Tax Day April 15, 2010 the London Banker’s Celebration of the Anniversary of Lincoln’s Death

Article 7:

There shall be a firm and perpetual peace between his Brittanic Majesty and the said states, and between the subjects of the one and the citizens of the other, wherefore all hostilities both by sea and land shall from henceforth cease. All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same; leaving in all fortifications, the American artilery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds, and papers belonging to any of the said states, or their citizens, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong.

Article 8:

The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States.

Article 9:

In case it should so happen that any place or territory belonging to Great Britain or to the United States should have been conquered by the arms of either from the other before the arrival of the said Provisional Articles in America, it is agreed that the same shall be restored without difficulty and without requiring any compensation.

Article 10:

The solemn ratifications of the present treaty expedited in good and due form shall be exchanged between the contracting parties in the space of six months or sooner, if possible, to be computed from the day of the signatures of the present treaty. In witness whereof we the undersigned, their ministers plenipotentiary, have in their name and in virtue of our full powers, signed with our hands the present definitive treaty and caused the seals of our arms to be affixed thereto.

Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.

D. HARTLEY (SEAL) JOHN ADAMS (SEAL) B. FRANKLIN (SEAL) JOHN JAY (SEAL)

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

The Treaty of Paris isn't quite as long, read how it's dictated to us by the King of England who lost the war!

Aye, the King has to admit, and thus be dictated by him, that he does in fact recognize sovereignty. We cannot tell the King he recognizes us.. it's a logical fallacy.

Rude gestures and deflection aside.. I posted the entire Treaty of Paris.. now show me the secret footnotes regarding secret accords that secretly make us slaves to the secret romans.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Any reason you don't care when Congress enters into Treaties that include secret agreements, using secret committees of Congress to negotiate and agree to them?

Well if they entered into them secretly to pass secret laws that go with secret accords mentioned on secret footnotes.. I can't very well be for or against it.. because it's so secretive I have no idea what it is. Just that.... it's a secret. And apparently has something to do with Rome running the world with the Pop-God-King as a front for the secret Rome (because rome isn't rome it's the secret rome under rome that runs rome) that is really the Holy Roman Empire *to which no one has said who the current emperor is....* ..

So I guess I will just have to take your (uncited) word for it.

The foot notes aren't secret, that refer to the secret accords, and secret agreements, more parsing of words meant to confuse yourself!

It's clear you have never read them, or want too.

It's clear you don't really care.

Look another convert!

You are bringing them in now Rockpuck, Thanks buddy!

Don't you worry, we will put your posts to good use!

reply to post by Rockpuck


No you didn't that's not the Entire Treaty of Paris, that's the basic Cover agreement, the actual Treaty goes into indepth detail on everything agreed upon.

Common mistake, just not one common for a guy with a history degree!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Right.. well since you've become increasingly snippy and show signs of agitation, resorting to insulting me instead.. I'll take my leave.

Continue on your way, hating innocent people, making up stories, doing what ever you have to do to get away with not having to understand the topics at hand, or gravitating attention, either one. Or both.

See you around Proto.

PS. That is the entire document. Where is the full one...oh that's right, it's a secret.

Your hypothesis is a scapegoat for blatant prejudices. Your most obvious being your extreme hatred of Catholics.

No nation has ever existed and not paid taxes. "gold backed" or not.

[edit on 4/15/2010 by Rockpuck]

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Right.. well since you've become increasingly snippy and show signs of agitation, resorting to insulting me instead.. I'll take my leave.

Continue on your way, hating innocent people, making up stories, doing what ever you have to do to get away with not having to understand the topics at hand, or gravitating attention, either one. Or both.

See you around Proto.

Parting is such sweet sorrow, hey if you ever get a chance, read the actual treaties, they are real eye openers, you don't have to comment on them once you read them and see what I mean.

Just do yourself a favor and really learn our own history from the source documents that truly define it.

Original Treaties, can't be rewritten and they tell the real story of what really transpired.

The truth will set you free!

Thanks.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I think you have been pretty spot on. Outstanding work Proto. I sent a few friends I talk to at work links to this thread and they all became ATS members because of how interesting and well-written and put together it was. Keep em' coming

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

No you didn't that's not the Entire Treaty of Paris, that's the basic Cover agreement, the actual Treaty goes into indepth detail on everything agreed upon.

I'm a little confused PT, I looked at your Treaty of Paris link in the OP and it's the same text that RP quoted. I also tried to locate what you refer to as the "actual" treaty without success. Could you help in this regard?

Originally posted by devildogUSMC
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

I think you have been pretty spot on. Outstanding work Proto.

