about our Communitarian guru, Amitai Etzioni, Dr. Tree of Life from Zion? What does Rosa Koire write about our Communitarian guru’s 60+ years in Israeli military intelligence, his religio-political cult, his Fabian Socialist mentors, his influence on the White House, his KGB global Community Policing network, his global influence on local sustainability projects, his programs for mandatory volunteerism, or the Communitarian Network he founded in DC in 1990?


Amitai Etzioni is hidden from her readers; Rosa Koire never even mentions his name.

And… good grief… she says there is only an “amorphous rulebook.” That’s so not true, not even in the U.S. where it’s all very quietly done. Communitarianism is not all shapeless soft law, Delphi Technique and shaming. It’s not only coming down under UN Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development. It’s not only an attack on American’s Property Rights! It’s not an uncomfortably vague, unformed, unstructured plan or program for development. It’s a massive, very structured, organized global justice system.

On her very first page Rosa writes: “the rights of the community are not defined in a constitution.”

Why would she write something so easy to be checked and so easily proven to be untrue? She knows the Bolivians rewrote a Communitarian Constitution in 2009, two years before she published her book. How will she explain the newly revised Communitarian Scottish Constitution? And the next one? Did she miss the part in our book where we cited the blueprint for Global Communitarian Citizenship?

Rosa freely plagiarized our thesis and program research, but she not only avoided our constitutional law and Etzioni research, she purposefully negated it, as if somebody told her it was all taboo.

Rosa knows the 2005 EU Constitution was written with a Communitarian Supremacy of Law clause. She knows the foundation for trade unions under the WTO establishes Communitarian Law. She read it in our book, a book full of direct source citations of laws and constitutional changes, even in the U.S.

Rosa knows the changes to the law in the USA. She read, “In the state of Oregon, an evolving law of search and seizure suggests that communitarian precepts can be translated into workable and coherent State constitutional doctrine.” Taking Law Seriously: Communitarian Search and Seizure, American Criminal Law Volume: 27 Issue 4 Dated (1990) pp 583-617. It’s cited in 2020: Our Common Destiny.

What Rosa surely knows is, if we can’t look at Zionism, maybe we won’t take Talmudic Law seriously,

In 2012, the Communitarian Pachamama cult unveiled their proposal for the Eleven Laws of Nature, described as “Human Rights for Mother Earth.” The proposal calls for a new UN international court with authority to try and convict anyone, anywhere, in any nation, who violates Mother Earth laws.

The Affordable Health Care Act, taking effect right now in the USA, is a Communitarian Law. The “right” to mandate purchase of health care insurance is based entirely in Etzioni’s vision for the world. The enforcement arm for this U.S. Communitarian Law is the Internal Revenue Service, which has been proved, in U.S. Courts, time and time again, to have no constitutional authority to exist. The “right” to tax, fine, shoot and jail citizens, to make them to pay for programs that destroy their “right” to life, liberty and happiness, is a Communitarian “right.” This is what Dr. Etzioni means by “balance.”

On January 1, 2013, Pope Benedict declared, “Communitarian Development is God’s Plan.” Should we all be preparing for an Inquisition against anyone or any nation who defies development?

What lengths will the Communitarians go to ensure the success of their global coup, besides misleading basically decent, kindhearted Americans? We need look no further than the bombed out ancient civilizations in the Middle East, some very stubborn holdouts against Etzioni’s more moral, peaceful Communitarianism.

The phony, circular, go-nowhere dialectical wars between the Americans and the Arab world are absolutely necessary to leading the unwashed refugee Arab masses to accepting sub-nation status under Communitarian Harmonization of Norms. History shows us the Arab nations were strong American allies all the way up until 1948, before Etzioni and his terrorist buddies took over Palestine. The first really successful Communitarian project put the Palestinians behind a “Berlin” wall. The Green Space between national law and Communitarian Supremacy of Law is not a hidden agenda. The only “green mask” over UN Agenda 21 in the Middle East is the one the Zionists use to shield it from Americans.

There have been a few minor glitches to the plan. There are actual human beings involved as pawns, and they are sometimes unpredictable. But, regardless of how the war actually began, and why, the demands the Syrian refugees make now come directly from the old Zionist-communist playbook. Demands for positive Human Rights, very caring people insisting on fake UN rights that lead to final destruction of the world’s most ancient Muslim strongholds, these are powerful Communitarian tools.

Communitarian developers are all over the world now; fellow travelers work their activist magic to foment the changes. The difference between cons and locals is simple; real locals fight to win and END the conflicts, whereas destruction of people, cultures, religions and neighborhoods is the Communitarian’s first and primary goal. The cons feed off the RE-building too.

They love rivers of local blood and millions of homeless refugees. Their only real job is to ensure the locals argue dialectically until the cows come home or keep shooting ’til there’s no more bullets, so they can sink their Communitarian development plan into the veins of the peace talks and settlements, as the only “moral” solution.

Hollywood actress turned UN Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie touched the hearts of millions with her recent plea to help Syrian refugees. The new Communitarian high priestess (miraculously reborn into Mother Teresa II) didn’t explain her humanitarian interest in Syria coincides with her family’s financial investments in the UN Millennium Development Goals in Cambodia and U.S. Cities.

Pro-Syrian refugee activists insist her monetary motives do not matter. Any help is good help, right?

The authenticity of famous people or experts teaching us “truths” is really not an issue, is it? So what
if our heroes support a few “nice” Communitarian programs, like Rosa’s story about how she got involved in fighting UN Agenda 21 because she wanted to volunteer to do some Community Service.

Supranational global governance is based upon Communitarian Law. The Law is a perfectly balanced mystical combination of all the world’s philosophies, all the way back to the beginning of human history. The authors of this new age religion, of this complex global law religionalized, are busy as little bees incorporating every religion and legal system on the planet. No religion, no nation is safe.

What about that peculiar U.S. barrier to an Established State Religion at the foundation of American religious tolerance? Oh, you mean the ridiculous American LAW that declares everyone is free to follow their own conscience? Don’t ya know? It’s outdated and spiritually unevolved. It doesn’t apply!

As our sweet little old Israeli Communitarian guru says:

“The First Amendment’s Disestablishment clause is not a foreign policy tool, but a peculiarly American conception. Just because the American government is banned from promoting religion within the United States does not mean that the State Department and the Pentagon cannot promote religion overseas and in societies that are undergoing profound societal changes.”

Etzioni continues, “The last point is crucial. Overseas we are participating as a key architect and builder of new institutions; we are in what social scientists call ‘the design business.’”

The key U.S. architect rebuilding Arab religious institutions is Etzioni. We’re to believe the Arabs hate the U.S. because they “hate our freedoms,” not because we’re in the “design business.”

Time for a Happy Holiday drink! Here’s a new alcohol free recipe with a punch:

Mix ½ cup Etzioni’s vision with ½ cup Bolivian claims that their 500 year old Goddess Pachamama is rooted in their ancient Communitarian traditions. Add 4oz shot of U.S. Senator Mike Lee (UT) and his Mormon Communitarianism. Top it off with the Vatican calling it all “God’s plan.” Spice it up with the Islamic Communitarian Imperative by the Futhula Gulen in Turkey and Chiara Lubich Communitarian spirituality. Liberally garnish with American Methodist Communitarian soul. Slide angelic Lucifer enlightenment down the straw. Stir lightly. Now, take a drink and see if you can keep from gagging.

This Christmas season, do something exceptionally meaningful. Please give generously to our Anti Communitarian League research. We’re hanging in there with nothing. If the ACL disappears, there will never be any scientific opposition to Etzioni or Communitarianism. Our “last point is crucial” too.

What kind of new theory of global justice needs absolute freedom from logic? Not the good kind.

“Conscience? Ah, that stuff will drive ya nuts.”
Marlon Brando as Terry in On the Waterfront

To order your $17 ebook copy of 2020: Our Common Destiny & the definitive Anti Communitarian Manifesto, go to We’re also starting our first newsletter. To sign up for our newslist or to contribute anti communitarian research to our new magazine, please visit the newly updated site soon! The new roster of ACL contributors is fantastic and shows the far-reaching range of people in exotic places who’ve recognized something “else” was going on that nobody had a name for.

No More Eugenics and Genocide You Claim? I Beg To Differ!

March 2, 2016

The corporate controlled opposition environmentalism groups, such as the Sierra Club and all offshoot affiliated groups are supporting the fortune 500 corporations and their false claims and criminal actions in every state and across the nation in this massive takeover of all resources public and private. A deep forensic analysis into the authors of the documents these groups are advocating for, those very idealisms are the intellectual property of these large fortune 500 multinational corporations. This leads us to the IMF, the World Bank, The Club of Rome, UNICEP, UNIDROIT, UNEP. Agenda 2100, for the purpose of Sacrificing the American citizenry on the Altar of the Bankers Lie of Economy for a Pretended Exchange of Sustainable Stability through The UNEP and Agenda 21’s Genocidal, Depopulating, Impoverishment and Enslavement New Green Order programme through economic strife, scarcity and financial ruination. All of these environmentalists are liars.

Thanks goes out to There Is No Debt and Six Honest Men;

Obama signs executive order, bypasses Congress, and legalizes all BLM land grabs
We read –
(15) “United States” means—
(A) a Federal corporation;
(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or other entity of the United States; or
(C) an instrumentality of the United States.
28 U.S. Code § 3002 – Definitions
Reference material providing for clear, obvious and simple full disclosure to the ownership of the US:
Ownership of Law
The link to the WIPO database showing the US as copyrighted property has been deactivated. Its archived record on the internet has also been deactivated –
WIPO database constitution of US
Archived record of WIPO database link of US constitution
Nevertheless, its copyrighted constitution is made available in pdf form –
The Constitution of the United States of America
Of further interest with regards to the USA that the WIPO Standing Committee on Patents provides, as background to the USA’s legal position, is that its constitution is over-ridden by international treaties, when we read, pages 13 and page 14 respectively –
page 13
U.S. CONST. ART. VI, CL. 2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the
United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all
treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every
state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of
any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”
page 14
Treaties are expressly declared to be “the
supreme law of the land.”
International Privilege Issues: A United States View
WIPO Standing Committee on Patents
5 November 2014
Definition of Notwithstanding
In spite of
Example for Educational Purposes Only
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby,notwithstanding (in spite of) anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary.
The treaties under which the US abides to, as well as all other countries and regional bodies that are a member, are those of the United Nations. And as far as the ownership of the United Nations is concerned, its ownership can be discovered by reading the proofs below;

70 years ago after the Second World War –
Commemorating the UN charter
Charter of the United Nations
San Francisco, 26 June 1945
We read –
“The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister…representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom…”
Atlantic Charter, jpeg

Atlantic Charter
Definition of And
Used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences, that are to be taken jointly:
‘bread and butter
they can read and write
a hundred and fifty’
Both the President of the United States and the Prime Minister are representing His Majesty
We read –
” In the Declaration by United Nations of 1 January 1942, the Allies pledged adherence to this charter’s principles.”
“The Atlantic Charter set goals for the post-war world and inspired many of the international agreements that shaped the world thereafter.”
The policy was issued as a statement; as such there was no formal, legal document entitled “The Atlantic Charter”.
Atlantic Charter
The United Nations “pledges” adherence to the Atlantic Charter, means that the United Nations“allegiance” is to the Atlantic Charter. It is therefore the Atlantic Charter that is in ownership of the United Nations and it, the Atlantic Charter, is in turn in the ownership of the Office titled His Majesty, which Office of Monarchy will pass to the Heirs of that Office.
How interesting that we read, that even before the end of the Second World War, the Atlantic Charter ‘somehow’ prophetically determined the ‘designs’ of the post-war world.
The United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) forms the central coordinating core instrument and forum of the United Nations, representing as ‘plenipotentiary’, the direct will of the Office of Monarch:
We read, second paragraph –
‘The ECOSOC serves as the central forum for discussing international economic and social issues, and for formulating policy recommendations addressed to member states and the United Nations system.’
United Nations Economic and Social Council
Under the title heading, ‘ECOSOC at a Glance’, we read –
‘The Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) is the United Nations’ central platform for reflection, debate, and innovative thinking on sustainable development.’
From Encyclopaedia Britannica, we learn –
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)…responsible for the direction and coordination of the economic, social, humanitarian, and cultural activities carried out by the UN. It is the UN’s largest and most complex subsidiary body…ECOSOC was established by the UN Charter (1945)…The council was designed to be the UN’s main venue for the discussion of international economic and social issues. ECOSOC conducts studies; formulates resolutions, recommendations, and conventions for consideration by the General Assembly; and coordinates the activities of various UN organizations…Most of ECOSOC’s work is performed in functional commissions on topics such as human rights, narcotics, population, social development, statistics, the status of women, and science and technology; the council also oversees regional commissions for Europe, Asia and the Pacific, Western Asia, Latin America, and Africa…At the ECOSOC World Summit in 2005, it was mandated that the council convene annual ministerial reviews, designed to monitor progress on internationally agreed development goals, and a biennial Development Cooperation Forum.
Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC)
From the United Nations Environment Programmes (UNEP) office in New York, we read and learn –
‘The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), established in 1972, is the voice for the environment within the United Nations system…UNEP acts as a catalyst, advocate, educator and facilitator to promote the wise use and sustainable development of the global environment. To accomplish this, UNEP works with a wide range of partners, including United Nations entities, international organizations, national Governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), the private sector and civil society.’
We learn under the subheading, Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) –
‘The United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was established by the UN General Assembly in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), also known as the Earth Summit.’
UNEP Office New York
NGO Branch, Department of Economic and Social Affairs
About ECOSOC and its Subsidiary Bodies
Are we to understand the Atlantic Charter to be law, given to mean that it is the will and wish as personally owned private law, through that of the Office of His Majesty, and not that of a legal document constituting a bilateral offer.
From the preceding, it perhaps could be seen that the Atlantic Charter constitutes, in effect, a unilateral offer that brings into employment as employee’s, those that wish to accept ‘acting out their lives’ through continued employment to it. Then from there, it could be said and seen that the Offeror, having fulfiled an obligation to perform in making available the written instrument through which acceptance can be made to it, would have honoured his bargain. As with all else in line with ‘political charters’.
Definition of Unilateral Offer

unilateral offer

Definition of Unilateral Contract
Definition of Unilateral Contract
What’s the Difference Between Bilateral and Unilateral Contracts?
Under the subheading, ‘Drafting the Declaration’, we read –
“One major change from the Atlantic Charter was the addition of a provision for religious freedom, which Stalin approved after Roosevelt insisted.”
Declaration by United Nations
Declaration by United Nations

We read –
“The Governments signatory hereto,
Having subscribed to a common program of purposes and principles embodied in the Joint
Declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland dated August 14, 1941, known as the
Atlantic Charter.”
Declaration by the United Nations (January 1, 1942)
The Rothschilds’ Financing of Stalin
Stalin researched the Rothschilds and Venetian Aristocracy

Stalin researched the Rothschilds

Francisco Lopes Suasso
1 January 1955 – Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations: original manuscript prepared for printing.

26 June 1945
The United Nations Charter open to the signatory page.

Historic Archives – photo
Charter of the United Nations
San Francisco, 26 June 1945
International Organizations
Charter of the United Nations, 1945
Under the subheading, ‘Charter Provisions’, we read beneath the subtitle, ‘Preamble’, the words –
“We the peoples of the United Nations determined”
United Nations Charter
A perculiar phrasing given the word, peoples, since the word, ‘people’, on its own is both singular and plural in number in its description of those individuals to be found in the physical world.
Whereas the term, peoples, cannot be of the physical world since the term, people, caters for that territory, and therefore, peoples is a description relating to someone’s personally owned private fictitious noun of their own making, within the territory of their imagination.
Furthermore, for the perculiar people to find themselves within the house of the United Nations, as the phrasing mis-leads us to believe, they would need to agree to accept an offer to be able to enter such a house and only then could they be found within its walls; setting aside the notions of personally owned private fictitious intellectual copywritten jurisdictional territory presented here as, the United Nations.
Charter of the United Nations (1945)
The United Nations System – Principal Organs

5.3 The United Nations and the Impact on Trade

The impact of human activity on biodiversity means human beings (indirect drivers) must be eliminated with the supporting justification of the climate change lie –

Where the buck stops – The Club of Rome

Understanding the present in the light of the future by President Mikhail Gorbachev

Rio+20: understanding the present in the light of the future.

