The United States is still a British Colony

star, and flag for a brutally real issue.

We originally had the "Article Of Confederation". At the time of the Revolutionary War, we had all, but ironed out all issues with the 'motherland'. However, we were printing our own colonial monies, and that wasn't good for the Banker's, or the King they owned=problem.

Hence the Revolutionary war=distraction, and reaction.

We mysteriously won, and The US Constitution=solution provided by banker's, and their owned king.

We were free??? So, we went back to the Flag of the British East Indies Company, or the ole' red, white, and blue.

Our country was a delusional figment of imagination. It was based off of British Admiralty law. Hence, the bar association out of London; you can plainly see it when entering a court room........ You must cross the bar to approach the Honor=sign of British Nobility.

Everyone else in the Court Room is an "officer of the court=admiralty law ranking"

They even own us from birth; as we are born through a 'canal', or water way sanctioned under British admiralty law....your given a certificate of birth with an ALL CAPITALIZED NAME. I get a little confused, but this is also sold to banks, and traded in the stock markets.........we are property through this system.


On a bright note. The Articles Of Confederation outlined your Natural Rights, as outlined in the grand scheme of Nature, or God the creator of.

The Bill Of Rights is null, and void due to being in The US Constitution, but the IDEOLOGY IS SOLID. They reference, as pointed out by many a founding father, your NATURAL RIGHTS.

IMHO that is our out. We have the same rights as any other animal as set forth in nature.

We do NOT need any Man/Woman to lay out what God in Nature designed for all animals.




Oh, I hope that wasn't too much of a ramble.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

No its not...America is still ruled by the former rightful King of France. Louis XVII survived the Temple Prison, came to the United States, living in the area around the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers and when the United States Government failed to pay debt owed to his Father from the Revolutionary War he seized control of the Government.

So you see the British have to deal with a more ancient claim for that and because the descendant of Louis XVII doesn't accept the Treaty that ended what many of you know as the French and Indian War and has laid claim to all the American Atlantic seaboard but also Canada. So he considers the United States as an object to be of dubious legal authority...thus the British claim is a non-issue. Besides all of that the queen of england was captured last week and is no longer sovereign anyway. As I type, what was the British Empire is being dismantled behind the scenes.

So there or we can fight about it. Either way is fine for me.

[edit on 12-8-2009 by IDK88]

[edit on 12-8-2009 by IDK88]

Originally posted by mtaftm
reply to post by miss_silver

 

?

you Americans are British.
so basically your taking the mick out of yourself lol.
and don't be going oh America beat Britain, it was basically a civil war Britain vs Britain and we could of whooped your as then the queen just didn't want to send everyone to America to fight lol.

please don't go on at the queen, England owned 2 3rds of the world and we are a very small country that is why i'm proud of England are little country took over so much.

besides no we could not beat America at this time our country is sh** but back then we could and possibly in the future

And this is the type of misplaced patriotism I was referring to in an earlier post.

and we could of whooped your as then the queen just didn't want to send everyone to America to fight lol.

I wouldn't lol about it considering that it was a king back then, King George the third, not a queen.

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones

Hence, the bar association out of London; you can plainly see it when entering a court room........ You must cross the bar to approach the Honor=sign of British Nobility.

I also found it interesting that the article makes the point that Esquire is a British title. If so why are United States attorneys are given the title Esquire. Are they in fact employees of the British monarch? This article makes you think.

reply to post by harvib


In the UK anyone can call themselves 'Esquire'.
It once over determinded that someone was thought above being a mere 'Gentleman' but not noble by any stretch of the imagination.
It is an irrelevance.

As I stated previously, this has been debated to the nth degree here on ATS.
My opinion, for little it is worth, when carefully considering ALL the evidence that has been presented to me over the years, from all sides, is that this is just anachronism left over from previous treaties / agreements but which has never been repealed, or acted upon.

Just because I dismiss what the video states doesn't mean that I didn't watch it; I just don't agree with it and I am also aware of many other arguements of why the OP maybe true, I just don't agree with them either.

Of course I could be wrong, I often am and nothing would suprise me in this crazy old world.

I personally think that those who really run both the US & UK, and who are constantly trying to gain mastery of the world have their tendrils deeply entwined within the highest most echelons of most countries and they transcend nationhood.
As such The City Of London is only one manifestation and is a tool that they use.

The British Crown does not own or control the US.

Again, just my considered opinion for what little it is worth.