I sent a few friends I talk to at work links to this thread and they all became ATS members because of how interesting and well-written and put together it was. Keep em' coming

Thanks devildogUSMC, glad you had a chance to read it and share it too.

My next big thread witll be on the 25th of this month, on the U.N., the 25th of April is the anniversary of it's charter.

It will have all the details of the plans for a One World Government.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by PhyberDragon

 

... the trust is so vague and uncertain that the bequest was void and falls into the residue

The trust was given to do God's work. It is vague and uncertain because it fails to state the language used in defining God, ie English or legalese. Secondly, even if it was understood to go to the vicar of God, it fails to specify which specific work or works it is to apply to. It doesn't say for God to do with as God (or Vicar of God standing in for the sovereign God) wishes. Not vague at all if one understands legalese, and I do, my field of study is for a Bachellor in Legal Studies and I have had actually experience trying 10 cases before actual courts winning the bulk of those 10- and I did so not being a lawyer.

however, you are wrong, very wrong that God is Germanic.. or that is derives from "Good"?

I didn't do an etymological search for the word and posted the first reference I came across. Thank you for elaborating on the roots.

Your second source dictates laws against blasphemy are unconstitutional, an infringement of free-speech.

They are on the books, just because they are selectively enforced.Turn to Canon Law. Joan of Ark declared to speak to God which was in defiance of the Pope being God's voice on earth. The Church tried her for heresy. When asked to prove she spoke to God, she defended herself with PROVE THE LORD BE FIRST SERVED. This was not a touchy feelgood staement, this put the Court in a legal bind. Lord is not only singular but plural, it refers not only to the divine but the temporal (on Earth) If the Court responds with proof (which they must) then which Lord do they serve? Which Lord is represented by their court? The Lord King, the Lord Pope as temporal Prince who alone is the voice for God on Earth, or the Lord on high. Failing to honor the right Lord and prove which Lord is FIRST SERVED made all the difference in the world. They ended their questioning and burned her as a witch instead of finding her guilty of heresy. Do the laws still exist? Hmm, ask anyone under Roman Treaty and bound by kingdom and international law which Lord they First Serve and see what they answer you or how quick they flee the question.

The Pope is the ruler of the Vatican, which is a Sovereign State. He has no legal jurisdiction over anyone anywhere else.. he is a spiritual leader, figuratively. The Holy See refers only to the Vatican Government.

Actually, he has authority over the Catholic Church, he has authority over the Vatican or Holy See, as a Sovereign state, he has authority over the Vatican City State whose ambassadors and such are accredited to the Holy See or Vatican, and he has authority over any who surrendered such authorities through international law by way of treaty with the Catholic Church, Vatican or Holy See or any of the other sees which are still holy, the Vatican City State, or any and all who represent any of the aforementioned.

Seems like a lot of authority to me. No wonder organized criminals donate vast wealth to the Church and probably get their marching orders from his holiness the God father (the last part is sarcasm, though I wonder how close to truth)

Why does the Holy See sound kinda like Christian Monarchies of Europe? Because the Vatican IS an Absolute Monarchy.. the Pope being King.

As GOD he is actually the King of Kings. (now reread the BIBLE)

Sounds like the Pope is legally God to me, and sounds like treaties are contracts upheld through the ages.

I stand by that.

Edit: Failing to prove the Lord be first served in a realm where religion and government coexist means you are either a heretic or a traitor, no matter which way you answer, which is why the Court of the Church opted to burn Joan of Ark as a witch instead of as a heretic for which they tried her.


[edit on 16-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

Originally posted by schrodingers dog

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

No you didn't that's not the Entire Treaty of Paris, that's the basic Cover agreement, the actual Treaty goes into indepth detail on everything agreed upon.

I'm a little confused PT, I looked at your Treaty of Paris link in the OP and it's the same text that RP quoted. I also tried to locate what you refer to as the "actual" treaty without success. Could you help in this regard?

Yes I will SD, finding links to the entire Treaty of Paris and Ghent are hard.

Only a couple of sources out there have the whole text, because of the massive size.

Give me a few and I will dig one up.

Believe it or not, the Library of Congress online doesn't even have the preamble for the Treaty of Paris, it's like they really don't want people to read it!

reply to post by schrodingers dog


That should take you to the document viewer for the 745 pages of the Treaty of Ghent.

Treaty of Ghent

Give me a few more minutes on the Treaty of Paris.

Thanks.

reply to post by schrodingers dog


This should take you to the document viewer for the 644 pages of the Treaty of Paris

Treaty of Paris

Edit to add tested and works, so in reality SD most people have no idea that these Treaties are actually hundreds of pages long, spelling out every detail, including the fact that Secret Committees of Congress, ironed out the Details of some articles, where they would reference that more information exists regarding this clause, under seal by secret Committee of Congress.