U.N.’s Shocking Millennium Agenda (21)

The U.N.’s Shocking Millennium Agenda (21)

We read –
Quote by Mikhail Gorbachev, communist and former leader of U.S.S.R.: “The emerging ‘environmentalization’ of our civilization and the need for vigorous action in the interest of the entire global community will inevitably have multiple political consequences. Perhaps the most important of them will be a gradual change in the status of the United Nations. Inevitably, it must assume some aspects of a world government.”
Quote by Gordon Brown, former British prime minister: “A New World Order is required to deal with the Climate Change crisis.”
Expose Agenda 21

A quote taken from, Expose Agenda 21, facebook page –
“The real goal of the Earth Charter is that it will
in fact become like the Ten Commandments.”
– Maurice Strong
The Earth Charter – Humanity’s Covenant with the Earth

A Little Background History of Pedigree
It may do us good, to investigate a little more closely one of the participants, in league with the others, sponsoring the rewilding publication.
The participant in question is the, “Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts (UK)”, whose name is included, among others, at the bottom of the publications pages (acting as its back-cover), to which, together with the other participants, they so lavishly helped to facilitate its sponsorship, in drawing attention to the ambitions of Agenda 21’s Depopulating Programme of Rewilding Europe.
It is not here proposed that an in-depth analysis of this organizations philanthropic pursuits are examined, which unquestionably have done much good, but what is proposed, is to be made aware of the background connections behind these organizations, and their far reaching interests in influencing much of human progress, or as the individual is free to determine for themselves, their far reaching influence in deceivingly stifling human progress.
The case to be presented, is one of providing a sequence of openly available information in the form of website links, that admittedly show that ‘the owners’ behind various philanthropic organizations as ‘their founders’ to them, and not forgetting that that which is ‘founded’ by you is clearly owned by you, surely have strong ties to the contribution of Agenda 21’s ambitions of, ‘harmonising humanities numbers to the earth’s ability of providing sustenance for sustainability to be viable’.
“The Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts or RSWT…was previously known by the names Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves and Royal Society for Nature Conservation.”
History –
“The forerunner of the RSWT, the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, was established by Charles Rothschild in 1912. It aimed initially to draw up a list of the country’s best wildlife sites with a view to purchase for protection as nature reserves, and by 1915 it had drawn up a list of 284, known as Rothschild Reserves.”
Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts
Nathaniel Charles Rothschild (9 May 1877 – 12 October 1923), known as “Charles”, was an English banker and entomologist and a member of the Rothschild family.
Family –
Charles Rothschild worked as a partner in the family bank NM Rothschild and Sons in London.
Nature conservation –
He was concerned about the loss of wildlife habitats, and in 1912 set up the Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves, the forerunner of The Wildlife Trusts partnership. In 1915 the Society produced a schedule of the best wildlife sites in the country, some of which were purchased as nature reserves.
Marriage –
In 1907 Charles Rothschild married Rozsika Edle von Wertheimstein (1870 – 30 June 1940), a Hungarian baroness and descendent of…one of the wealthiest families in Europe and had made their fortune over a century before the Rothschilds.
Charles Rothschild
The Rothschild Reserves –
In 1912 Charles Rothschild founded the ‘Society for the Promotion of Nature Reserves’ (SPNR).
More on the Rothschild Reserves –
“What was new about this approach to preserving ‘wild life’ was that it focussed on the habitatrather than just the individual species within it. It highlighted a growing belief that places needed protection from development and other damage. It showed a desire for an ordered and reasoned approach to acquiring nature reserves, in the face of increasign pressure on the natural world and culminated in a ‘shopping list’ of ideal sites – the Rothschild Reserves.”
“…the SPNR always established who the landowner was. The intention at this time was to purchase the land, turn it into a nature reserve and then hand it over to the National Trust to manage under special conditions.”
“It was believed that it was better to fence off nature and leave it to its own devices, rather than practically manage it…”
“The elite conservation crusaders could be seen to have inhabited a moral high ground where, from a lofty height, they shook their fists at progress in their quest for ‘primeval country’ and their desire to shut it off.”
The Wildlife Trusts, The Rothschild Reserves
Climate Change & Wildlife –
“Climate change is a significant threat to the UK’s wildlife. The Wildlife Trusts believe thatnature should be central to both climate change adaptation (e.g. through the use of natural processes to reduce flood risk) and mitigation (e.g. through the protection and restoration of peat and peatlands to store and sequester carbon).”
“However there is now widespread agreement among scientists that we are living in an era of accelerated climate change, much of which can be attributed to increased human activity (for example through increased carbon emmissions from air pollution).”
The words in the phrase, ‘widespread agreement among scientists’, are words that can only be attributed to ‘conflict-of-interest’ based political consesus science, and NOT ‘factual science’.
“Climate change means that there are complex demands being placed on land for food, wildlife, recreation and development. Wildlife has adapted to climate change in the past but our modern landscapes – full of buildings, transport links and intensively managed farmland and fragmented natural habitats – present a new challenge to species. It is vital that we manage and use land sustainably, so it allows plants and animals to move and adapt to new conditions for survival as the climate changes. The Wildlife Trusts’ vision for A Living Landscape is working to bring about landscape scale restoration of the natural environment and adaptation to climate change, realising and using the multiple benefits provided by nature.”
“Protecting and restoring our natural environment and ecosystems is important in its own right…Flood prevention, crop pollination, carbon absorption, clean and healthy water sources – these benefits of our natural environment must all be considered and maximised as we prepare for the effects of climate change. Critically, we need to restore healthy, Living Landscapes that help to alleviate floods, control pollution and help us cope with extremes of temperature.”
“Many of The Wildlife Trusts’ Living Landscape schemes have been designed with climate change adaptation at the forefront. At the heart of Living Landscape approach is habitat restoration and connectivity.”
Climate Change & Wildlife
The Wildlife Trusts
Giammaria Ortes:
The Decadent Venetian Kook Who Originated The Myth of “Carrying Capacity”
Recruiting the military for Agenda 21’s depopulation genocidal murder
Sustainbilities justification for depopulation, is that there are too many people to harmonise with the earth’s environment, and therefore depopulation is an absolute necessity. Of course, with the fraudulent excuse of false ‘climate change’ science as the driving force behind the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy’s ambitions for mass genocidal murder, it comes as no surprise that the Self-Ennobling Ones law enforcement and in particular their military are now positioning and prioritising their role towards sustainablities climate change depopulation ‘development’ agenda, to have the military engage in excused mass murder, on behalf of the Self-Ennobling Ones, covertly presented under a ‘new energy security strategy’ –
GB 2293 SPNC
Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts
This catalogue was digitised by The National Archives as part of the National
Register of Archives digitisation project
The National Archive
National Registar of Archives – NRA 24457
Centre for Urban and Regional Studies University of Birmingham and Institute of Agricultural History
University of Reading
A list of the historical records of the Society for the Promotion of Nature Conservation
Compiled by Philippa Bassett as part of a research project funded by the Social Science Research Council
August 1980
World Wide Fund for Nature, WWF (formerly named the, World Wildlife Fund, WWF)
World Wildlife Fund / World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF)
Founders –
Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld
Julian Huxley
Max Nicholson
Peter Scott
Guy Mountfort
Godfrey A. Rockefeller
“The World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF) is an international non-governmental organizationfounded on April 29, 1961, and is working on issues regarding the conservation, research and restoration of the environment. It was formerly named the World Wildlife Fund… It is theworld’s largest conservation organization with over 5 million supporters worldwide, working in more than 100 countries, supporting around 1,300[5] conservation and environmental projects. WWF is a foundation,[6] in 2010 deriving 57% of funding from individuals and bequests, 17% from government sources (such as the World Bank, DFID, USAID) and 11% from corporations.”
“The group’s mission is “to stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature.”[7] Currently, much of its work focuses on the conservation of three biomes that contain most of the world’s biodiversity: oceans and coasts, forests, and freshwater ecosystems. Among other issues, it is also concerned withendangered species, pollution and climate change.”

It is recommended that the entire page is read to acquire a brief working understanding and background to the WWF
World Wide Fund for Nature
There is nothing cuddly about the WWF
Use of the Glass Prism of Doublespeak to De-mystify Meaning
It becomes clear what the Self-Ennobling Ones agenda really is, for which they have worked diligently towards over a great deal of time, and how in the use of understanding “doublespeak”, they convey that agenda to each other worldwide, as well as to their mis-guided minions.
With a serious appreciation of “doublespeak”, we can come to see it in use for ourselves with negative events around the world demonstrably at odds with official explanations for them, given as one of a ‘rosy outlook’ for the future, when quite obviously the real situation on the ground points to ‘a planned grim outlook’ for the future.
The information to follow then must be interpreted through the light prism of “doublespeak”, through which wording is shone to separate its material for the purpose of seeing true meaning conveyed. That is to say, the opposite of what is presented.
This will no doubt mean, perhaps that given all the accompanying evidence, what is seen before us is not ‘crisis management’ to avert disaster and to ensure continuity for a ‘rosy outlook’ into the future, but through the prisim of doublespeak, what is seen before us are the Self-Ennobling Ones as gods at play, with their preplanned “games” devised for ‘managed controlled rehearsals’ to ensure discontinuity and great suffering through their devices and mechanisms of control.
Defininition of Doublespeak
– language that can be understood in more than one way and that is used to trick or deceive people
– language used to deceive usually through concealment or misrepresentation of truth
Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
Definition of Doublespeak
Doublespeak is language that deliberately disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words…It may also refer to intentional ambiguity in language or to actual inversions of meaning (for example, naming a state of war “peace”).
From the description given of “doublespeak”, the agenda behind the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy becomes clear –
‘Sustainablility and its development’, is a cruel deception in which a vast majority of people in the world, as victims of its ‘doublespeak hidden agenda’, work towards their own elimination, with the enslavement of the surviving few, housed in concentration camp ‘smart growth’ community dwellings, serving the rest of their miserable lives as serfs to the Self-Ennobling Ones and their self-validating clergy.
The prevailing mental condition then is controlled insanity –
Doublespeak is saying one thing and meaning another, usually its opposite.
Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.
Reader – doublethink
Doublespeak publications –
United Nations Publications
PDF Publications
Control of Raw Materials –
The Hunger Games (2012)
What is of particular interest in the movie, The Hungar Games, is the backdrop through which the movie and the characters are framed. This backdrop of infrastructure is a future sustaiable development environment.
The Real Hungar Games (Sustainable Development post 2015) –
Ensuring Discontinuity through Management Game Play –
Food Chain Reaction: A Global Food Security Game
1250 24th Street, NW | Washington, DC 20037 | © 2015 World Wildlife Fund, Inc.
We read –
About the Organizers
Food Chain Reaction is being produced by World Wildlife Fund and the Center for American Progress, with game design from CNA. Funding and technical support for Food Chain Reaction has been provided by Cargill with major support from Mars, Inc. Additional funding has been provided by Sealed Air Corporation.
Food Chain Reaction – A Global Food Security Game
Organisational Structural Chart for the Control of Raw Material

The Windsors’ Global Food Cartel: Instrument for Starvation
Primary Sourcing:
Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage
Alternative Sourcing:
Who Is Responsible for the World Food Shortage
Hinting towards an arm of sustainable developments preplanned depopulation agenda –
How would your nearest city be affected by a bomb the size of that dropped on Hiroshima?
To understand the necessity for war, using manufactured antagonism between countries as a veil to set about eliminating the true enemy (people), particularly timed for the need to distract from discovering the bankers lie of economy, and providing for the bonus of killing two birds with one stone, when it comes to meeting the requirements of obedience and Agenda 21’s depopulation goals.
The prelude to war can be traced as far back as 2008, when we look at the information under the subtitle heading,
to be found part way down the document –
Archive for Club of Rome
The 1001: A Nature Trust
The 1001 Club
The 1001 Club
Bankers, Intelligence Agents, and Raw Materials Executives Striving for a Sustainable Future
* pre-December 2014 archived version of the site – Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics
Institute for the Study of Globalization and Covert Politics
1001 Club – Incomplete Membership List
The ‘1001 Club’ – a nature trust
Transnational Classes and International Relations
By Kees Van der Pijl
For Educational Purposes Only –
Dr. Claude Martin, Switzerland – Board Member, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Former Director General of WWF
We read –
The department was separated from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1997
* Department for International Development (DFID)
We read –
The Duke of Edinburgh is the patron of many organisations, including WWF and the Duke of Edinburgh Award. The Duke was the first President of WWF-UK from its foundation in 1961 to 1982, and President of WWF-International from 1981 to 1996. He is now President Emeritus for WWF.
We read –
Their Patron is HRH The Prince of Wales.
The Wildlife Trusts
Our mission
To protect and sustainably manage natural ecosystems of the world; to conserve their biodiversity, with emphasis on threatened habitats and endangered species
How We Work –
World Conservation and Wildlife Trust
United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
International Development United States Agency For
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue Nw
Washington, DC 20004
A privately held company in Washington, DC
International Development United States Agency For
Usaid M/Oaa/Cas
1300 Penn Avenue Nw Room 824-C
Washington, DC 20004 – View Map
Phone: (212) 713-4320
Own This Business?
A privately held company in Washington, DC
USAID Acronym List
“Bernhard helped found the World Wildlife Fund (later renamed World Wide Fund for Nature), becoming its first President in 1961, and in 1970 establishing the WWF’s financial endowment “The 1001: A Nature Trust”. In 1954, he was a co-founder of the international Bilderberg Group, which has met annually since then to discuss corporate globalization…”
The Prince eventually went to work for the German chemical giant IG Farben, then the world’s fourth-largest company (which survives today as BASF, AGFA, and Bayer). After training, Bernhard became secretary to the board of directors at the Paris office in 1935.
“Prince Bernhard was a member of the “Reiter-SS”, a mounted unit of the SS and joined the Nazi party.[7] He later also joined the National Socialist Motor Corps.”
“With his global contacts, Bernhard in May 1954, was a key figure in organising a meeting at the Bilderberg Hotel in the Netherlands for the business elite and intellectuals of the Western World to discuss the economic problems in the face of what they characterized as the growing threat from Communism. This first meeting was successful, and it became an annual gathering known as the Bilderberg Group. The idea for the European Union, first proposed by Robert Schuman on 9 May 1950, was encouraged at Bilderberg.”
It is recommended that the entire page is read
Prince Bernhard of Lippe-Biesterfeld
Anton Rupert
Sir Julian Huxley is brother to Aldous Huxley
Huxley, Arnold Family Tree
“Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS[1] (22 June 1887 – 14 February 1975) was a British evolutionary biologist, eugenicist, and internationalist.”
“He was secretary of the Zoological Society of London (1935–1942), the first Director of UNESCO, a founding member of the World Wildlife Fund and the first President of the British Humanist Association.”
“In 1959 he received a Special Award of the Lasker Foundation in the category Planned Parenthood – World Population. Huxley was a prominent member of the British Eugenics Society and its president from 1959–1962.”
Later career –
“Huxley, a lifelong internationalist with a concern for education, got involved in the creation of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and became the organization’s first director-general in 1946.”
“In a fortnight he dashed off a 60-page booklet on the purpose and philosophy of UNESCO, eventually printed and issued as an official document. There were, however, many conservative opponents of his scientific humanism. His idea of restraining population growth with birth control …”
“Huxley’s internationalist and conservation interests also led him, with Victor Stolan, Sir Peter Scott, Max Nicholson and Guy Mountfort, to set up the WWF (World Wide Fund for Nature under its former name of the World Wildlife Fund).”
Recommended that the entire page is read
Julian Huxley
UNESCO Its Purpose and Its Philosophy – The Task of Unifying the World Mind
World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Pt 1

World Evolutionary Humanism, Eugenics and UNESCO Pt 2

Global Depopulation and the Eugenics Agenda (Full)

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (French: Organisation des Nations unies pour l’éducation, la science et la culture; UNESCO) is a specialized agency of the United Nations (UN). Its purpose is to contribute to peace and security by promoting international collaboration through education, science, and culture in order to further universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and human rights along with fundamental freedom proclaimed in the United Nations Charter.[1] It is the heir of the League of Nations’International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation.
UNESCO – It’s Evil Purpose and Philosophy