Did you ever think that maybe the reason our legal system uses some of the same terms as the British system is because, we speak the same language?? Our legal system is as old as the country itself, and the founding fathers took their cues from what they knew best....the British system.

Then what is this-----> Declaration of Independence?

To believe the USofA is British is ignorance and pure poppy cock.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

That, if you read it, is the oath they took, and upheld. Let us not allow such go in vain.

reply to post by Freeborn

My opinion, for little it is worth, when carefully considering ALL the evidence that has been presented to me over the years, from all sides, is that this is just anachronism left over from previous treaties / agreements but which has never been repealed, or acted upon.

Well, here in the U.S. we pay taxes and are never sure how the money is spent. You keep stating your beliefs but the researcher argues that at least part of the Federal Tax is being paid to the British crown. He also attempts to support his argument.

You stated that you have considered ALL the evidence. Are you able to explain why you decided that this research is inaccurate? If not why are you so quick to dismiss it?



[edit on 12-8-2009 by harvib]

reply to post by ADVISOR

To believe the USofA is British is ignorance and pure poppy cock.

You obviously didn't even read the research? Why is it so hard for individuals to collaborate around here and to make an honest effort to determine the merits of each others research based on objectivity instead of beliefs. What is going on around here????

reply to post by harvib


I have been on an email discussion list with a guy who has worked with the Informer, John Nelson and John (I think) Montgomery for more years than some of us have been alive. These guys are serious researchers and have read things that few of us have even heard about, much less actually read.

When BA first posted something about this on the email list, I thought he was nuts. Then I started going to the law library and checking things out on my own. This was back BEFORE the internet. The more I read and researched, the more I believed what the Informer said because everything I dug up at the law library CONFIRMED it. The Informer is not a big bag of wind, he has thoroughly researched this and everything he writes is heavily documented.

I no longer even try to argue this with people because there are so very few that will actually spend the time to go to the law library, actually dig in and research it. After all, that's where he did a massive amount of research for his books and other writings.

I spent so many weekends going to San Antonio to St. Mary's Law Library that my truck headed that way almost on it's own. LOL! Oh, how I would love to go to DC for a year and be able to research at the Library of Congress. What a wealth of info there that would further comfirm the Informer's writings.

He has written several books. His newest one called the Myth and the Reality. I haven't read it yet, but BA has made some postings about it and it sounds delicious! Definitely on my reading list. I have no doubt that the Informer knows and understands more about the founding of this country, how the government works and has worked than any other living person, except maybe Nelson, Montgomery and BA. And they have all worked together for 40+ years.

BTW, remember several years ago when the Queen made some sort of reference to her receiving Social Security payments from the US? I don't remember exactly what she said now. I'll see if I can dig it up somewhere.
If not, I'll email BA. I know he has it.

I used to have all that type stuff on a CD, but when I lost my house to a flood in 2002, all that went with it, along with hundreds of pages I had copied at the law library regarding this and numerous other things. Didn't mind losing all my clothes (except those on my back), my truck and everything else I owned, but, man, I hated losing those discs!

reply to post by harvib


Yes, esquire, yes, they are officer's of the court. The Honor, honorable, esquire, noble, all those are titles of nobility under the crown of England.

Your correct in the fact many people just don't care to research it. I don't do it to fight with people, and I don't use it as a defense when dealing with the SOB's, but I do like seeing power structures.

It's a fact we are part of the British Empire, just as the rest of the Common Wealth is today......

Go look at how many countries are part of the "Common Wealth". Empires don't fade away, they may be defeated in absolute battle with forfeiture of ***ALL*** arms, but other than that there are many of them around today. These Empires have gone underground; they feed us all petty illusions of independence.

No doubt there are rival factions, or empires. Hence when the UN was formed, or other organizations the British Empire, or the PTB there wanted many voices/votes; so there is their reason for the "Common Wealth". All an illusion. In the end this particular empire goes back to the Roman Empire, and Rome.

One thing people fail to ***see*** is symbology. It's everywhere throughout the world, and it means something. It will indicate ****owner ship*****. I've continually stated this in many post's.


To Advisor, Yes, carefully read that one document. Go research why a regular US Flag is not good enough for military uniforms, police uniforms, or court rooms. As trivial as it may seem why do they HAVE TO have gold fringe around it??? Also, why did many of the founding father's that were pro separation call the US Constitution treason????

Don't get me wrong advisor. As I said in my earlier post the idea behind the Bill Of Rights is SOLID. The idea can never be taken away!





