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

reply to post by PhyberDragon


As I said in my opening post he relinquishes his claim as the British Monarch but doesn't relinquish his claim as the Roman Prince Elector and Arch-Treasurer to the United States, which unlike Rockpock likes to imagine, were not meaningless titles, being bestoyed on someone lowly of no Title, but the most potent Prince in the whole Roman Empire, who clearly appointed himself to be our Prince Elector and Arch-Treasurer on behalf of Rome.

I can see where people who don't have very critical minds would get confused on the language, but I don't understand how it is people simply refuse to believe that Treaties are not Contracts, and that the Titles and Words aren't literal, as a means to explain away, having to confront an unpleasant truth.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


The Library of Congress actually lists it as
"American States Papers
Foreign Relations

10th congress 1st session
Congressional Documents, debates 1774-1875"

The one you posted is "Volume Three" in which a committee is ratifying the Treaty of Ghent .. it includes all it's debates, correspondences etc..

Glad you read it buddy.

reply to post by Rockpuck


If you actually read it, in it's entirety you would know, that several predating Agreements relating to commerce, and tarrifs with various nations are rolled into the present Treaty.

They include those, and then address them as being still valid and enforcable.

The Treaties are just boiled down to broadstrokes for the Cover versions of them, the details comprise all kinds of different agreements dating from various points in time, as well as the final agreement of what they are including and why in the current Treaty, its a wealth of information that the push button conspiracy theorist, or debunker is just going to get confused by on the surface until they actually sit down and take the time to read it all.

The Devil is in the details, anyone who is not interested in the details?

Well...that says something all by itself.

reply to post by Rockpuck

The one you posted is "Volume Three" in which a committee is ratifying the Treaty of Ghent .. it includes all it's debates, correspondences etc..

Oh wow you mean the papers where the Secret Committees of congress are mentioned?

Crazy how that works huh.

You actually have to do total research to learn it all!

reply to post by Rockpuck


Source for the entire Treaty of Paris
1782 - Preliminary Articles of Peace : November 30

Hunter Miller's Notes

Note Regarding Ratification

Note Regarding the Separate Article

Note Regarding the Proclamation

1783 - Declarations for Suspension of Arms and Cessation of Hostilities : January 20

Hunter Miller's Notes

Note Regarding the Agreements of January 20, 1783

Note Regarding the Proclamation

1783 - Declaration Signed in Paris by the American Commissioners : February 20

1783 - Proclamation Declaring the Cesssation of Arms : April 11

1783 - Paris Peace Treaty : September 3

1784 - Proclamation of January 14

1784 - Ratification January 14

1784 - Proclamation of Congress January 14

1784 - Ratification by Great Britain April 9

Hunter Miller's Notes

Note Regarding the Alternat

1796 - George Washington - Eighth Annual Message; December 7

See the Discussion of the Treaty in Jefferson's Autobiography

avalon.law.yale.edu...

reply to post by PhyberDragon


You know that disreputable places like Yale and the Library of Congress aren't good sources for History for people with a History Degree, who think the preamble and preliminary articles are everything to the treaties!

Do you have anything like a National Inquirer link or People Magazine or the Readers Digest, you know a more trusted source?

reply to post by Rockpuck

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[

set aside that they were entitled to reclaim the land from the Brittish. You have just demonstrated that the Brittish took it by force of treaty, note that the Court recognizes and upholds the Treaty. They took the land in 1780 prior to the 1782 Treaty of Paris and had to be returned due to Ratifications of that Treaty in 1784. Something like that. Regardless, you held that Treaties don't affect law in this country then post an article showing they do. Which is it? I'm curious.




[edit on 15-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

2nd linereply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

The conclusion from the foregoing is this. While it was a common practice at the time to sign more than duplicate originals of a treaty, that course was not followed in this instance. Only two originals were signed. It was agreed that certified copies would be sufficient for use in the United States, and accordingly various certified copies were prepared, some of them being certified by Benjamin Franklin. One of the two originals was delivered to Oswald and sent by him to London. The other original was retained by the American Commissioners in Paris; and at the time only certified copies were sent to the United States, both in Adams's letter of December 4 and in the report of the Commissioners of December 14, 1782.

avalon.law.yale.edu...