“He was then married to Margaret “Margo” Kuhn Rockefeller for fifty three years.”
Godfrey A. Rockefeller
Margaret Kuhn Rockefeller daughter of Richard Parker Kuhn
Caroline Parker Kuhn
b. 26 January 1925, d. 30 April 2011
Richard P. Kuhn 1916
1916 Class Crest
Cullum No. 5528 • Jun 28, 1963 • Died in Bedford Hills, New York
Interred in St. Matthews Churchyard, Bedford Hills, NY
Kuhn, Loeb & Co.
In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.
Who Is Running America ?
For Educational Purposes Only –
We note UNESCO’s founding influence in the settlement of the Self-Ennobling Ones intellectual copyright institutional agrrangements in securing inheritance rights, between themselves as gods, towards their successor-assigns as beneficiaries, when we read –
1. Introduction, page 533
“This essay returns to such an “old” conflict in the development of international copyright dating back to the signing of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works on 9 September 1886. Translation, a constant “ pierre d’achoppement” in the evolutionary history of the Berne Convention, caused problems from the outset. These returned with full force at the fourth conference for the revision of the Berne Convention in Stockholm on 11-14 June 1967. Described by one participant as “the worst experience in the history of international copyright conventions”, Stockholm marked the culmination of several years’ discussion on the viability of the international copyright regime to accommodate the needs of developing nations.”
2. Brussels, June 1948, page 534
“The Bureaux Internationaux Réunis pour la Protection de la Propriété Intellectuelle (BIRPI), located in Berne, was the administrative seat from the inception of the treaty, and oversaw revision conferences in Berlin (1908), Rome(1928) and then Brussels (1948).”
subtitle, 2. Brussels, June 1948, page 535
“The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO),played an important role in trying to redress a situation in which, in copyright terms, the world emerged from the war “virtually split into two entirely separate and independent parts”. Launched in 1945 as successor to the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation (ICIC), UNESCO anchored its copyright policy in the 1948 Declaration on Human Rights.”
TIND Comment.-
UNESCO’s strategic deceptive foil of cover as camouflage, in the use of its development of “collectivist” terms for a “Declaration on Human Rights”, won them the approval of their competing proposals for the Self-Ennobling Ones to accept, as the best means of providing for an excuse to convince the victims of designed eugenicist wars, to relegate their ‘freedoms of independence’ to closer cooperation, or corporation, by compelling acquiescence of the general populace to such terms, out of “fear” of a repeat performance of world war, in it being said, that closer cooperation would quell the brutal urges of man.
They, the general populace at large, having no inkling whatsoever, that their compulsion to accept these copywritten terms had been by design, would also have no inkling, that UNESCO’s proposals had the further advantage of completely blinding them into not coming to an understanding that what was copywritten by them in turn, through the Self-Ennobling One’s instruments of deception, (without qualification under registration of ‘noncommital-to-contract’ to copywritten-countries, but merely to record), would effectively provide the means for the Self-Ennobling Ones agencies to ‘collectively’ interfere in the ownership of their intellectual property.
Interfere as superior authorities to a now admitted subordinate position of a registrant, and that through copyright registration ‘without qualificaiton’, it was an admission that registrants were mentally incapable of maintaining their own affairs, in the same way a child lacked the mental capacity to provide for themselves, by demonstrably not understanding the requirements of speaking-up in their own self-interests, as an adult would understand to do, given their circumstances in the world as being functionally independent, and with the recognition that that independence brings, of having the cognition to voice that independence in line with their self-interests and circumstances.
Failure to speak-up, would no doubt reflect on their mental capacities as being immature and in need of assistance by rightly remaining in the charge of an adult parental figure providing for stewardship, to guide and decide what would be in their best interests. Such arrangements, of course, could find their victims intellectual rights the subject of ‘profitable confiscation’ by any number of ‘seemingly’ legitimate means.
The reader to the preceding may remain unperturbed, since as it ought to be well known, any formal relationships entered into, calls for honesty in the interests of fairness for obvious, fair and full disclosure to be provided – for the very reason that genuine ‘fairness’ can only be the basis of authenticity and therefore legitamcy – otherwise, whatsoever arrangements were entered into without full disclosure made known as to the true nature of the operations of the parties to a relationship, would justly render those arrangements ‘null and void’. And that being the case, without having even to speak of ‘the requirements of justice’.
Continuing, page 535
“Prior to the Brussels conference, UNESCO had already noted how copyright was a “barrier” to the “free flow of culture among all the peoples of the world”. In the next few years, UNESCO instigated a number of copyright initiatives culminating in 1952 with The Universal Copyright Convention(UCC).
In sum, the UCC offered an international multilateral convention with lower levels of protection than Berne, thus providing a vehicle for the US to come into the fold of multilateral international copyright agreements. Several specificities in national legislation kept the US outside Berne until 1989; these were primarily the compulsory registration of copyright and the controversial manufacturing requirement, which afforded English-language books copyright protection in the US only if manufacturedon American soil. As a compromise between the formal registration required by US law and the no formalities-Berne framework, the UCC introduced the use of a ©symbol, making it possible for the US and other countries to sign the UCC without having to change their national legislation.”
Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén
United International Bureaux for the Protection of Intellectual Property
World Intellectual Property Organisation
Multilateral agreements and a TRIPS-plus world:
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO)
We read –
“It is the heir of the League of Nations’ International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation.”
Of course, the League of Nations was the first fictitious global corporate institution, ready in waiting, to ‘tranisition’ the people of the world into ‘the idea of global governance’ after the scare tactics of fear in World War One (WWI), soon to be replaced with its permanent successor, after the follow up of WWII to ‘secure’ the establishment of the strategy of fear in bringing about an immovable seat for the readiness of permanent global governance in the form of the United Nations –
League of Nations`
In developments further unifying and solidifying the Self-Ennobling Ones fictitious interests in stealthly centralizing the means with which to confiscate the physical realm, we read, they have superseded and made obsolete the Universal Copyright Convention for that of the World Trade Organisation’s ‘Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS)’ –
“Since almost all countries are either members or aspiring members of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and are thus conforming to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (TRIPS), the UCC has lost significance.”
Universal Copyright Convention
Again, we note the understandings reached concerning issues of creative intellectual property rights, when we learn of those acting on behalf of the authors to creative property, organizing their interests through their forums to settle on agreement, when we read, 1. Introduction, page 1, of, ‘Selling Books: The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights in the 1930s’ –
After a series of bilateral agreements the main European book trading countries enacted in cooperation with culturally aware publishers and authors a multilateral agreement, the Berne Convention, in 1886. Although the American states passed the first Inter-American copyright agreement at the same time, the Convention of Montevideo in 1889, it was the Berne Convention, which proofed to be a reliable political instrument in the course of the twentieth century pointing the way ahead when intellectual property rights were institutionalized on a global scale first with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) in 1967 followed by the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1994.
Selling Books: The League of Nations and the Globalization of Intellectual Property
Rights in the 1930s
Isabella Löhr, University of Leipzig
But wait, returning to the excellent writings from COLONIAL COPYRIGHT, POSTCOLONIAL PUBLICS, those who don’t understand the dangers fictions can pose, are to be further deluded into thinking that they matter, with this –
7. Epilogue: Geneva, October 2007, page 549
“In October 2007, the WIPO Development Agenda was established by the WIPO General Assembly. Scholars have hailed it as a possible new departure for the international intellectual property regime, which has been completely dominated since 1994 by the trade-based rationales of WTO and the infamous Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). TRIPS has eclipsed and helped render the UCC “wholly peripheral to the current international copyright framework” and is targeted for critique by developing nations, echoing concerns already articulated already in 1967. The Stockholm Protocol, a satellite “disconnected from its orbit”, is another instrument relegated to the cemetery where intellectual property texts go to die. Yet, each of these texts is part of the historical foundation from which the Development Agenda draws inspiration.
Although it remains to be seen what clout the Development Agenda will have to redress past wrongs and more recent sins in the power relations between developed and developing nations, it proposes substantial changes in both its general direction and WIPO governance. In 1884, 1885, and 1886 only a handful of nations were present to formulate the original Berne Convention, and they represented a diplomatic elite. Fifty-seven states and more than 400 inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations were present in Stockholm. At present, WIPO counts 184 member nations and over 250 NGOs among those who participate in Geneva deliberations. NGOs now out weigh states in total number, greatly accelerating the presence of civil society in these global arenas, suggesting, to Ruth Okediji, that states are not as important in setting the agenda as they used to be.”
Volume 7, Issue 3, December 2010
Eva Hemmungs Wirtén

World Network of Biosphere Reserves in Europe and North America
Further history bringing sustainable development’s Agenda 21 into being –
* UNESCO’s Man and the Biosphere (MAB) programme in the mountains of Central and Eastern Europe:
past experiences and future possibilites
Martin F. Price
Environmental Change Unit,
University of Oxford,
United Kingdom
About the Man and the Biosphere Programme (MAB)
Education for Sustainable Development (ESD)

Acquiring acceptance through double-speak to micro-manage every single aspect of the lives of the people of the world on the bases of climate-change fraud for total full-spectrum targeted depopulation and enslavement –
The New Climate Economy Report 2016
Scroll down to bottom to view climate economy’s advocates. Sample descriptions of a couple of these advocates and their affairs surrounding sustainable developments climate economy and depopulation is given:
Global Green Growth Institute
UN Partners with Global Green Growth Institute
World Resources Institute
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
We note with particular interest the remarks made under the title heading, ‘Support to eugenics on past’ –
The article forgets the support of this foundation to eugenics on past and to ecology and abortion today.Agre22 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)agre22
Talk:John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
And of course, we can see under the subtitled heading, ‘The Bellagio Center’, that the foundations MacArthur Fellows have ties with the Rockefeller Foundation –
Rockefeller Foundation
The US Science Czar who allegedly holds extreme views on genocidal depopulation has strong ties with the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation –
The Triumph of Environmental Alarmism: Science ‘Czar’ John Holdren and the Woods Hole Research Center

The Triumph of Environmental Alarmism: Science ‘Czar’ John Holdren and the Woods Hole Research Center

Webster Tarpley & Elite’s Plan for Global Extermination (FULL VIDEO)

Obama’s Science Czar John P. Holdren Confronted on Population Control

Population Council
In the 3rd paragraph we find that among its partners striving for depopulation and permanent enslavement with the shackles of sustainable developments climate economy, the Self-Ennobling Ones United Nations also counts on the assistance it recieves from the Population Council –
Population and Women Programme
The fourth bullet point in, BY THE NUMBERS, sees the Population Council willingly involved in demographics issues for what ‘appears’ to be a good cause –
Case 24
Curbing Global Population Growth: Rockefeller’s Population Council
Rockefeller Foundation, 1952
Steven Schindler
Commission on Population and Development
Commission on Population and Development
Forty-eighth session
Strengthening the demographic evidence base for the post-2015 development agenda
Leading World Bank Demographer: Vaccination Campaigns Part Of Population Reduction Policy
Population control on the Swiss agenda
Who runs the show? Article documents how U.S. (globalist) foundations don’t just fund Canadian environmentalist groups – they help fund the Canadian government!

Who runs the show? Article documents how U.S. (globalist) foundations don't just fund Canadian environmentalist groups – they help fund the Canadian government!

Alex Jones and his guest brilliantly expose succintly the plans of the Self-Ennobling Ones and their High Priest self-validating clergy of Amon Ra’s depopulating and enslaving programme without having to wade through volumes of text –
The Roots of Technocracy with Expert Patrick M. Wood

The World Depopulation Agenda
What Alex Jones’ and Patrick Wood’s discussion lacks is ‘genuine true solution’ to the mind-paralysing information they provide that gives, simply and easily, a means to understand how to counter the elites provocations and attacks to no longer fall into the traps of their schemes that have people running around in circles and relying on others to save them:
Genuine Simple Solution Begins With Simply Presented Factual Understanding
What is that key-knowledge that amiable providers of news never ever seem to provide with a few exceptions. Take a look for yourselves –
Firstly, know thyself –
Rule Thyself Lest Ye Be Ruled
Secondly, understand where it is that the matrix happens –
Read the simply presented information titled, ‘OF FICTIONS (The world of the imagination)’, approximately 1/2 way down the link given as –
Thirdly, understand how you’re bought and your livelihood confiscated in being used to work towards your own eugenicist self-destruction –

Fourthly, stand back and take a look at how it all comes together –
And finally, understand how the ‘renaming’ of eugenics has come into operation today –
This 1926 Eugenics Exhibit Sums Up What the Elite Think About You and Your Family
“Again, eugenics didn’t end when it fell out of favor during World War II; it was simply forced to go underground. It got renamed and buried in what they hope would sound like more benign scientific areas, like genetics, human ecology, and bioethics. The Rockefeller Foundation and other elite family foundations quietly continued their quest for population control of the general “riff raff” through different means.”


February 28, 2016

By James Montgomery


This is additional information to the 1213 Charter, along with other important information. I stated in “The United States Is Still A British Colony”, that the king gave his holdings to the Pope. I also stated that the 1215 Charter was made null and void by the Pope. I have new information that may surprise you on this subject. You will see the letters of correspondence between the Pope and King John, concerning these two charters. You will also read information connecting our flag to Britain’s, through the colors, and the direct connection these colors have to the Pope. You will see new information connecting American lawyers to the British Bar, and tacit connection to the Pope.

American and World history have been rewritten, by the exclusion of historical events, for the protection of special interests named in this paper. In this paper I’ve uncovered some of these lies and truths not told. In some cases a lie can also be withheld truth. I have dealt with both modes of deception in my book. The two charters mentioned above have much withheld truth. The quoted portions of the personal correspondence between the Pope and the king deal with claims I have made regarding these two charters.

It’s not my purpose to tell you what, or how to think, but remove the barrier keeping you from thinking outside of the box in which you live, your mind. A box filled and shaped with information provided by those that wish you to think a certain way.

Before you read these letters and the other important information I will deal with in this paper, there is some hidden knowledge you need to understand, it deals with the human mind. What I’m going to tell you will help you understand not only this paper, but any information you read, or hear. This information is short and is contained in this brief forward.

In this paper I’m going to challenge the very foundations for which you base your beliefs, concerning the Constitution and your freedom, and your religion no matter what it is. I call these subjects, “the building blocks of human understanding”; every human is programmed with these building blocks, to a greater or lessor extent. A great deception is taking place, and the executors of the deception are three organizations most trusted by the public; government, media and religion. Only after you come to the realization that you have been deceived, will you be able to think outside of the box which has been provided through education and other mediums, for you. Through the government, media and religion you have been brainwashed with predetermined information, the building blocks of the human mind, your programming.

My purpose for sharing this information is “truth”. Keep in mind I was taught the same information as you. Thoroughly indoctrinated by the public schools, television, organized religion and any other medium of indoctrination that formed my beliefs, including the United States Marine Corps. I would say I have had more to overcome than most people, as to the brainwashing I received. Only through making God Almighty’s Word my foundation, not Man’s indoctrination, was I able to see beyond the box, the reality created for me.

I wish I could MAKE everyone understand how the human mind works, a subject so simple, it is difficult to understand and explain.

As I said above this deals with brainwashing, through indoctrination and programming. I know the subversive term brainwashing automatically triggers disbelief and suspicion; I ask you to bear with me. Whatever your programming has been, it is the reason, the cause, for the way you view and disseminate information. This is the reason there are so many different religions, types of governments and social experiments. The people under these different systems, will go to their grave thinking they are right, simply because of their programming.

Have you never wondered how a Muslim could strap a bomb to his body and kill himself and many others? It is due to his programming, that began at birth. The Muslims have been taught they have 70 virgins waiting for them after they blow themselves up, among other things, and that they are doing the will of God, and will be rewarded for their sacrifice. Only religion promising a reward greater than the suffering here on earth, makes it possible for a human to be programmed in such a way, willing to kill him or herself, along with many innocent people. I am sure there are those in the Muslim religion, amazed how we could believe the Christian religion and do the things we do.