It's all there in Black and White, and people who don't really know that these documents exist in their entirety and have never read them, aren't really that well informed to speak about them.

For someone to state they have a degree in history and not actually know that the Treaty of Paris is a document hundreds of pages long, well?

Nepotism? Dad has a wing of the school named after him? That's a conspiracy all in itself!

Thanks.

[edit on 15/4/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


lmao dude.. that's not the Treaty of Ghent.. that's a catalog of correspondences between the two parties while trying to negotiate the peace treaty??? A completely normal function .. treaties don't manifest themselves, there is a ton of haggling to be done.

Complete fail..

It is forbidden for anyone deliberately and in public to do, encourage anyone to do, or attempt to gather support for doing, the [free or unorthodox] interpretation of any religion followed in Indonesia, or to carry out religious activities that [falsely] resemble any of those religions.
www.indonesiamatters.com...

Law Encyclopedia: Blasphemy
Top Home > Library > Law & Legal Issues > Law EncyclopediaThis entry contains information applicable to United States law only.


The malicious or wanton reproach of God, either written or oral. In English law, the offense of speaking disparaging words about God, Jesus Christ, the Bible, or the Book of Common Prayer with the intent to undermine religious beliefs and promote contempt and hatred for the church as well as general immorality. In U.S. law, any maliciously intended written or oral accusation made against God or religion with the purpose of dishonoring the divine majesty and alienating mankind from the love and reverence of God.

Blasphemy is a common-law offense and also an offense by statute in certain jurisdictions. It must be uttered in the presence of another person or persons or published in order to be an offense. Mere use of profanity is not considered blasphemy.

Blasphemy statutes are rarely, if ever, enforced today.
www.answers.com...

reply to post by Rockpuck


Really the Library of Congress is just saying its the Treaty of Ghent?

Why don't you try reading it?

Starting at page 1, not page 754, where my browser automatically takes me through cookies, because I read all 754 pages.

Start at page 1, it will take you some time!

Thanks!



Corespondences

I didn't make it through the whole thread, but I will in time. I did read the OP's first few pages of comments, and I am impressed. I was going to post something along these lines, but thanks to the OP, and his vast knowledge of this subject, I am spared the precious time. Star and Flag to you, my friend.

I do have an interesting story that goes along with the title of this thread. It is rumored that Lincoln went to see a presentation of "Julius Ceasar", as he was known to frequent the theater, and during the presentation the main actor that was portraying the seuth sayer gave the famous line "beware the Ides of March", only he said "beware the Ides of April". Lincoln picked up on this supposed mistake and made a comment that the guy was an idiot or something to that effect. Of course, Lincoln died on April 15, 1865. Was it a real mistake or was it deliberate?

Also, I'll add that 1791 was also the year that President Washtington created the District of Columbia, which was soon followed by the Whiskey Tax and Rebellion.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

ARTICLE 1

His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Well there ya go, we can take that literally.

I take that to literally mean England relinquesed it's claim on behalf of England and not acting on behalf of Rome. Since, England was relinquesed to Rome by William the Conqueror to Rome, it was never England's for England to relinquish anyways, so, saying so was a moot point and done for the illusion.

Isn't it interesting indeed that the victor would cede the river to England which by inheritance and international law goes directly to Rome as they are heirs of William the Conqueror and he bequeathed it away before they ever took possession of it anyways. Isn't it also interesting that the King of England as the King of France aided and funded the revolutionaries while as King of England he opposed and fought them. Seems a contradiction.

Originally posted by HothSnake
I didn't make it through the whole thread, but I will in time. I did read the OP's first few pages of comments, and I am impressed. I was going to post something along these lines, but thanks to the OP, and his vast knowledge of this subject, I am spared the precious time. Star and Flag to you, my friend.

I do have an interesting story that goes along with the title of this thread. It is rumored that Lincoln went to see a presentation of "Julius Ceasar", as he was known to frequent the theater, and during the presentation the main actor that was portraying the seuth sayer gave the famous line "beware the Ides of March", only he said "beware the Ides of April". Lincoln picked up on this supposed mistake and made a comment that the guy was an idiot or something to that effect. Of course, Lincoln died on April 15, 1865. Was it a real mistake or was it deliberate?

Also, I'll add that 1791 was also the year that President Washtington created the District of Columbia, which was soon followed by the Whiskey Tax and Rebellion.

Thanks for posting my friend, who knows, maybe the actor was trying to tell him something!