Anyone who has possessed a Certified copy of anything, be it a Birth Certificate or what, knows that it is a shortform of the original longform. I'd love to see the unknown Original which is neither on display in Brittain or the United States.

Edit: Why the change from standard practice in this case. As Patrick Henry notably says, " I smell a rat."

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

I wish I could help you out Proto, but I have to put the kid to bed. Not that you need my help, you're doing a fine job on your own. People love to split hairs, then rest their whole case on a single point of contention, while ignoring the vast totality of evidence.

Anyhow, I'll mention this, though its not really part of the ongoing debate:

It is interesting to note that the District of Columbia, the District States, and the First BUS came into existence in tandem within the same year of 1791, followed by the Whiskey Tax and subsuquent rebellion.

It is also interesting to note that the third Charter of the BUS (Federals Reserve Act), and the so-called Income Tax Amendment (16th) were also born in tandem within the same year of 1913. Coincidence? Only if you're a fool.

Here's a little tidbit that shows the control of Rome on her subjects:

First, there is novation, [taken from Roman Justinian Code] from the Latin, novatio. This concept did not exist in American law before Lincoln's War Against the States. Novation is the extinguishment of a prior debt by a new debt obligation. Today, this is done by a birth certificate when a baby's foot is placed thereon - before it touches the land. The certificate is then recorded at a County Recorder, sent to the Secretary of State in the State where the baby is born, exported to the Department of Commerce, and Bureau of Census and the process of converting a man's life , labor, and property to an asset of the United States government is in place. (Ever wonder how the government can be so deeply in debt and still remain solvent? You're the collateral!) Novation is not complete until the child -- as adult -- voluntarily assents to being a debtor, by submitting an application for a benefit, privilege, immunity, or opportunity from any branch of martial law agency. It does not matter whether it's The Department of Motor Vehicles or, The Social Security Administration, the effect is the same. Novation converts a baby's life, liberty, labor, and property, to an asset of the United States, a Federal Corporation, and converts flesh and blood man or woman, created under substantive Law by God, to a persona, [15] i.e., a fiction. One is now living collateral for the debts of the United States corporation, who has entered into commerce for some benefit, privilege, etc., from an imperial power, regulated by military law that benefits bondholders of the debt of the corporation.-- Alan Russel

[edit on 15-4-2010 by HothSnake]

reply to post by HothSnake


Then I'm safe because my doctor dropped me and my foot hit the floor.
2nd line

As a sidenote, it should be noted that IN LAW, unlike other aspects of life, the oldest are the most valid. The oldest words and the oldest Laws are more valid than the new one's. It is called stare decisis

This article is about the general legal concept. For the book by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., see The Common Law.
Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (also called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A "common law system" is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions.[2] The body of precedent is called "common law" and it binds future decisions. In cases where the parties disagree on what the law is, an idealized common law court looks to past precedential decisions of relevant courts. If a similar dispute has been resolved in the past, the court is bound to follow the reasoning used in the prior decision (this principle is known as stare decisis). If, however, the court finds that the current dispute is fundamentally distinct from all previous cases (called a "matter of first impression"), judges have the authority and duty to make law by creating precedent.[3] Thereafter, the new decision becomes precedent, and will bind future courts.

www.ask.com...

Edit: There are no Common Law Courts left in the US as there are in other countries. Well, there are if you consider 1938 to the present to be the only US laws considered for caselaw.That is because they will not review cases older than 1938 that deal with US law- though the international Courts of the US do uphold the tradition where Treaties and International Law are concerned. Which is the subject of this debate, so, Common Law is applied here. The oldest words prevail. And not the common usage, but, the legal usage. For instance, in common usage, may is a request and shall is an option. In legal usage it is reversed, may is required (a duty, obligation, etc.) and shall is an option. Hence May be fined (you will be fined) and shall be imprisoned ( the Court has a choice in sentencing).