As an example, the Pope promised the crusaders that if they would fight against the Muslims, that he, the Pope, would pray their souls out of hell and that they would go to heaven. Do you see any difference between this and the belief of the suicide bombers? Christian’s were foolish and ignorant enough to believe the Pope. How was it possible? Through the twisting of God’s Word by a man claiming to be the equal of Jesus Christ, the Vicar of Christ. Deception can only take place where there is a lack of knowledge. To prove brainwashing is not restricted to foreign governments and other religions, as an example I’ll use the USMC (U.S. government). In just thirteen weeks, the time spent in USMC boot camp, an average man that is self centered, concerned only with his own life is transformed into a man that is willing to charge a machine gun nest without hesitation, kill without discretion, or give up his life retrieving a fallen Marine. Brainwashing is necessary in a war setting, but should not be used on the public. To prove brainwashing is used, I heard with my own ears in a Congressional hearing several years ago, a Marine Corps General being questioned, and he offered up this information, that the USMC uses brainwashing to get Marines to charge into a deadly situation when told to do so, to follow orders without question. I’m not arguing right or wrong, my point is, any mind can be brainwashed.

If brainwashing can be done in such a short time, think of what years of public school have done to you, not to mention television, without your knowledge. I laugh when I hear someone in government talk about the extremists in other countries, or even in this country, about their being brainwashed. Strictly because they disagree or oppose the public policy in this country, or their beliefs are contrary to Judeo Christian beliefs. For the average American to get a full picture of what it means to be brainwashed, they need to look in a mirror, examine their own thoughts and beliefs, and how they came by them. The mind set in this county is, it is only others that can be brainwashed; this is what makes me laugh.

The indoctrination sponsored by government through the public schools, and the social engineering by government to create a Country of mind numb robots, that function as the renewable resources they are legally defined to be, is a crime.

No one wants to think they could be so easily manipulated, but you have been, just as I was. Why is the public manipulated in such a way? Because they make better slaves. Just as it serves those that orchestrate this maniacal system, to cause strife between the races and religions, the blacks to hate whites, or vice versa, the poor to hate the rich, or vice versa, the Protestants to hate the Catholics, or both religions to hate all other religions, and vice versa. They keep everyone, distracted with a multitude of issues, so busy earning a living, they have no time to educate themselves. Just as Thomas Jefferson warned, we would be satisfied with the crumbs from our masters table, and the sixteen hours a day it would take to earn them.

You can take any child, I don’t care what nationality, keep that child from the teachings that are indigenous to his people, teach him the contrary and that child that grows into an adult, will reject the beliefs that are indigenous to his people, in preference to his indoctrination. Take an Anglo Saxon, Catholic or Protestant that has no knowledge of the Muslim faith, indoctrinate that child in the Muslim faith, and that child will be a Muslim till death and will be capable of taking up arms against a non Muslim, or Nation.

This is THE truth, I don’t care what religion you are, or what ethnicity you are, nor does it matter the level of your intelligence. Whatever was programmed into you as a child, into the human mind, God, god, or lack of a God or god, country or religion. Brainwashing subjugates that person’s beliefs the rest of his or her life, and will determine how they disseminate all information that comes to them later in life, either accepting it or rejecting it, based on whether or not it agrees with their programming as a child and young adult. Only through deprogramming and reprogramming can this be changed. As an adult you can be reprogrammed, if certain procedures are used, as I pointed out above, describing the USMC. How much more susceptible is a child? A child’s mind is a empty hard disk so to speak, it will accept whatever operating system you install on it.

I wrote the following analogy several years ago, I think it may help, more now, since more people understand the function of a computer.
“If you have some knowledge of computers, you know that the operating system; I’ll use DOS as an example, is at the lowest level on the hard drive, it is the foundation on which the rest of the data is built and disseminated. The human mind is no different, your operating system is your core beliefs, God, parents teaching, school; with many in this country you can substitute government for God.

Before your mind accepts any information, it is first disseminated by your core beliefs and rejected if the information coming in is in conflict with your core beliefs. Just as with a hard drive, that is programmed with say DOS 5, all programs installed on the hard drive, have to be accepted by DOS 5 as compatible and not harmful to the operating system. If DOS 5 finds the program your trying to install is in conflict with the operating system, it will be rejected. Likewise, if you input certain information into the human mind during the programming years, you will have predictable behavior by that person, just as with the computer, from birth all the way to the grave.

The only way to change or modify the core beliefs of a human, is to override the existing information with new or modified information, that has to come from such a reliable source, the human mind will allow itself to be reprogrammed, causing the belief structure to be changed. Just as the computer will not allow DOS 5 to be upgraded to DOS 6, unless it recognizes it as coming from its creator, Microsoft. The most reliable and reputable source as far as the computer is concerned. With a human mind, it depends how far down you are going into the program, and what are the predominant core beliefs. The core beliefs in place will determine the level of reliability as well as the source of the information needed, before the information will be accepted. It’s sometimes necessary to deprogram the human mind, just as you would format a hard drive, figuratively speaking, to remove faulty data or software. This is very similar to what takes place with the human mind that is deprogrammed, you then reinstall the program you want, reprogram the mind. Just as you would install a new operating system on a hard drive, after you format the drive.

Let me give you another example as to how this works. I know through understanding this principle, through self examination of my beliefs, and the information that created them, that the Bible and Jesus are THE ONLY reality, and that Satan is the orchestrator, the manipulator of the governments, thereby responsible for the World in which we live today, but allowed by God Almighty for the fulfillment of His Son’s Word, and the operation of Jesus’ Kingdom, in which he rules the World and controls the governments of the World with a Rod of Iron.

Now, examine how the statement above effected you, how did you react, but more importantly, Why? I know you reacted, in an instant of time, without any effort or forethought on your part, and with no awareness the process was taking place. You formed an opinion, the information was either accepted or rejected.

WHY? You had no idea while reading the above paragraph, that your thought process was being manipulated, causing you to react a particular way. Folks this happens to everyone daily, your response is predictable. Based on how Americans have been programmed as a child by their parents, and later by the schools, churches, media and government. I want you to be able to recognize this, this is the only way you can be truly free. Be honest with yourself here, no one knows but you. What sets apart your reaction, from say a Christian’s, from a Muslim’s, or a Baptist’s from a Catholic’s, etc.? How do you know your reaction is correct, and that the information you learned years before was correct? You just used your prior programming to disseminate the statement I made above. Are you correct? Have you checked it out? Do you have proof? Did you not react to the statement I made above with the information you were programmed with? Would not your reaction have been different if you were raised as a Muslim versus a Christian, or an Atheist? Be honest, think about your immediate reaction to what I said, compare the reaction you had to what you could imagine coming from yourself if you were programmed another way. All humans are the same in regards to their creation, the mind of a Muslim works the same as a Christian. So why are there different reactions to what I said above? Programming, brainwashing to be blunt. The example I gave deals with religion, but replace religion with any subject, any reaction you have is based on your prior programming. Until you understand this you will never be free and be able to think outside of the box. To go against the way your programmers want you to think.

Why did God Almighty create Man, including Woman with this feature? To protect Man from error, which would bring about Man’s separation from God Almighty, and ultimately cause Man’s death. The circumvention of God’s creation is what happened in the garden of Eden, “reprogramming”. Satan understood this principle, and used it against Man, by enticing Man to see with the flesh instead of his spirit and programming provided by God Almighty, by asking Man, “hath God Said”, just enough doubt to question God Almighty, to get Adam and Eve to eat from the tree of knowledge. What else did Satan say? “You’ll be as God, knowing good and evil” from that point, the programming and the built in protection given God Almighty’s creation, was perverted and used against God’s creation, Man. What is the relevance? The same mind created by God Almighty, will believe anything it is programmed with, truth or a lie, good or evil. Without God’s Word and Spirit, Jesus as your foundation, any programming is possible. As I said above you can take any child, and create anything from a Jeffery Dommer, to George Washington; of course I’m speaking of morals and core beliefs, not intellect. The human flesh is capable of any evil or atrocity, we have many historical examples of this. Many have been perpetrated by the different religions and governments. Only through understanding the human mind and how it works, and that there are forces in the World using this understanding of the mind against you, will you be able to think outside the box, only with the correct building blocks, the foundational programming provide by God’s Word and His Son Jesus Christ can you disseminate the information being pumped into you, no matter what medium it comes at you, through government controlled schools, through the media or through religion. There are many different mediums of indoctrination. I hope through self examination you will be able to analyze the beliefs you hold. Beliefs that have been provided for you, which you have accepted as truth without confirming the information. Beliefs you have accepted solely because of supposed reliability of the source, in the belief the source would never lie to you, or that the source has your best interest at heart.



1. Letters from Pope Innocent III, to King John.
2. The Pope’s creation of the Knights Templars.
3. Betrayal of the Knights by the Pope and the kings they served.
4. Connection of our flag to the Pope, and the secret societies.
5. The bridge between the secular and the Biblical, the Knights Templar and Lawyers.
6. Conclusion

My Comments are in brackets []

Chapter 1

Letters from Pope Innocent III, to King John

[America, for that matter the whole World, the documents below will conflict with what you have been taught by government sponsored schools and the government sponsored churches. I wrote about the information contained in the below letters, in my book called “The United States Is Still A British Colony”. I pointed out that in the 1213 Charta, the king gave all of England and Ireland to Pope Innocent III. Many people still find this hard to believe, or understanding what they have read in this Charter. To do so Challenges what they have accepted as truth for years. Some wonder if true, what is the relevance. I made it clear what the relevance is, not just the obvious, that the Pope was now a legal party, as of 1213, in regards to the affairs of England, Ireland and the United States, by way of the charters creating the United States.

Since Britain’s rejection of the Catholic Church in 1689, when they cast off the Pope’s religion and bulls, for the Protestant religion, the Pope has used any means to regain control. This needs to be understood by every person in the World, for knowledge is freedom and it will change our World.

The documents that frame our country, including the Fairfax Resolves, Declaration of Independence, etc., are said to be derived from the 1215 Magna Charta, a document declared null and void by the Pope. I explained the Pope’s authority to inject his will was made possible by what happened in the 1213 Charter. The king became a tenant and trustee of the Pope, again proof of this is the fact that a rent was paid by the king to the Pope. The Pope was now a legal party to whatever transpired in England, concerning his new possessions, with an exception that I’ll get into later. I made these statements based on contract law, which the courts would have to uphold. Since the 1689 Bill of Rights, the appearance is that these documents have no relevance. For sure between the years of 1213 and 1689, the Pope’s power and bulls changed the World. I stated years ago that the Magna Charta was an illegal document, based on the actions of the Barons, it was null and void.

The letters below clarify what I had written, concerning the 1213 and 1215 Charters. Here you have the actual communication between the Pope and the king, not my opinion, that prove I was correct in my assessment.

The 1213 Charta was written May 15, 1213, the first letter below was two months later, in which the Pope accepts the king’s offer. This would be a good time to cover again the legal construction of a contract; offer, acceptance, and valuable consideration. If you are not aware of it, a contract between parties overrules any civil or common law right. It does not matter how absurd a contract is, it just has to meet the above legal definition, and be free from fraud. The king offered his kingdom to the Pope as reparation for his supposed sins against the Pope, the Pope accepted the king’s offer, the valuable consideration was the king’s payment of a 1000 marks. The king as sovereign transferred his status and property to the Pope, and here is the exception, through a lie perpetrated by the Pope, made possible by the king’s ignorance of God’s Word. The king was lead to believe he would, for a lack of a better way to put it, go to hell, unless he made this agreement with the Pope.]

Letter from Pope Innocent III, to king John, July 6, 1213

“To Him, who from evil is able to bring forth good, we render thanks for having mercifully inspired you to make fitting reparation for the losses and wrongs inflicted upon the Church: for you have both accepted the form of reparation which had been prepared after much consideration, and you have also put your person and territory under apostolic suzerainty by right of lordship making over in perpetuity to the Holy Roman Church your kingdoms of England and Ireland, to be held through the church and of the Church, subject to an annual payment of 700 marks for England and 300 marks for Ireland, as is more fully and explicitly contained in your legally framed charter.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. page 149

“You now hold your kingdoms by a more exalted and surer title than before, for the kingdom is become a royal priesthood and the priesthood a kingdom of priests as stated by Peter in the Epistle and Moses in the Law. Come, then, exalted prince, fulfil the promises given and confirm the concessions offered, so that God Almighty may ever fulfil any righteous desire of yours and confirm any honorable purpose enabling you so to walk amid temporal blessings as not to fail of winning the eternal.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. page 149-150

“The aforesaid legate, having full knowledge of our mind, will instruct and reassure you as to our good pleasure.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. Page 151

[Below is a Quote from the second letter from the Pope, echoing the transfer of the king’s property, to the Pope.]

Letter from Pope Innocent III, to King John, November 4, 1213
“….and manifestly grateful, in that, to make full amends for your sins, you have offered yourself and your property to God and the Church.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. Page 168

[The third letter below, is the legal closing of the contract, payment of the 1000 marks to the Pope, the signing of the document with the signing of the witness, sealed with the king’s golden seal. This document declares that the contract between the king and the Pope was legal and binding on all parties, heirs and successors, forever. You will notice if you study closely the likeness in the legalize of these letters and the later Charters written by the king’s barristers, regarding the incorporation of America.]

Letter from Pope Innocent III, to king John, April 24, 1214

[This is the heading to this letter.]


“The King of kings and Lord of lords, Jesus Christ, a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedech, has so established in the Church His kingdom and His priesthood that the one is a kingdom of priests and the other a royal priesthood, as is testified by Moses in the Law and by Peter in his Epistle; and over all He has set one whom He has appointed as His Vicar on earth, so that, as every knee is bowed to Jesus, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, so all men should obey His Vicar and strive that there may be one fold and one shepherd.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. Page 177

“….so that those provinces which from of old have had the Holy Roman Church as their proper teacher in spiritual matters should now in temporal things also have her as their peculiar sovereign. You, whom God has chosen as a suitable minister to effect this, by a devout and spontaneous act of will and on the general advice of your barons have offered and yield, in the form of an annual payment of a thousand marks, yourself and your kingdoms of England and Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances, the Holy Roman Church and to us and our successors, to be our right and our property as is stated in your official letter attested by a golden seal, the literal tenor of which is as follows:

‘John, by the grace of God king of England, lord of Ireland, duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, count of Anjou, to all the faithful of Christ who may see this charter, greeting in the Lord.

‘By this charter attested by our golden seal we wish it to be known to you all that, having in many things offended God and Holy Church our mother and being therefore in the utmost need of divine mercy and possessing nothing but ourselves and our kingdoms that we can worthily offer as due amends to God and the Church, we desire to humble ourselves for the sake of Him who for us humbled Himself even unto death; and inspired by the grace of the Holy Spirit not induced by force nor compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and on the general advice of our barons we offer and freely yield to God, and to SS Peter and Paul His apostles, and to the Holy Roman Church our mother, and to our lord Pope Innocent III and his catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom of Ireland with all their rights and appurtenances for the remission of our sins and the sins of our whole family, both the living and the dead. And now, receiving back these kingdoms from God and the Roman Church and holding them a feudatory vassal, in the presence of our venerable father, lord Nicholas, bishop of Tusculum, legate of the Apostolic See, and of Pandulf, subdeacon and member of household fealty henceforth to our lord aforesaid, Pope Innocent, and to his catholic successors, and to the Roman Church, in the terms hereinunder stated; and we have publicly paid liege homage for the said kingdoms to God, and to the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, and to the Roman Church, and to our lord aforesaid, Pope Innocent III, at the hands of the said legate who accepts our homage in place and instead of our said lord, the Pope; and we bind in perpetuity our successors and legitimate heirs that without question they must similarly render fealty and acknowledge homage to the Supreme Pontiff holding office at the time and to the Roman church. As a token of this our perpetual offering and concession we will and decree that out of the proper and special revenues of our said kingdoms, in lieu of all service and payment which we should render for them, the Roman church is to receive annually, without prejudice to the payment of Peter’s pence, one thousand marks sterling five hundred at the feast of Michael and five hundred at Easter that is, seven hundred for the kingdom of England and tree hundred for the kingdom of Ireland, subject to the maintenance for us and our heirs of our jurisdiction, privileges, and regalities. Desiring all these terms, exactly as stated, to be forever ratified and valid, we bind ourselves and our successors not to contravene them; and if we or any of our successors shall presume to contravene them, then, no matter who he be, unless on due warning he come to his senses, let him lose the title to the kingdom, and let this document of offer and concession remain ever valid.