Some people never listen!

The real history of the United States is pretty colorful that's for sure.

en.wikisource.org...:United_States_Statutes_at_Large_Volume_8.djvu/92

DEFINITIVE TREATY OF PEACE Between- the United States if America and his Britannia Majesty. (cz) Sept. 3, 1783. In the name of the Most; Holy and Uudivided Trinity. """""‘ Ir having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince Gaosca the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great-Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of. the Faith, Duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire, &.c. and of the Unxwan S1·A·rt—:s or Ammms, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore; and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse between the two_countries, upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience, as may promote and (a) The decisions of the Courts of the United States in cases arising under the Definitive Treaty of Peace with Great Britain of September 3, 1783, have been: _ _ The fifth article of the treaty of peace of 1783, between the United States and Great Britain, concludin with this clause: "And it is agreed, that all persons who have any interest in confiscated lands, cidier by debts, marriage settlements, or otherwise, shall meet with no lawful impediment in the proseoution of theirjust righte;" applies to those cases where an actual confiscation has taken place; and sti ulates, that in sutdr cases, the interest of all persons having a lien upon such lands shall be preserved. Tliat clause of the treaty preserved the lien of a. morégagee of confiscated lands, which, at the time of the treaty, remained unso d. _Higgimtm v. Mein, 4 ranch, 415; 2 Cond. Rep._155. _ The treaties with Great Britain, of 1783 and 1794, only dprovide for titles exisnnfg at the time those treaties were made, and not for titles subsequently acquire . Actual possession o property is not ne-
$0 give the party the benetit of the treaty. Bltghfs Lessee v. Rochester, 7 Wheat. 535; 5 Cond.
ep. . Where I. D., an alien and British subject, came into the United States subseguent to the treatly of 17§3, and, before the treaty of 1794 was signed, died seised of lands, it was hel that the title o his hetrs to the land was not protected by the treaty of 1794. Ibid. Thomas Scott, a native of South Carolina, died in 1782, intestate, seised of land on James Island, having two daughters, Ann and Sarah, both born in South Carolina before the declaration of independence. Sarah married D. P. a citizen of South Carolina and died in 1802, entitled to one half of the estate. The British tcokdpossession of James Island and Charleston in February and Iilsg, 1780; and in 1781 Ann Scott marrie Joseph Shanks, a British officer; and at the evacuation of harleston in 17§2. she we¤t_to England with her husband, where she remained until her death in 1801. She left five children, born in Eng and. They claimed the other moiety of the real estate of Thomas Scott, in right of their mother, under the ninth article of the treaty of peace between this country and Great Britain of the 19th of November, 1794. Held, that they were entitled to recover and hcl the same. Shanks ct d. v. Qupont et al. 3 Peters, 242. All Bntish_born subjects, whose allegiance Great Britain has never renounced, ought, upon general principles of tntenuretation, to be held within the intent, as they certainly are within the words, of the treaty of 1794. bid. 250. The treaty of 17:33, acted upon the state of things as it existed at that period. It took the actual state of things as its basis. All those, whether natives or otherwise, who then adhered to the American states, were virtually ebsolved from all alleviance to the British crown; all those who then adhered to the British crown were deemed and held suhjects of that crown. The treaty of peace was a treaty operating between states and the inhabitants thereof Ibid. 274. The several states which complose this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entttled,from the time w en_ they declared themselves independent, to all the rig ts and powers of sovereign states; and dtd not denve them from concessions of the British king. The treaty of peace contains s recognition of the independence of these states, not a grant of it. The laws of the several state gpvernments, passed after the declaration of independence, were the laws of sovereign states, and as saic Rwerzgbligatory upon tho people of each state. 1\1’Ilvaine v. Cozz’s Lessee, 4 Cranch, 209 ; 2 on . ep. . The property of British corporations, in this country, is protected by the sixth article of the treaty of Hence of 1783, in the same manner as those of natural persons; and their title, thus protected, is conrrned hy the ninth article of the treaty of 1794, so that it could not be forfeited by any intermediate legislative act, or othwroceeding for the defect of alienage. The Society Gfor Propagating the Gospel. th:. v. New Haven, 8 heat. 464; 5 Cond. Rep. 489. See also, post, p. 11 , n. (80)

This is actually not the Treaty of Paris, it's actually a reference the Jay Treaty, a treaty that calmed war between Britain and America over commercial/trade disputes.

en.wikipedia.org...

There are concessions in this legal document that go against the Treaty of Paris, because the Jay Treaty altered the first (see my post on the last page about amending treaties by ratifying new ones because.... they are not laws....

Glad I could put this to rest.