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

reply to post by HothSnake


Thanks for that additional great information. In fact you don't have to look to deep or too far to start seeing the controls Rome imposes and has on the system. You just have to have eyes to see so to speak.

Some people would prefer we remain blind to these things, and never question them.

One can only wonder why, because once upon a time, Americans prided themselves on disent and questioning things.

They do tend to ignore the vast totality of the evidence to try to hang there case on one point of contention.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water is always a novel idea, until you realize we are the baby being thrown out with it!

Thanks for posting my friend.

Well, that's why the system works, my friend.

Considering the oldest has PRECEDENCE I'd look at the following, since even Rome is bound to them

Acilian Law on the Right to Recovery of Property Officially Extorted, 122 B.C.

Agrarian Law; 111 B.C.

The Athenian Constitution

Charter of Urso, 44 B.C.

Code of Hammurabi

Edicts of Augustus and Decree of the Senate on the Judicial Process in Cyrene, 64 B.C.

Julian Law on Agrarian Matters, 58(?) B.C.

Law of Caesar on Municipalities, 44 B.C.

The Twelve Tables; 450BC

avalon.law.yale.edu...

It's a great project they have, I love trolling through it. You'll see similarities in the old Documents and the Old Testament laws.

It's been mentioned that new laws and treaties can alter the old ones, even to non existance. That is a fallacy, though widely practiced on the public at large. If that were true, then why do the older edition's of Black's law have precedence over the newer version's?

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

reply to post by PhyberDragon

As a sidenote, it should be noted that IN LAW, unlike other aspects of life, the oldest are the most valid. The oldest words and the oldest Laws are more valid than the new one's. It is called stare decisis

Not only is this true, but it also makes researching these things well, a lot more difficult, because to get a real accurate snap shot of History you have to find the contemporary sources published and in circulation during that time period, that provide the true definitions and mechanisms.

The meanings of words when they are used legally become very precise and many people don't know the actual legal meaning.

If you ask someone what Driver means on a Driver's License or even what License mean, no one really has a clue.

Now a lot of these definitions of common words, when they are used legally, that many people would be truly surprised to know their meaning, when you tell a Officer of the Court, a State's Attorney, you know the meaning of what these words are, and I have, they in fact, do not argue that they don't mean that.

Words in laws and treaties have literal and never figurative meanings, but the average person, will rely on figurative and not literal meaning, and as such has no real idea, what they are being bound into by way of agreement in the process.

One of the titles in the Treaty of Ghent took me days to find the actual original meaning of, the source was from 900, but that is the true and highest meaning of the Title, everything after 900, describes it as something different, but that original meaning is the most valid and trumps them all.

It's why they would often prefer we not know what some words mean.

There is real power in knowing what they precisely mean, if you can evoke them as they were originally meant.

Few can, but as you and others say, when you speak the language, everything changes.

Thanks for all your great posts to the thread.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler



Superb. I did not know. This is why I love ATS. This is why I hate ATS at the same time. I feel more disconnected from my country than ever. Thank you for helping me put the pieces together. Such a different story than my history class.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Actually, there is an accurate record of history. Law Merchant's do not dispose of theoir legal records. They are ancient and aplenty. And they must be on Record and so are in plain sight, just written backwards so to speak, very clever of them.

Hmmm? Does anyone know if there was a major tax imposition after the Charter of the 2nd BUS? I'd bet that there was.

reply to post by NOTHING 4 NO ONE


There is always an upside and a down side my friend.

Personally I would rather know the truth in all things, and then adjust my perspectives to it, and deal with it in a more considered and helpful way.

It is your country, its just kind of like buying a used car, what you hope its going to be, based on the year make and model, and what the sales person tells you, turns out to be different when you drive it around a while, it needs a little fixing, it needs a little buffing, sometimes it needs the engine overhauled.

It's still your car though!

It's still your country, and just like with your car, if you know what's wrong with it, there is always the option of fixing it!