‘I, John, by grace of God king of England and lord of Ireland, will from this hour henceforward be faithful to God and Saint Peter and the Roman Church and my lord Pope Innocent III and his catholic successors. I will not take part in deed, word, agreement, or plan whereby they should lose life or limb or be treacherously taken prisoners; any injury to them, if aware of it, I will prevent and will check if I can; and otherwise, I will notify them as soon as possible, or inform a person whom I can trust without fail to tell them; any counsel they have entrusted to me either personally or by envoys or by letter I will keep secret, nor will I wittingly divulge it to anyone to their disadvantage. I will help in maintaining and defending, to the utmost of my power, against all men, the patrimony of Saint Peter, and particularly the kingdom of England and the kingdom of Ireland. So help me God and the Holy Gospels of God whereon I swear.

‘To prevent any questioning of these terms at any time in the future, and for the greater surety of our offer and concession, we have caused this charter to be made and to be sealed with our golden seal; and as tribute for this the first year we pay a thousand marks sterling to the Roman Church by the hand of the said legate. (The witness were listed here), signed October 3, 1213

‘This offer and concession so piously and wisely made we regard as acceptable and valid, and we take under the protection of Saint Peter and of ourselves your person and the persons of your heirs together with the said kingdoms and their appurtenances and all other goods which are now reasonably held or may in future be so held: to you and to your heirs, according to the terms set out above and by the general advice of our brethren, we grant the said kingdoms in fief and confirm them by this privilege, on condition that any of your heirs on receiving the crown will publicly acknowledge this as a fief held of the Supreme Pontiff and of the Roman Church, and will take an oath of fealty to them. Let no man, therefore, have power to infringe this document of our concession and confirmation, or presume to oppose it. If any man dare to do so, let him know that he will incur the anger of Almighty God and of SS Peter and Paul, His apostles. Amen, amen, Amen.

(Rota) I, Innocent, bishop of the Catholic Church, have signed. Farewell. (The other signers were listed below)
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1956. Page 178-183

[The last letter is from Pope Innocent III, to the king, with record of the king’s appeals to the Pope, the Pope puts the rebellious barons on notice, also the world, of his legal claims. In this letter, the Pope declares the Magna Charta was to be ignored, and reports that the king informed the barons he had no legal authority to sign the Magna Charta. The Pope declared the Magna Charta null and void.]

Letter from Pope Innocent III, to king John, August 24, 1215

“….such complete amends that he not only paid compensation for losses and restored property wrongfully seized, but also conferred full liberty on the English church; and further, on the relaxation of the two sentences, he yielded his kingdom of England and of Ireland to St Peter and the Roman Church, and received it from us Again as fief under an annual payment of one thousand marks, having sworn an oath of fealty to us, as is clearly stated in his privilege furnished with a golden seal;….”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1956. Page 212

“For we in our letters, and we equally through the archbishop and bishops, have asked and advised the king, enjoining it on him as he hopes to have his sins remitted, to treat these magnates and nobles kindly and to hear their just petitions graciously, so that they too might recognize with gladness how by divine grace he had had a change of heart, and that thereby they and their heirs should serve him and his heirs readily and loyally; and we also asked him to grant them full safe conduct for the outward and homeward journey and the time between, so that if they could not arrive at agreement the dispute might be decided in his court by their peers ACCORDING TO THE LAWS AND CUSTOMS OF THE KINGDOM. But before the envoys bearing this wise and just mandate and reached England, the barons threw over their oath of fealty; and through, even if the king had wrongfully oppressed them, they should not have proceeded against him by constituting themselves both judges and executors of the judgement in their own suit, yet, openly conspiring as vassals against their lord and as knights against their king, they leagued themselves with his acknowledged enemies as well as with others, and dared to make war on him, occupying and devastating his territory and even seizing the city of London, the capital of the kingdom, which had been treacherously surrendered to them. Meantime the aforesaid envoys returned to England and the king offered, in accordance with the terms of our mandate, to grant the barons full justice. This they altogether rejected and began to stretch forth their hands to deeds still worse. So the king, appealing to our tribunal, offered to grant them justice before us to whom the decision of this suit belonged by reason of our lordship: but this they utterly rejected. Then he offered that four discreet men chosen by him and four more chosen by themselves should, together with us, end the dispute, and he promised that, first in his reforms, he would repeal all abuses introduced into England in his reign: but this also they contemptuously refused. Finally, THE KING DECLARED TO THEM THAT, SINCE THE LORDSHIP OF THE KINGDOM BELONGED TO THE ROMAN CHURCH, HE NEITHER COULD NOR SHOULD, WITHOUT OUR SPECIAL MANDATE, MAKE ANY CHANGE IN IT TO OUR PREJUDICE: and so he again appealed to our tribunal, placing under apostolic protection both himself and his kingdom with all his honour and rights. But making no progress by any method, he asked the archbishop and the bishops to execute our mandate, to defend the rights of the Roman Church, and to protect himself in accordance with the form of the privilege granted to Crusaders. When the archbishop and bishops would not take any action, seeing himself bereft of almost all counsel and help, he did not dare to refuse what the barons had dared to demand. And so by such violence and fear as might affect the most courageous of men he was forced to demeaning but also illegal and unjust, thereby lessening unduly and impairing his royal rights and dignity….we refuse to ignore such shameless presumption, for thereby the Apostolic See would be dishonoured, the king’s rights injured, the English nation shamed, and the whole plan for a Crusade seriously endangered; and as this danger would be imminent if concessions, thus extorted from a great prince who has taken the cross, were not cancelled by our authority, even though he himself should prefer them to be upheld, on behalf of Almighty God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by the authority of SS Peter and Paul His Apostles, and by our own authority, acting on the general advice of our brethren, we utterly reject and condemn this settlement, and under threat of excommunication we order that the king should not dare to observe it and that the barons and their associates should not require it to be observed: the charter, with all undertakings and guarantees whether confirming it or resulting from it, we declare to be null, and void of all validity for ever. Wherefore, let no man deem it lawful to infringe this document of our annulment and prohibition, or presume to oppose it. If anyone should presume to do so, let him know that he will incur the anger of Almighty God and of SS Peter and Paul His.”
Selected Letters of Pope Innocent III, concerning England
(1198-1216), Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1956. Page 214-216

“barons until the Sunday after Easter on the pretext that their demands were too complex for immediate decision. The Pope’s reply to the king’s message was a suggestion of delay by the device of “arbitration.” On May 9, 1215, the king proposed to the barons “arbitration” before a court consisting of representatives of himself, of the barons and of the Pope, after the barons had besieged the royal castle at Northampton. This proposal was rejected by the barons. And they answered on May 17, 1215, by capturing London. The king’s negotiators, who included Archbishop Langton, finally effected an agreement with the barons, about June 10, 1215, at a conference at Runnymede, that was signed and sealed by King John on or about the date that the Magna Carta bears, June 15, 1215.

After he had been forced to sign the Magna Carta by threat of defeat by the barons, King John sent word of it, by envoy, to the Pope. The envoys returned several months later, bearing Papal bulls, dated August 24 and 25. Pope Innocent III declared the Magna Carta to be:

“…unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful…whereby the Apostolic See is brought into contempt, the Royal Prerogative diminished, the English outraged, and the whole Enterprise of the Crusade greatly imperiled.” (211:14)

On these grounds and on the ground that “the king had been compelled to enter upon it by force and fear” (211:14), and On the implied ground that it violated the basic tenets of Christianity in its denial of dictatorial rights to him and his henchmen, POPE INNOCENT III DENIED ON BEHALF OF THE CHURCH THE DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AS EMBODIED IN THE MAGNA CARTA, BECAUSE POSSESSION OF RIGHTS BY ANYONE VIOLATES THE TENETS OF THE CHURCH.

The Papal bulls were greeted by the barons with a resumption of the civil war in England. The Pope was so enraged at the failure of Archbishop of Canterbury Langton to destroy the rebellious barons and carry out the orders incorporated in his bull, that he suspended him from his office when he visited Rome at the end of September 1215, to attend the Fourth Lateran Council. Undoubtedly with the consent, and probably at the direction of the Vatican, the French invaded England under Prince Louis and joined forces in a treacherous alliance with the barons, as pretender to the throne of King John.

The sudden death of King John, in October 1216, brought to the throne his nine-year-old son, as King Henry III. His supporters revived the Magna Carta to appease the barons and gain their support against the pretender who was badly routed. These circumstances barred any further effective opposition to the Magna Carta by the Pope, without risking loss of the 666 pounds tribute.”

Chapter 2

The Pope’s creation of the Knights Templars

[In the below quotes You’ll see that the Knights Templars were a creation of the Pope. Their special grant of nobility came from the Pope, not to mention the grants they received from the king of England, including their being the first tax collectors on income. They were arguably the first International Bankers. You’ll see that the Knights Templars were agents of the Pope, fiduciaries of the king. The Knights Templars transferred the king’s payment to the Pope, for the kings agreement in 1213, transferring his holdings to the Pope, and receiving them back as fief, paying yearly as valuable consideration of their agreement, making the agreement perfectly legal. The Knights Templars were the military arm of the Pope, and they answered only to him, they were bound to no civil law, no authority on earth could subject them to their law or jurisdiction.]

“As they had no fixed place of abode, Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem, gave them a residence within the precincts of his own place on Mount Moriah near the church known as the Temple of Solomon, while the clergy of the Temple, inspired by his example, added ground for the erection of necessary offices, and other benefactors supplied the means of maintaining the Knights in food and clothing. From their sacrifice of all worldly advantage, and this the first place of their settlement, they became known as the poor fellow-soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon (Pauperes Commilitones Christi et Templi Salomonis). Thus was founded in 1118 the famous Brotherhood of Soldier Monks the Knights of the Temple.

At first their progress was slow; few joined them in their seemingly inglorious toil. At the end of nine years they had obtained seven recruits. Then, however, the saintly Bernard of Clairvaux lent them the aid of his powerful advocacy, and drew up for their guidance rules of conduct soon embodied and drew up their guidance rules of conduct soon embodied in the more elaborate code which receive the sanction of the Council of Troyes (1128). By Pope Honorius II they were given a distinctive habit in a white mantile, symbolical of purity and innocence; to which, twenty years later, Pope Engenius III added the red cross seal and badge of martydom thus proclaiming by the sign they bore the dedication of their lives to the defence of pilgrims and the Holy Land.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 5-6

“By the famous Bull Omne datum optimum, first published in 1162 and a second time ten years later, Pope Alexander III raised the Order to a position of extraordinary privilege, and rendered them immune from all jurisdiction, lay or ecclesiastical, other than that of the Holy See….

….Thus the Templars became independent of all control save that of the Supreme Pontiff, and as proceedings of their chapters were secret, virtually a sealed book to the rest of the Catholic Church. The admission of priests, however, did not place them on a footing of equality with the lay brethren, to whom were reserved all the powers of government. Further, only a knight who had taken the vows of the Order could hold the office of Grand Master, and to the vows of the Order could hold the office of Grand Master, and to the Grand Master all the members were bound by their vows to render implicit obedience. In the Church at large authority lay with the priest, only he could bind and loose, could pronounce the dread sentence of excommunication, and grant deliverance from it by absolution. This was the power by which, in the Middle Ages, the Church was able to lay a restraining hand on the most licentious Rulers and even to shake the thrones of Kings.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 6, 12, 13

“The estates of the Order were managed in the interests of the common object, the defense of Christianity in the East, and the revenues they yielded devoted to that purpose. They formed a network over Christendom, and the means of communication this elaborate organization afforded led to the Templars becoming the financial agents of the Crusaders and later the Bankers of Kings and Princes.

From the first the Knights in England were closely associated with the royal Court, and the prestige this connection gave the Order no doubt often induced them to undertake duties not contemplated by their pious Founders. As laymen, yet invested with ecclesiastical sanctity and a power within the kingdom though not of it, their counsel was frequently sought by embarrassed Rulers often at issue with rebellious subjects in the rude age in which they flourished. Thus the New Temple became a recognized center of meeting and conference in great affairs of Church and State. Bound to the Popes by a peculiar allegiance, the hospitality of the Templars was often extended to foreign Prelates and other officers of the mediaeval Church who visited England on the business of the Holy see. The Master of the Temple ranked as one of the Magnates of the Realm, and successive Kings made use of his services as envoy in the conduct of negotiations with other Princes.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 16, 17

“….These relate chiefly to the King’s business, but there can be no doubt that in multitudes of other private cases of which there is now no record the same thing was going on. Moreover, from a very early date the Crown made use of the services of Templars as royal agents in the collection of monies payable under subsidies granted the King by the Magnates lay and ecclesiastical. Thus in 1188 Henry II appointed Gilbert de Ogrestan, a Brother of the Temple, with others to collect the tenth known as the Saladin Tithe, believed to be the first tax levied upon personal property in England….

….It is manifest also that the Knights carried on a regular business of foreign exchange and constantly undertook, in consideration of money paid to them at the New Temple, to discharge abroad debts owing to foreign creditors by persons resident in England. Further, the New Temple is frequently named as the place where money borrowed or a debt otherwise arising is to be paid or discharged….

….By the second and third, dated respectively January 1st and 4th, 1214, a sum of 6000 marks was ordered to be paid from the Temple Treasury to Pandulph the Papal Legate, and another sum of 1000 marks to the same person, together with Thomas de Erdington and Almeric de Sacy. In the following year John paid to the Master of the Temple 1100 marks, which he had borrowed from the Order to enable him to bring troops to England from Ponthieu.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 30, 31

“Further gifts still continued to be showered on the Order. As late as April, 1303 license was granted the Templars to hold lands in mortmain, received from six different grantees.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, page 43 footnote

Hospitallers of St. John of Jerusalem

“The most important of all the military orders, both for the extent of its area and for its duration. It is said to have existed before the Crusades and is not extinct at the present time. During this long career it has not always borne the same name. Known as Hospitallers of Jerusalem until 1309, the members were called Knights of Rhodes from 1309 till 1522, and have been called Knights of Malta since 1530.” Catholic Encyclopedia

“Present State of the Order”

The secularization of the property of the order in Protestant countries was extended by the French Revolution to the greater number of Catholic countries. On the other hand, Czar Paul of Russia assigned them considerable property in his domains (1797), and in return was elected grand master, but his election was not recognized by the pope. From that time forward the pope has named the grand master of the bailiff who takes his place. From 1805 to 1879 there was no grand master, buut Leo XIII re-established th dignity, bestowing it on an Austrian, Geschi di Sancta Croce. It is now (1910) held by Galeazzo von Thun Hohenstein. The actual conditions for admission to the order are: nobility of sixteen quarterings, the Catholic Faith, attainment of full legal age, integrity of character, and corresponding social position. There are now in existence only four great priories, one in Bohemia, and three in Italy. There are still commanders and several classes of knights, with different insignia, but all wear the same eight-pointed Maltese cross (see DECORATIONS, PONTIFICAL).” Catholic Encyclopedia

Military Orders


“In England, Edward III, in memory of the legendary Knights of the Round Table, established in 1349 brotherhood of twenty-five knights, exclusive of princes of the blood and foreign princes, with St. George as its patron and with its chapel in Windsor Castle for the holding of chapters. This, the Order of the Garter, takes its name from the characteristic badge, won on the left knee. The choice of this badge has given rise to various anecdotes of doubtful authenticity. Nothing is now known of the original object of the Order of the Bath, the creation of which dates from the coronation of Henry IV (1399). A third order, Scottish by origin, is that of the Order of the Thistle, dating from the reign of James V of Scotland (1534). These orders still exist, though they have been protestantized.” Catholic Encyclopedia

Religious State

“The knights of the great orders were regarded in the Church as analogous to monks whose three vows they professed and whose immunities they shared. They were answerable to the pope alone; they had their chapels, their clerics, and their cemeteries, all exempted from the jurisdiction of the secular clergy. Their landed property was free from tithes. They were not subject to the interdicts which the bishops in those days employed so freely. They did not all follow the same monastic rule. The Templars and orders derived from them followed the Cistercian Reform. The Hospitallers followed the Rule of St. Augustine. Nevertheless, in consequence of the relaxation which manifested itself among them after the period of the crusades, the Holy See introduced mitigations in favour of the non-clerical brethren. For these it was difficult to maintain the rule of celibacy in all its rigour; they were permitted, in certain orders, to marry once, and that only with a maiden. Even where second marriages were tolerated, they had to vow conjugal fidelity, so that if they violated this obligation of the natural law they sinned doubly against the law and against their vow. Besides the three vows, the rule bound the brethren to the exercises of the monastic life such as the recitation of the Hours, for which, in the case of illiterates, a fixed number of Paters was substituted. It also prescribed their dress and their food, and their feast, abstinence, and fast days. Lastly, the rule imposed detailed obligations in regard to the election of dignitaries and the admission of members to the two ranks of combatants — knights and men-at-arms — and the two of non-combatants – chaplains, to whom all sacerdotal functions were reserved, and casaliers, or tenants, who were charged with the management of temporal affairs.” Catholic Encyclopedia

Military Organizations

“The military organization of the orders was uniform, explained by that law of war which compels the belligerent to maintain his military apparatus on a level with those of his adversary, on pain of defeat. The strength of an army was in its cavalry, and to this type the armament, mounting, and tactics of the military orders conformed. The knights-brethren were the heavy cavalry; the men-at-arms-brethren, the light cavalry. The former were entitled to three horses a piece; the latter had to be content with one. Among the former, only knights of tried prowess were admitted, or, in default of this qualification, sons of knights, because in such families the warlike spirit and military training were hereditary. The consequence was that the knights, properly so-called, were never very numerous; they formed a corps d’lite which carried the great mass of the crusaders. Gathered in convents which were also barracks, combining with the passive obedience of the soldier, the spontaneous submission of the religious, living shoulder to shoulder in brotherly union, commander and subordinate, these orders surpassed, in that cohesiveness which is the ideal of every military organization, the most famous bodies of picked soldiery known to history, from the Macedonian phalanx to the Ottoman Janissaries.”