[edit on 12-8-2009 by sanchoearlyjones]

1997 No. 1778

SOCIAL SECURITY

The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997

Made 22nd July 1997

Coming into 1st September force 1997

At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 22nd day of July 1997

Present,

The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council

Whereas at London on the 13th February 1984 an Agreement on social security between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement") and an Administrative Agreement for the implementation of the Agreement (hereinafter referred to as "the Administrative Agreement")[1] were signed on behalf of those Governments and effect was given to the Agreement by the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1984 (hereinafter referred to as "the Principal Order")[2]:

And Whereas at London on 6th June 1996 a Supplementary Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the United States of America (which Supplementary Agreement is set out in Schedule 1 to this Order and is hereinafter referred to as "the Supplementary Agreement") amending the Agreement and a Supplementary Administrative Agreement amending the Administrative Agreement (which Supplementary Administrative Agreement is set out in Schedule 2 to this Order and is hereinafter referred to as "the Supplementary Administrative Agreement")[3] were signed on behalf of those Governments:

And Whereas by Article 3 of the Supplementary Agreement it is provided that the Supplementary Agreement shall enter into force on the first day of the third month following the month in which each Government has received from the other Government written notification that all statutory and constitutional requirements have been complied with for entry into force of the Supplementary Agreement:

And Whereas by Article 2 of the Supplementary Administrative Agreement it is provided that the Supplementary Administrative Agreement shall enter into force on the date of entry into force of the Supplementary Agreement:

And Whereas written notification in accordance with Article 3 of the Supplementary Agreement was received by each Government on 20th June 1997 and accordingly the Supplementary Agreement and the Supplementary Administrative Agreement enter into force on the 1st September 1997:

And Whereas by section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992[4] it is provided that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for modifying or adapting that Act and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992[5] in their application to cases affected by agreements with other Governments providing for reciprocity in matters specified in the said section:

Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in pursuance of section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and of all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows: -

Citation and commencement
1. This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997.

Modification of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and amendment of the Principal Order

www.civil-liberties.com...

Im posting this in the hopes that some one far more savvy than me in legalese can decipher the whole shebang. It would seam that the queen has taken over or receives social security. but like I said I don't read legal so I need some help here I will verfy the bill or what ever this is as well.

Thanks in advance

reply to post by ashnomadonte


-whew- Does this mean we can lose Obama, get rid of our debt and get rid of those nuts in DC?

-God save the Queen!-

From a former brit, am a yank now.

reply to post by mikerussellus


Man im trying to read threw all the material on that site and wow im still trying to soak it all in. if true and so far it seams to be than we all have been duped into thinking we were free in the first place im still trying to wrap my head around the implications of this. Once more if true

reply to post by ashnomadonte


In reality, not going to go anywhere. But almost a pleasent thought to have the royal seal and "by appointment" back on some goods over here.

Plus, I can never find any HP sauce!

reply to post by ADVISOR

This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief, separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the militias.

The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com... ish_colony.htm


footnote 2

Every time America gets itself embroiled in a war the first country it turns to for help is Britain. . . and Britain never, "never", says no. The President clicks his fingers and we, the British, come running.
Far from America being a British colony I think Britain is an American colony! Perhaps we truly are the 53rd state?

Originally posted by Mintwithahole.
Every time America gets itself embroiled in a war the first country it turns to for help is Britain. . . and Britain never, "never", says no. The President clicks his fingers and we, the British, come running.
Far from America being a British colony I think Britain is an American colony! Perhaps we truly are the 53rd state?

Star for your comments sir or mam I don't know what to make of the whole deal yet im still trying to verify the information on the site. So I will reserve judgment.

reply to post by ashnomadonte


The information is real. My father had me dealing with it as a teenager back in the 80's. His little group, and he would study, study, study, and study a little more.

I wasn't too interested as I am now, but big but, I had to deal with all my ticket driver's license issues using that method of defense. It worked. 600 bucks...GONE didn't owe it.

It's really not worth the hassle to use it as a defense, but to know it is priceless.

I know my Bill of Rights is enumerated through Natural Rights. By nature I've got the right to at least try defending myself. After that anything I did is fine by that real law; no judgements.

reply to post by sanchoearlyjones


Thank you for your post star for you, than if it is real what does that mean for America? Why would TBTB want to keep this under wraps? Why not ratify the treaties? Why have we been allowed to hold elections? It just seams strange to me is all.