Thanks for posting.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

If you ask someone what Driver means on a Driver's License or even what License mean, no one really has a clue.

DRIVER MANUAL dRIVER MANual dual RIVER MAN

We are bound to the UCC (Law of the Commerce along the HIGHWAY of man- Transportation Dept.)

Seriously, what people don't understand is that Identification is just that Id Entification. They attach I-- that part of you which answers when it hears it's name called from across a crowded room, they attach I to you by getting you to acknowledge that basically your Id is responsible for animating your SKULL & BONES and that it DWELLS (resides/ponders) in the CROWN of the SKULL seated at the base beneath the CAP of the SKULL between the TEMPLE of the brow. Remember, the ancients believed that the Id resided in the HEARTS of MAN. Black's Law define's Human Being as MONSTER. That is because believing you animate your own flesh and bones is heretical as GOD does that. We're not by definition HUMAN BEING which is to (be possessed by an idea or notion and therefore a POSSESSION) You are actually a human being being. The point is this is how Law thinks and works. It is a whole way of thinking unto itself and is a very guarded MYSTERY RELIGION- the oldest in the World. In essence your Id is cargo and your body is the vessel. To hold you responsible they must ground the vessel from out of the SEA.

As for Roman influence-- Capitalism itself.

ALL CAPS IN A NAME, such as on a phone bill, denote a corporate asset (a complete loss of rights under Roman law)

Gage Canadian Dictionary 1983 Sec. 4 defines
Capitalize adj. as… "To take advantage of - To use to ones
own advantage."

Blacks Law Dictionary • Revised 4th Edition 1968,
provides a more comprehensive definition as follows …

Capitis Diminutio (meaning the diminishing of status
through the use of capitalization) In Roman law. A
diminishing or abridgment of personality; a loss or
curtailment of a man's status or aggregate of legal
attributes and qualifications.

Any capitalization of your Given or Family Names, changes your Given sovereign and Family names from who you are, into property that can be traded in commerce and enslaved under corporatism!

Through capitalization of your Given sovereign and Family names you surrender your sovereignty!

Capitis Diminutio Minima (meaning a minimum loss
of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John
Doe) - The lowest or least comprehensive degree of loss
of status. This occurred where a man's family relations
alone were changed. It happened upon the arrogation
[pride] of a person who had been his own master, (sui
juris,) [of his own right, not under any legal disability] or
upon the emancipation of one who had been under the
patria potestas. [Parental authority] It left the rights of
liberty and citizenship unaltered. See Inst. 1, 16, pr.; 1, 2,
3; Dig. 4, 5, 11; Mackeld. Rom.Law, 144.

By capitalizing john doe's Given sovereign and Family names, john doe becomes property or a thing known as John Doe!

Capitis Diminutio Media (meaning a medium loss of
status through the use of capitalization, e.g. John
DOE) - A lessor or medium loss of status. This occurred
where a man loses his rights of citizenship, but without
losing his liberty. It carried away also the family rights.

By capitalizing john doe's Family names, john doe is transformed into U.S. Citizen John DOE, who is no longer regarded as being legally located upon his former sovereign nation, and is now located within the Beltway of Columbia a District. He and his family members now become property of the state!

Capitis Diminutio Maxima (meaning a maximum loss
of status through the use of capitalization, e.g. JOHN
DOE or DOE JOHN) - The highest or most
comprehensive loss of status. This occurred when a man's
condition was changed from one of freedom to one of
bondage, when he became a slave. It swept away with it all rights of citizenship and all family rights.
Diminutio. Lat. In civil law. Diminution; a taking away;
loss or depravation.
Capite. - Lat. By the head.

As Black's Law Dictionary explains, the full capitalization of the letters of one's
natural name, results in a diminishing or complete loss of legal or citizenship
status, wherein one actually becomes a slave or an item of inventory.

Here we see that the perversion of the Man or Woman and Living Spirit into the fictional property representation of the sovereign appearing as the Dead Thing JOHN DOE, is completed by the all capitalization!


[edit on 16-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]