Economic Organization

“The importance acquired by the military orders during the course of the Middle Ages may be measured by the extent of their territorial possessions, scattered throughout Europe. In the thirteenth century nine thousand manors formed the portion of the Templars; thirteen thousand that of the Hospitallers. These temporalities were an integral part of the ecclesiastical domain, and as such had a sacred character which placed them beyond liability to profane uses or to secular imposts. They differed from the temporalities of other monastic institutions only in the centralized system of their administration. While within each of the other religious institutes every abbey was autonomous, all the houses of a military order were bound to contribute their revenues, after deducting expenses, to a central treasury. As a result of this enormous circulation of capital controlled by the orders, their wealth could be applied to financial operations which made them veritable credit and deposit banks. Their perfect good faith earned for them the implicit confidence of the Church and of temporal rulers. The papacy employed them to collect contributions for the crusades; princes did not hesitate to entrust to them their personal property. In this respect, again, the military orders were model institutions.” Catholic Encyclopedia

Chapter 3

Betrayal of the knights by the Pope and the king’s they served

[The Knights Templars were disbanded in 1312 after the Pope had accused them of heresy, corruption and abuse of their titles of nobility. Another secret group called Knights Hospitallers received the property held by the Knights Templars.

The claim that Pope Clement V was a puppet of the French king is ludicrous. Were political favors extended back and fourth? Sure, but to suggest more than this flies in the face of historical fact. Once the Templars had out lived their usefulness and their power had grown large enough to threaten the Pope, the Pope decided it was time to destroy them, and see to it their holdings, which were acquired through Papal favor, escheated back to the Pope, or to be held by his trustee the king, and were again granted to the next Papal secret society.

The plot between the Pope and the French king is the most heinous, despicable and evil betrayal of trust in the history of mankind. It was such a vile plot it could only have been born in hell in the mind of Satan carried out by his henchman, the Pope and king of France, later to include the king of England. I’m not a defender of the Templars, nor do I agree with their religion, but what was done to them by the Pope is the ultimate betrayal.

This paper is not an attack on the people, that practice Catholicism. They have as much right as the Baptist to go to hell, as with followers of other “religions”. However, I recognize the honor and dedication of the Templars, for their service to the Pope and Catholicism; for which they learned in the most horrible way, was misplaced faith and loyalty. The enormity of the evil plot and betrayal of these honorable men is dwarfed only by the betrayal and murder of Jesus Christ, carried out by the Jews. Through selective history being taught, and this history being hidden, the World has been kept ignorant of the dastardly and evil destruction of the Templars, to obtain their wealth and power. The horrendous and baseless claims created by the Pope, to slander honorable men sworn to give their lives and fortune to this evil and vile man, who claims to be the vicar of Christ, redefines betrayal. The only analogy I can give to compare to what the Pope did would be, a mother murdering her children while they look into her eyes with total faith, trust and love as she murders them. Even though I don’t support the religious or political views of the betrayed Templars, to see through history how these honorable men were shamed and murdered by the one person they trusted, who declared to be second only to Jesus Christ, the moral compass of the Church Jesus Christ established, makes me mad as Hell!

When the perpetrators of this evil plot against honorable men, come before Jesus Christ at the Judgement Seat, stand back. Their torture throughout eternity will be second only to Satan himself.

A glimpse of righteous indignation and judgement was carried out by the knights Templars of England, those that survived the Pope’s inquisition. Those of you that saw the movie Braveheart will remember the close of the movie, when Robert the Bruce decided to attack the king and his soldiers. The movie stopped at that point, but the battle did not. They fought all day, some accounts say two days. Then at the end of the day appearing at the rear of the Scottish ranks, attacking through the worst possible terrain, the king of England and his knights saw what no doubt filled them with horror, proven by their action. The 500 English Templars entered the battle, these battle hardened swordsmen engaged the English soldiers, who were no match for the Templars. The Templars were the special forces or the Bruce Lees of their day, battle hardened men, expert in the Art of War. The carnage the king of England and his knights saw, caused them to flee the field of battle, the kings soldiers seeing this followed the king, giving the Scots a rout, against 4 to 1 odds, 20,000 English troops against 6,000 poorly armed Scots.

I’m sure the reason the king fled was, because he knew no mercy would be had at the hands of the betrayed Templars, and that he and his knights would have been killed, and there was no one who could stop the Templars attack. I would have given anything to have seen this battle, not for the carnage, but for the justice. All be it not carried out against the main conspirator, the Pope. The victory was no doubt very sweet. Reports say the Templars did not lose a single man on this day of retribution. You see a glimpse of Jesus Word, a 1,000 shall fall by my side, 10,000 by my right hand, also, my enemies shall flee seven ways. History shows the Templars migrated to what is now known as Sweden, and are the bankers and farmers of today, still intrusted with the wealth of the World.

The complicity by the public during the inquisition is proof positive of prior programming of the public, by religion and government, giving the Pope and king a freedom to declare whatever they wanted about the Knights Templars, no matter how absurd, to be believed by the public. The complicity of the public was expected and counted on by the Pope and king, they knew they could act with impunity and with no fear of retaliation by the public. Does the evil perpetrated by the Pope and king, and the complacency of the public remind you of a modern event? Waco! The public having been programmed over the years, then given implanted code words to describe those in the Waco Church, like cult, child molester, extremist in a compound and the possessors of dangerous weapons. Once they were so labeled, the public was totally complacent, even when they saw the Constitution and Bill of Rights being violated by the government, for them that just added more credence to the charges. If the government is using this extreme force, these have to be dangerous people. I have no idea what religion the Davidians practiced, it’s irrelevant. Did the women and children deserve to be tortured and burnt alive?

After the women and children were burnt alive by the government, the public was quick to believe the government’s spin and propaganda, that the Davidians had to have set the fire. The horror and suffering the women and children went through as their skin and eyes were chemically burnt, as their backs were broken by the chemically induced constriction of their muscles, and if still conscious, they slowly drowned by their blood pooling in their lungs. All this occurred before the fire. Their torture was caused by the huge amounts of tear gas pumped into the church. All this occurred as the public watched on television. Do you understand how you have been manipulated by the government and the Press? Compare the propaganda the public was spoon fed by the government and the press at Waco, with what was done to the Knights Templars in the quotes below. There is no difference, it was much easier today thanks to the modern technology utilized by the government and media.]

“The Temple Church was built by the Knights Templars in the twelfth century. It is the third oldest church in London and in it the Knights Templars were accused of performing some very strange Pagan rites. In the Great Fire of 1666 the Temple Church barely escaped.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, page 88

“At this time the occupant of the Papal throne was Bertrand de Got, formerly Archbishop of Bordeaux and now known as Pope Clement V. He had moved the Papacy to Avigonon, and was a puppet in the hands of the French King, to whose influence he owed his elevation to the Pontificate. Philip IV, surnamed le Bel, now ruled France: a Prince whose handsome exterior veiled a nature essentially false and cruel. With revenues depleted by his Flemish Wars, he turned a greedy eye on the wealth of the Templars. Exactly when and how the plot between Philip and his subservient Pope was first hatched has not been disclosed, but it is certain that while still professing publicly the most friendly feelings towards the Order he was secretly planning their destruction.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 44, 45

“….Upon allegations secretly made, charges were drawn up imputing to the Templars infidelity, idolatry, heresy, and the most detestable vice. Proof presented no difficulties, for France was at this time under the Inquisition, and, heresy being charged, the expert hands of the Inquisitors could be relied on to force by torture confessions sufficient to establish guilt. Moreover, the Chief Inquisitor was Philip’s private Confessor, so that in the seclusion of the royal palace all the plans could be secretly matured for bringing to the State. The events which followed have been truly called “the great crime of the Middle Ages.”

Mysterious rumours were first set in circulation defaming the Order. Some of these reached the ears of the Grand Master, who at an interview with Pope Clement denounced them as false and asked for a public inquiry. No inquiry was granted, but Molay seems to have been satisfied that the rumours found no credence from the Holy Father. Philip treated him with a like duplicity, for it was essential the secret of his plot should be carefully guarded till the time was ripe for action. Three years before, in conferring fresh privileges on the Order, he had proclaimed the esteem in which he held them, eulogizing their works of piety and charity, and their magnificent liberality in all times and places, and his outward demeanour gave no indication of the deadly intentions he harboured towards them. Thus no steps were taken by the unsuspecting victims to meet the impending blow. On October 12th, 1307, the Grand Master was honoured with the place of pall bearer beside the King at the obsequies in Paris of the Comtesse de Valois. The very next day the storm burst. Pursuant to royal orders secretly issued a month before, Molay and all the officers and members of the Order who could be found in France were seized and imprisoned, and all their property taken into the King’s hand. Thus the empty coffers of Philip were at once replenished with the immense treasure stored in the Temple at Paris. On the 14th the arrests were followed by a proclamation which set forth the alleged crimes of the Templars, charging the whole Order with idolatry, denying Christ, and spitting on the Cross at initiation, and habitual immorality of the vilest description; while further instruction in their depravity was imparted to the populace assembled for the purpose in the gardens of the royal palace.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 46, 47

“….Further, ignorant of the Pope’s complicity, King Edward also wrote to Clement on behalf of the accused, expressing his amazement and horror at the terrible nature of the charges inspired, as he suggested, by envious and evil disposed persons who turned the good deeds of the Order to works of perversity, and which he was unable to credit because the Master and Brethren of the Temple, constant in the purity of the Catholic Faith, were greatly esteemed by him and all his kingdom in living as well as morals.

Meanwhile, however, Clement had decided to intervene himself in England, and, on November 22nd, had addressed to Edward from Poitiers, where he appears to have been in conference with the French King, one of those mendacious Bulls with which he now sought to poison the mind of Christendom. In this document (Pro Capcione Templariorum), after reciting the crimes of the Templars, their arrests in Fraance, and the seizure of thei property by Philip, which he alleged had been done for its safe custody and the benefit of the Holy Land, he proceeded to state that the Master of the Order had since publicly and spontaneously confessed that the denial of Christ at the instigation of Satan had been made part of their ceremony of initiation, and that many other Brethren of the Temple in different parts of France had also confessed the wickedness charged against them, doing unfeigned penance therefor. Further, he alleged that he himself had examined a Knight of the Order of high birth and authority, who had spontaneously and fully confessed the crime of denying Jesus Christ on admission, and had been present at a Chapter in the Kingdom of Cyprus when a certain nobleman at his initiation by the Master’s command committed this very wickedness in the presence of two hundred members of the Order, of whom about one hundred were Knights. His Holiness accordingly exhorted King Edward with caution and secrecy in one day to arrest all the Templars in his Kingdom and take their property into safe custody.

Although it is clear there was no belief in the charges at the English Court, on receiving this further communication, Edward yielded. Perhaps in that age even it strong Ruler, if a professed son of the Church, could hardly have done otherwise, for, as has been aptly said, ” When the Vicar of Christ himself entered the witness box scepticism was silenced.” The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 48, 49

In August, 1808, carne another Papal Bull (Faciens Miscericordiam), repeating much that had been alleged in Clement’s former missive to the King but addressed to Winchelsea, Archbishop of Canterbury, and his suffragans. In this Bull the Pope declared that at the very commencement of his Pontificate reports had confidentially reached him that the Grand Master, Preceptors, and Brethren of the Order of the Temple had lapsed into the unspeakable sin of apostasy, the detestable vice of idolatry, the execrable crime of sodomy, and many heresies that his dearest son in Christ, Philip, the illustrious King of the French, had also heard these things, and that the guilt of the Templars had been proved by many confessions, attestations, and depositions of the said Grand Master and many Preceptors and Brethren of the Order in France. That before three Cardinals deputed by himself to inquire and ascertain the truth, the Grand Master and many Preceptors being sworn had deposed and confessed freely and spontaneously without compulsion or fear that on reception into the Order they had denied Christ, spitting upon the Cross; that some had also admitted that with the same denial and spitting they had received others; that certain Brethren had confessed other things horrible and indecent regarding which shame kept him silent; and that on beaded knees, with clasped hands, humbly and earnestly and with many tears, they had begged for absolution. He accordingly directed the Archbishop and Bishops to institute inquiries in England through the Provincial Councils, and in particular to examine the Templars there upon certain articles of accusation transmitted with the Bull, and named two Inquisitors, Deodatus, Abbot of Lagny, and Sicarde de Vaur, Canon of Narbonne, whom he was sending to conduct the examinations, and whom he required the English Bishops to assist. Clement had no doubt heard of the letters King Edward had dispatched to Portugal, Castile, Sicily, and Aragon, for in this Bull he further alleged that King Philip had not acted against the Templars from avarice, not intending to take any of their property for himself, and having wholly removed his hand from it, but following in the illustrious footsteps of his progenitors, from zeal for the orthodox Faith.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 51, 52

“The articles of accusation sent by the Pope numbered eighty seven. They dealt (i. a.) with the alleged denial of Christ and spitting on the Cross at initiation; alleged acts of indecency between the Preceptors and novitiates; the wearing of cords or belts consecrated to idolatry; alleged acts of immorality; the worshipping of idols (including cats) in their Chapters; disbelief in the Sacraments of the altar and absolution from sin by the Master and Preceptors, being laymen only….

….No evidence was obtained, however, in proof of the Papal allegations. All the members, Knights, Priests, and Serving Brothers, alike denied the charges and protested their innocence.
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, page 53

“Meanwhile, under the merciless direction of King Philip and his Inquisitors, the tragedy had been pursuing its cruel course in France. There, those Brethren who did not confess were condemned to perpetual imprisonment, while those who admitted the charges and did not afterwards withdraw their admissions were for the most part absolved and set at liberty. Others who, ashamed of their weakness under torture, subsequently retracted their confessions of guilt and claimed to defend the Order, were seized by Philip’s command and burnt as relapsed heretics. Fifty four so suffered at Paris in one day. Their firmness in adhering to their retractations notwithstanding the terrible consequences and the intrepidity with which they endured a cruel death, astonished all beholders, and point with overwhelming force to the falsity of the charges laid against them.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 63, 64

“….The fate of James de Molay, the Grand Master of the Temple and some of his superior officers still remained undecided….With Molay, Geoffrey de Charnis, Preceptor of Normandy, and two other Knights of high position, Hugh de Peraud, Visitor of France, and Godfrey de Gonnville, Preceptor of Aquitaine, were arraigned before this tribunal. The two latter abode by their former confessions, and were sentenced to perpetual imprisonment. But the Grand Master and Geoffrey de Charnis, to the astonishment of their Judges, seized the opportunity to publicly declare that they were innocent of the charges laid against them, that the confessions they had made to save their own lives were false and that the Order was pure and holy.

Unprepared for such an emergency and at a loss what course to pursue, the Commissioners adjourned without pronouncing any judgement. Subject only to ecclesiastical law the Knights were not amenable to any lay jurisdiction till sentenced by a spiritual Court, but, contemptuously indifferent to Papal sanction, King Philip did not wait. Calling his Counsellors together he forthwith passed sentence of death, and at dusk of the same day, March 18th, 1313, the Grand Master and his undaunted companion were taken by royal officers to an island in the Seine and, protesting their innocence to the last, slowly burnt to death.

It is said that in his final agony Molay summoned Pope and King to meet him within a year before that tribunal where judgment does not err. The story may be an ex post facto invention to be explained rather by a popular belief in the innocence of the victims than by any circumstance which actually occurred. But, be that as it may, in the events which followed many believed they beheld the retribution of divine wrath. In little more than a month the venal Pontiff, glutted with ill gotten gain wealth, was smitten by a foul disease and passed to his account; while on the 29th of the following November King Philip, still in middle life, was called from the enjoyment of his plunder to answer for the wrongs he had committed. He expired at Fontainbleau, the victim of a mysterious malady which baffled all medical skill.”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 65, 66

“The severance from Rome and the confiscation of the Monastic estates in England which were carried out by Henry VIII, were accompanied by one change which intimately concerned the two legal Societies of the Temple. The heavy hand of that masterful monarch fell with crushing force upon the Order of St. John of Jerusalem. During two hundred years in the Island of Rhodes, the Knights, against the Moslem Power, had valiantly upheld the cause of the Cross, but at last, in 1525, they were forced to capitulate to the conquering Turk. In their extremity their great services to Christendom were forgotten. Henry coveted their possessions, and in 1540 his subservient Parliament passed an Act confiscating the property of the Order in England. To give some colour of justification to the robbery this statute recited that the Knights of the Hospital of St. John had unnaturally, and contrary to the duty of their allegiances, sustained and maintained the usurped power and authority of the Bishop of Rome, the common enemy to the King and his realm; and that the Island of Rhodes, being lost, it was better that possessions of the Order should be employed and spent within the realm for the defence and surety thereof than used by such unnatural subjects who daily did privily and craftily attempt to subvert good and godly policy. Accordingly, it proceeded to make the wearing by the members of the Order upon their bodies of any sign, mark, or token, heretofore used or accustomed for the knowledge of the said religion, an offence against the Statute of Praomunire (16 R. II, c. 5); vested all the property of the Order real and personal in England and Ireland in the King and his successors, to use and employ at his own free will and pleasure under survey of the Court of Augmentations, and pronounced void and of none effect all privileges of sanctuary hitherto belonging to, used, or claimed in the mansion houses and other places commonly called St. John’s hold. Pensions were provided under the Act for various officers of the Order, “being the King’s true and faithfull subjects,….”
The History Of The Temple, London, J. Bruce Williamson, pages 143, 144

“The turning of the tide for Robert the Bruce, Scotland and the Knights Templar was the famous Battle of Bannockburn which took place on June 24, 1324…. On June 24 of 1324, Robert the Bruce of Scotland with approximately 6,000 Scots miraculously defeated 20,000 English soldiers. Exactly what took place has never really been recorded. It is believed by some that Bruce did it with the help of a special force of Knights Templar. After all, June 24 was also a special day to the Knights Templar; it was St. John’s Day….after a day of combat which had left both English and Scottish armies exhausted… Panic swept the English ranks. King Edward, together with 500 of his knights, abruptly fled the field. Demoralized, the English foot-soldiers promptly followed suit, and the withdrawal deteriorated quickly into a full-scale rout, the entire English army abandoning their supplies, their baggage, their money, their gold and silver plate, their arms, armour and equipment.”

“…the great King Robert the Bruce supported by the Knights Templar led by Sir William Sinclair with an army of only 9,000, defeated 38,000 Englishmen, the Scots facing heavy cavalry, archers and wave upon wave of staunch and brave Englishmen.

On that day, it was the crushing charge of the Knights Templar across rocky and almost impassable ground that turned the tide of victory. That far off day, almost seven hundred years ago, they won for Scotland her independence….Sir Robert Keith commanded the light cavalry whilst the Knights Templar were led by Sir William Sinclair.”

Chapter 4

Connection of our flag to the Pope, and the secret societies

[The below quotes are self explanatory, I’ve already dealt with the military nature of our flag in “The United States Is Still A British Colony”. I wouldd just point out, Britain use their uniforms as representations of their flag, we retained the British colors in our flag, the colors of Britain and the Pope.]

“The first Templar to be initiated in the United States was William Davis who was given thhe degrees of Excellent, Supe Excellent, Royal Arch, and Knight Templar by the St. Andrew’s Royal Arch Lodge on August 28th, 1769. Davis owned an apothecary business in Boston, but is perhaps most noted for his efforts at the Battle of Bunker Hill. Here it was Davis who suggested the “Barrel Defense” in which Barrels full of earth and stone were rolled down on the attacking units.

Of course other Revolutionary War notables would be invested with the honor of being Knights Templar, among them Paul Revere who was initiated on December 11th, 1769. Latterly, on May 14th 1770, Joseph Warren another Revolutionary War hero would add his name to the roster of early American Templars.”

“All Knights Templar are members of the world’s oldest fraternal organization known as “The Ancient Free And Accepted Masons” or more commonly known as “Masons”. However, not all Masons are Templars. Templary is but a part of the Masonic structure known as the “York Rite Of FreeMasonry”.”

“….that of the Templars was purely military form the beginning, and on this point it can claim priority, despite the contrary assertions of the Hospitallers. The Templars followed a different monastic rule and wore a different habit — the white habit of the Cistercians, whose rule they followed, with a red cross, while the Hospitallers had the black mantle with a white cross. In war the knightly brothers wore above their armour a red surcoat with the white cross. Mutually emulous from the outset, they soon became rivals, and this rivalry had much to do with the rapid decline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In other respects the two orders held the same rank in Church and State, both being recognized as regular orders and endowed by the papacy with most extensive privileges, absolute independence of all spiritual and temporal authority save that of Rome, exemptions from tithes, with the right to have their own chapels, clergy and cemeteries….The name knights then prevailed over that of hospitallers. This character was accentuated by the fusion of the Hospitallers with the remaining Knights Templars subsequent to the suppression of the latter (1312). This fusion at the same time increased the wealth of the order, to which the pope assigned the property of the Templars in every country except Aragon and Portugal.” Catholic Encyclopedia

“All of the flags used in the colonies were military flags: “The flags used by the Colonies, before the Revolution, were chiefly those of the mother country, and though there were many other designs, they were nearly always combined with some feature of the British colors.” Fallows P. 3.

“The flag mentioned by Admiral Preble that was unfurled by General Washington at his camp at Cambridge is called the Grand Union Flag. It was the first federal flag to contain the thirteen stripes.

What is this Grand Union Flag? How is it composed? In the canton are the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, taken, with their blue field, straight from the “meteor flag” of old England. But the greater part of this new flag is contained in the thirteen alternate stripes of red and white, symbolic of the thirteen leagued Colonies that stretch from New Hampshire to Georgia.” Abbott P. 10.

“The Grand Union flag was nothing more than an adaptation of the British red ensign, also known as the meteor flag. The only difference being that instead of being entirely red, it contained thirteen, horizontal red and white stripes, like the modern day American ensign.

The statement is made that it was designed by a committee appointed by Congress for that purpose; but the committee referred to was appointed to confer with General Washington and others for the purpose of devising means for organizing and maintaining an army, and neither does their official report nor correspondence show that they even considered the question of a flag. It was not long after their return to Philadelphia when, on January 1, 1776, there was hoisted over General Washington’s headquarters on Prospect Hill, at Somerville, near Cambridge, a flag having thirteen horizontal red and white stripes, and in the canton was the Union Jack, complying with the act of 1707, requiring that it be on all flags, banners, standards, and ensigns, whether used on land or at sea. It was merely the British marine flag of that day, with the solid red field divided by white ribbons so as to make thirteen red and white stripes, representing the thirteen revolting Colonies.

At that time the idea of independence was not generally seriously considered, so that the Union Jack in this flag showed the allegiance of the Colonies to their mother country. The flag itself was immediately appropriated by the Navy, for our continental fleet under Admiral Hopkins carried it as a national ensign early in February, if not in January, 1776; and although our Army used it over fortifications and barracks, they did not carry it in battle. With the growth of the idea of independence the colonists apparently conceived a dislike for the Union Jack in the flag, for after 1776 I have found no definite instance of its use by our Revolutionary patriots.” Thurston P. 8.

“Prior to the Declaration of Independence the different colonies retained the standards of the mother country, the ancient national flag of England, a white banner with the red cross of St. George, or the union flag of King James, a combination of the crosses of St. George and St. Andrew, designated as the King s colors.” California Constitution P. 5.

“On January 2, 1776, at Cambridge, in the presence of the military, with the assistance of his officers, and with appropriate ceremonies – in which the Franklin Committee were participants – General Washington, with his own hands, hoisted the newly accepted and newly made banner upon a towering and specially raised pine tree liberty pole; thus unfurling to the breeze and displaying to his army, the citizens of the vicinity, and the British forces in Boston, for the first time, the new and officially recognized Confederated Colonial Flag.

This was the first authoritative recognition of any standard having the color of Congressional action as a distinctively accepted flag to represent the confederated and co”perative union of the Colonies in their resistance of tyranny, injustice and oppression. And this was the first time in the history of the world when thirteen alternate red and white stripes was the foundation field of any national standard.”
Campbell P. 50.

“For nearly seventy years before the Revolutionary War broke out, the red ensign of Great Britain was generally adopted by the American colonies. It was called the Union flag, because in the upper corner next to the staff, which is called the canton, were the red cross of St. George, representing England; and the white cross, representing Scotland. The combination of these crosses which indicated a union character, was prescribed in 1707. While the colonists were not lacking in devotion to the British ensign in pre-revolutionary times, they nevertheless took occasion to place some particular device upon it applicable to the individual colony to which it belonged.”
Smith P. 10.

“The Declaration of Independence, at Philadelphia, on July 4, 1776, transformed the hitherto British Colonies into Independent States; changed the Colonial Congress into as nearly a Continental Legislature as under the circumstances it could become; and made John Hancock the representative [P.54] head of the new government. The Colonial Flag, of “Thirteen Stripes and British Union,” thus became the Standard of the thirteen newly nationalized and co”perating state governments.”
Campbell P. 53, 54.

“From 1707 on the Union Flag and the red ensign, or Meteor Flag, were borne by both merchant marine and the royal navy. On land they floated over the forts and followed the marching armies. They waved, too, over remote wilderness posts, and over the forest-threading brigades of the fur trader.

Thus the flag of Britain was the colonists flag, endeared to them by ancient association and by the endurance of common hazards and triumphs in uncounted campaigns and battles. Quaife P. 35.” A Treatise On the Jurisdictional Significance of the American Ensign

“With this practice of nations, then, before them, and evidently applied by them, viz.: that of applying some badge of distinction in use in their armies to their national banner, combined with that of indicating different portions of their armies by different colors for their flags; and of two nations, when uniting, adopting as a common ensign something to indicate their union, and still preserve the original banners (both as to devices and color), under which they had respectively achieved signal triumphs, especially as this last example was that of the mother country, we may expect to see the colonies carrying out this practice in their Union flag.

They were British colonies: and, as we have [P.69] shown, they used the British Union, but now, they were to distinguish their flag by its color from other British ensigns, preserve a trace of the colors under which they had previously fought with success, and, at the same time, represent this combination in some form peculiar to themselves.

The mode of distinction by color could not well be applied by the United Colonies in a single color, as the simpler and most striking were exhausted in application to British ensigns; but, if applied, must have been used in a complex form or combination of colors. This being the case, stripes of color would naturally be suggested as being striking, as enabling them to show the number and union of the colonies, as preserving the colors of the flags previously used by them; and also the badge of distinction, which, at the time of the adoption of this flag, marked the different grades in the un-uniformed army before Boston. Hence, probably, the name, The Great Union Flag, given to it by the writer in the Philadelphia Gazette, before quoted, doubtless Colonel Joseph Reed, inasmuch as this flag indicated, as respected the Colonies, precisely what the Grand Union Flag of Great Britain indicated respecting the mother country.” Hamilton P. 68, 69.

“This idea became an accomplished fact upon the inauguration of the new government, in 1789. Up to that date the Stars and Stripes formed the flag of the “Thirteen United States.” Since that time the “Red, White and Blue” has been the National Standard of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.] is precise and pointed, but it is very brief. The entire subject is contained in one sentence of the Journal of the Continental Congress, and it reads as follows:

“Resolved, That the flag of the thirteen United States be thirteen stripes alternate red and white; and that the union be thirteen stars, white, in a blue field, representing a new constellation.”

This resolution was passed by the Congress, at Philadelphia, on June 14, 1777. It was nearly a year after the Declaration of Independence, and a year and a half after the meeting of the Franklin Committee on the Colonial Flag, at Cambridge, that the English Union in the American flag was replaced by the blue field containing thirteen stars.” Campbell P. 55.

“We cannot escape more or less difficulty when we search for light as to who designed and manufactured the first flag bearing the Stars and Stripes. The popular story bestows the honor upon Mrs. Betsy Ross. It is alleged that Congress appointed a committee composed of General Washington, Robert Morris, and George Ross to design a flag. These gentlemen called upon Mrs. Ross in the month of May or June, 1776, and commissioned her to make the first flag with thirteen stars to harmonize with the thirteen stripes which had been placed on the standard raised at Cambridge six months previous.” Smith P. 45, 46.

“One of the most famous events involving the flag in colonial times was the case of John Endicott, who removed the cross from the flag because he believed it to be a symbol of popery, a sentiment felt by many in the colonies:

In November, 1634, complaint was recorded that John [P.15] Endicott had defaced the English ensign at Salem by cutting out with his sword a part of the red cross in the flag that hung before the governor s gate, declaring that it savored of popery, and he would have none of it. He was a member of the court assistants, but for this insult to the king’s colors he was reprimanded, removed from his office, and disqualified to hold any public office for the space of one year.

In this sentiment, that his violent act indicated, Endicott was not without sympathizers; and soon after some of the militia refused to march under the symbol that was to them idolatrous. After a grave controversy, which was not concluded until some time in December, 1635, when the military commissioners appointed colors for every company, leaving out the red cross in all of them, it was agreed that the king’s colors should fly from ships and be displayed over Castle Island, Boston, because the castle belonged to the king, and this flag continued in use there until the establishment of the commonwealth under Cromwell.

In 1651, when the English Parliament revived and adopted the old standard of the cross of St. George as the colors of England, the General Court of Massachusetts adopted this order: As the Court conceive the old English colors, now used by the Parliament, to be a necessary badge of distinction betwixt the English and other nations, in all places of the world, till the state of England alter the same, which we very much desire, we, being of the same nation, have therefore ordered that the captain of the Castle shall advance the aforesaid colors of England upon all necessary occasions.” Harrison P. 14, 15. A Treatise On the Jurisdictional Significance of the American Ensign.

Chapter 5

The bridge between the secular and the Biblical, the Knights Templar and Lawyers

[For years I have heard lawyers say the American Bar has no connection to the British Bar, and that their law license and admission to the Bar, in no way separates them from the public by way of privilege or title of nobility. This argument is utter folly. The courts try to give the impression that there is no privilege, but just on the face of reality, even through a court may let a defendant represent himself, you are denied access to the same information a lawyer has access to. You are denied witnesses when a lawyer would not be. Your paperwork is rejected for the most juvenile reasons, when the same mistake would be overlooked or fixed by a clerk. An American defending himself is held to a much higher standard, to a greater or lessor extent depending on the judge, because you are not a Bar member. Your case is dismissed with the slightest misstep, or possibly ruled frivolous and without merit, without explanation. Lawyers are brought up to the side bar to work out deals, or are given instruction or help, through advice by the judge. Non Bar members are kept from such side bars, so this claim that a lawyer has no privilege is a lie.

Today it’s almost impossible to get elected to a public office higher than dog catcher, unless you are a lawyer or a Mason.

Let’s look at some historical reality. Knights Templars worked and answered directly to the Pope, they were a direct link between the Pope and the king. They worked in concert with the kings of many Nations to carry out the Popes policies.

The property the Knights Templars held in England was by grant by the king, it was called the Temple, it had three courts, the inner, middle and outer, later in history the outer temple faded away, the temple has four inns, Inner Temple, Middle Temple, Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn. There was a gate built to enter the Inns/Courts, called the Bar, only these four Inn’s could admit someone to the Bar.

I have covered what happened to the Knights Templars during the inquisition, and that the Knights Hospitallers took their place, until they met a similar fate as the Templars. The Knights Hospitallers began renting the Inner Temple to a certain company of lawyers, and the Middle Temple to another company of lawyers. This was when the lawyers got their hold on the Inns of the Temple and the Bar, during the fourteenth century. In 1673 the lawyers purchased the Inner and Middle Temples for a gold cup weighing 200 ounces and filled with gold pieces, for this price they became absolute owners as tenets, forever. The lawyers have been in the Temple since 1312.

The “Bar” was created by the Knights Templars, not the lawyers, to cross the Bar and enter the Temple you had to get permission. When the lawyers bought their way into ownership of the Temple and received their grants, they just carried on the tradition that you could only gain admission to the “Bar” by the keepers of the Temple. The lawyers also continued the practices of the Knights Templars, as a secret society, this is why so many lawyers and judges are Masons, and secrecy is built into their profession. You will read in these quotes, that all Templars are Masons, but not all Masons are Templars. These Templars came to America as did the lawyers that had been taught, subjugated by the British Bar. These groups are directly responsible for the laws used before, during and after the formation of this county. They have almost exclusively run this county since its inception, holding every office in our country at one time or another. The American Bar that exists today came by these men, and they have the gall to say there is no connection; they are joined at the hip with the British Bar. So why do they make such foolish claims? I think most lawyers don’t know their own history, it was not necessary for them to be taught this by law schools, and may even have been detrimental. It’s not necessary for the lawyers to know the truth about the Bar, and the evil system it gave birth to. Once our legal and judicial system was put in place by our fore fathers, the intent of those that created the Bar gained a life of its own. To live on through the legal system, changed or modified in this Country by Congress as needed for the preservation of the major corporations and Trusts, that give life to this system.

It’s laughable that President Wilson and Senator Charles Lindbergh Sr. and others thought that by breaking up Standard oil and other major Corporate trusts, that they stopped the monopolies. All they did was make them smaller pieces and allowed trusts to change corporate names making it harder to track them. If not for lawyers and Masons controlling the federal and state governments, they would have had a better chance. However, the fact is, it was for the public’s consumption, just a show.

There is no way a lawyer can deny the American Bar is not part of the British Bar. Those loyal to the British Bar formed our legal system and were totally loyal to it, as a matter of oath. Also, their blind loyalty to the Bar was guaranteed by their source of income and privilege being derived by their membership in Bar. Guarantying the decedents of the legal profession continued in their blind loyalty to the Crown. The establishment of the Bar in the United States guaranteed enforcement of the king’s law, again which operates without the lawyers knowledge of the Bar’s hhistory, intent, or the secret societies it descended from.

Another point, who helped finance the Virginia Charter, or I’ll say a large portion of it, other than the Crown? The money barons “merchants” of London. Where were the Knights Templars, Masons and Lawyers based? London, directly under the control of the king and the Pope. Who set up our monitory system? Who set up our federal Reserve? Who set up our Social Security system?

Finally, who set up our legal system, to enforce this whole system? The merchants of London, the Bank of London and the secret societies they utilize. I hope you don’t have to fall off a cliff to know gravity works. Likewise, that the system we have today can be traced back to England. Not just historically as a metaphor, but directly, by creation and control. Names and faces have changed, but the Bar “legal system” set up to protect the king’s interest has not.]

“1781 British momentarily lose control of the sea to French which requires Cornwallis to surrender at Yorktown. According to British historians “this provides the new nation at its birth with a myth to sustain it.”

Masons installed Constitutional Government in America with “checks and balances” designed to make it permanently subservient to the Money Power of the Bank of England and its agents: Peabody, Morgan, Brown, Belmont, etc. America becomes “covert” colony of Britain.”
A-albionic Research Weekly Up-Date of 3-4-95 and 3-11-95

“The Temple has close historical associations with the American Republic. Five of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were members of the Middle Temple: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Hayward, Thomas McKean, Thomas Lynch and Arthur Middleton. Besides these, George Rutledge, William Livingstone, John Dickinson of Pennsylvania and Arthur Lee of Virginia and Payton Randolph, President of the Continental Congress of Philadelphia, were all members of the Inn.

….It all began with the Knights Templars who in the days of their power and pride formed a highly privileged order. They governed within their territory according to their own laws without interference from any outside authority. When the lawyers took over the property they inherited or assumed the like privilege and independence, a position that they have stoutly and resolutely and successfully maintained until the present day.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, pages 89-90

“The attack upon the order which became general on the Continent was not shared in England, but when the dissolution was pronounced by the Council of Bienna in 1312, the properties passed to the Knights Hospitallers. In London however that Order did not take full possession of the Temple when the Knights Templars were disbanded. The three parts of the properties lying contiguous to each other were called the Inner, the Middle and the Outer Temple, according to the relation of each to the City. The Knights Hospitallers were allowed to occupy the Inner, which included the more sacred parts. The Outer was granted by the King to the Bishop of Exeter and was eventually acquired by Robert Devereux, Earl of Essex, and with Essex House became the seat of that ill-fated nobleman. There he surrendered to the officers of Elizabeth and thence he proceeded to his trial and execution. The properties continued in private hands and so the Outer extending from the Strand to the River along both sides of Essex street. Within a few years of their occupation of the Inner Temple the Knights Hospitallers were in possession of the Middle as well and we find them renting parts of the Inner to a certain company of lawyers, and the Middle to another company of lawyers, the rent paid in each instance being ten pounds annually. It was therefore early in the fourteenth century that the lawyers got their first footing in the temple and from the first they appear to have formed two distinct societies, on in the Inner Temple and the other in the Middle Temple.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, pages 78-79

“The Temple has not been spared the calamities that have been visited upon London. One occurred during the peasants’ revolt in 1381 under Wat Tyler. The peasants who regarded the lawyers with special aversion, moved in a mob to the Temple with the avowed purpose of hanging its inhabitants. The lawyers having got wind of the plan, had business elsewhere on that day. The rebels however plundered the houses, some of which they destroyed, and made a bonfire of all books and records.

Till the dissolution, the Knights Hospitallers remained the owners of the Temple, receiving rents from the two societies of lawyers. That Order was dissolved by Henry VIII, who confiscated the property and allowed the lawyers to remain as tenants of the Crown at an annual rental of ten pounds a year for each of the two societies. It seems that Henry had a scheme for turning out the lawyers and converting the Temple into some use of his own devising, but it also seems that the lawyers were too smart even for Henry and managed somehow to retain the properties at the same rent that they had been paying for over two hundred years, the only difference being that the Crown became their landlord.

In 1608 James the First made an effort to deprive the lawyers of the premises by effecting a sale. Again they scored, this time by presenting the King with a gold cup weighing two hundred ounces filled with gold pieces in exchange for a charter granting them the Temple FOREVER at the old annual rental of ten pounds a year for each Society. In 1673 however the two Societies together purchased these rents from Charles II and became the absolute owners forever, the one of the Inner Temple and the other of the Middle Temple.

Thus the Temple premises, the heritage of an ancient order of chivalry identified with the Crusades, became the permanent property of the lawyers who have been in continuous occupation since 1412, and whose present title is base on the rental of 10 pounds which each of the two societies paid at that time for its share as tenant. In no instance does the persistence of custom in the City of London show to better advantage, with deeper meaning or with greater honour thaan in this Temple of Law wher students come from all over the British Empire to gain admission to the Bar….

Always there have been four Inns of Court: the Middle Temple, the Inner Temple, Lincoln’s Inn and Gray’s Inn, the last two lying outside the Temple precincts in Holborn….They are the only power in England that can admit to the Bar.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, pages 80-82

“I know of no event that presaged the founding of the Empire overseas like the arrival of the Golden Hinde at London. It was the most colossal and most daring propaganda that ever encompassed the earth.

From that time on the Londoners developed and fostered the colonizing spirit and from the time that Englishmen got a foothold in America the plantations were nourished and powerfully supported by London merchants. Virginia was founded by the City of London and the City Companies together….Among the leaders in the New World were men learned in the law who had lived at the Inns of Court and sat with the Benchers in the Temple. Not the law alone but the customs, the traditions, the faiths of London penetrated the Thirteen Colonies.

….Whatever difference of opinion there might have been in the colonies about the policies of the government there was none in London. Right or wrong these policies were opposed by Londoners from the beginning. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen, as spokesmen for the City, sent on remonstrance after another to the King on the throne till, incensed at their persistence, he informed their representative in Parliament that he would receive on the throne no more communications from the Lord Mayor. This was a denial of one of London’s ancient rights. The Lord Mayor promptly reminded him that London’s right of making representations to the King on the throne had never been challenged. The King acknowledged the right. The Lord Mayor and Aldermen continued to send their remonstrances against the colonial policy of government. They were no perfunctory warnings that the City sent to the Throne.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, pages 94-96

“….The Royal Palace and the seat of the Carmelite Brothers lay therefore between Ludgate and the Temple, and between Fleet Street and the Thames. Lying outside the wall but inside the City, they had Temple Bar as an outer protection. Temple Bar is at least as old as the Temple whence it derived the name by which it has been known to history.”
Rambles in Old London, George W. Jacobs and Company, page 101


[There has been a major lie concerning the Catholic Church. That being, the Catholic Church’s claim that Peter was the first Pope.

Just briefly, Peter was not present in Rome at the time the first Church was started, Paul was. Also, the Catholic Church did not start listing Peter as the first Pope, until a few hundred years after Paul started the first Church in Rome. Peter did not come to Rome until after Paul’s death. Had Peter visited Rome while Paul was in prison, Paul would have mentioned him in his letters, as a matter of protocol. The movements concerning the Apostle Paul and the Apostle Peter were closely tracked and recorded in the Bible. Remember, Peter was called and chosen to evangelize the Jews, not the Gentiles.

What’s the significance? This claim gave the Catholic Church, through this heresy, moral authority and the base for their power, and acceptance as “the” Christian religion. This was made secure when the Roman Emperor Constantine made Catholicism the official religion of the Roman Empire. This is not an attack on the Catholic people; they are unaware of this, and unaware of being unaware. However, it is incumbent on them once they learn the truth, to separate themselves from this heresy. Jesus said: Rev 18:4 “And I heard another voice from Heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that you may not be partakers of her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues.” The lie “misrepresentation” by the Popes claiming they were the chosen lineage by Jesus Christ, selected by Jesus Christ to be the Vicar, in succession of Peter, helped them perpetrate a fraud on the World. It gave them access to the governments of the World, as a representative of the Roman Empire, with the largest military power on Earth at that time, busy conquering the World. Likewise, Rome used the Catholic Church, through the Church’s coercive power, to control the kings of the Earth. Due to their fraud and deception as an imposter, as the Church of Jesus Christ, they gained control of the governments of many Nations. The Catholic Church; let me make this clear, I’m talking about the hierarchy, not those in the congregations. The Catholic Church as an institution is lead by Satan, not Jesus Christ. I can hear people say: “what did you say”? Don’t drop your coffee cup, let me explain. It goes without saying this statement will be attacked. It would of course be easier not to deal with this subject, and save me from what I know will be angry comments by loyal Catholics. I’m sorry to say this because of the pain I know it will cause, but all you have to do is look at the facts of history to know this is true.

To give a few examples, the 1213 Charter, where King John gave all of his holdings to the Pope, based on the fraud and misrepresentation by Pope Innocent III, the supposed moral leader of the Catholic Church. This truth would have excluded him from being a party to this Charter, had this truth been known. King John would not have given his holdings to the Pope if he had known the Pope was not a representative of God Almighty, or vicar of Jesus Christ, but instead an imposter. The king surrendered his holdings under duress and threat of eternal damnation, by the Pope, the alleged appointed vicar of Jesus Christ. This fact voids the 1213 Charter, and all others signed by the Pope, or any representative of the Vatican acting as the agent of Jesus Christ, brought about by the authority acquired by the Pope, as a result of the Papacy’s claim to be the Vicars of Jesus Christ.

The Pope’s rejection not once but twice, of the 1215 Magna Charta, as a party “witness” to the document, as a result of his being a party to the 1213 Charter, is without any legal standing. However, I have said the document was not a legal document because king John was forced under duress, by threat of death to sign the document. It would have been legal if the Barons threat had been carried out, removing the monarch and his heirs, instituting a new government, which would make the Magna Charta redundant, because they could have put in place the laws of their choosing.

Another proof as to who the Catholic Church “Pope” answers to, is the recent events exposing the Catholic Church for what it is. The hundreds of homosexual priests preying on young boys, as a matter of policy being protected by the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church appointed these priests with the common knowledge homosexual priests were being admitted to the Church. If it were not Church policy and just an isolated event occurring now and then, with swift defrocking of the reprobate priests, they might could argue against their being a satanic Church. This however, is far from the case and proves the Catholic Church is an arm of Satan. Jesus Christ said: “you are either for me or against me.” There are only two sides, Good “Jesus Christ” vs. Evil “Satan”. Jesus Christ declared homosexuality is an abomination. Those that practice it are turned over to a reprobate mind. The priest of the Catholic Church would reject this totally and say I was full of hate, and not mindful or tolerant of others feelings, and was not a true Christian because I showed no love or mercy, never mind what Jesus Christ Word says on the subject. Which, thank you, proves my point, as to who these Catholic priests serve. Have you noticed how the priest and Catholic hierarchy never bring up verses that condemn the homosexual behavior. Jesus Christ made it clear, homosexuality is evil and is never condoned in His Word and says those that practice it will be barred from entering the Kingdom of Heaven. I’m not saying that a homosexual can’t be saved, quite the contrary, but it is rare. Jesus Christ said, Satan comes as an angel of light, an imposter. Am I calling the Pope the anti-Christ? No, but his actions expose the Catholic Church for what it is, also revealed in Revelation 17, as he that was, and is not, but yet is. Look at the millions of people killed in wars started by the Pope, look at all the people tortured by the Catholic Church during the inquisition, not to mention the betrayal I’ve already written about. Remember what Jesus Christ said: “Satan comes to kill, steal and destroy.” The child “Catholic Church” has always immolated its father “Satan”. Another scripture to remember: 1 Peter 5:8, John 10:10.

I’m sorry for the pain this will cause, but the truth has to be told. The World has lived under this illusion long enough. I know we are far removed from the middle ages, however the World we live into day is a direct result of the Papacy’s false claims as the Vicars of Jesus Christ. You cannot, I repeat, cannot separate the spiritual aspect of the Papacy’s effect on History. The effects of the Papacy has been on secular governments, which has shaped the whole of World history. The Catholic Church a religious institution, brought with it the Roman Empire. Why do I say that? It’s a matter of history, the Emperor Constantine after making the Catholic religion the official religion of Rome, began issuing edicts making them part of the Catholic Church. The effect was, the Priests of the Catholic Church became ambassadors of Rome. Just as when the Catholic priests went into England, many laws of Rome were interwoven into English common law. So the Catholic Church has effected in a major way the whole of the civilized World, secular and religious, they cannot be separated. So the issue of the Pope’s false claim as Vicar, is directly responsible for the World in which we live. You can argue whether or not that is good or bad, or if you would want to change the status quo, that is not the issue. The fact is the Papacy’s policies are totally against freedom, personal rights, or any government that is not a monarchy, this is a matter of history and Treaty. In conclusion, KNOWLEDGE IS FREEDOM.