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

Originally posted by AlwaysQuestion
Very good thread and makes nice reading, especially with all the Volcano threads at the moment....

I always thought that the USA/UK separation was 'to easy' - I just could not see no matter how hard people fought that it would be given-up during independence.

This makes sense... if there is going to be violence then the perfect way to stem that is to make someone think they have won. It's the same with the UK and Europe now...

The UK didn't get physically defeated in WW1/WW2 (thanks with our US help), so violence is put away and 'treaties' are used with colourful words and languages that allows a nation to be swallowed by Europe and yet still thinks 'we won the war'.

The UK ... does it belong to Europe or Rome.... or does it all belong to Rome?
Is the US independent? Nope, the strings with the UK and Rome are still strong internally.

I'm not sure how China fits in with all of this but it starts getting complicated.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
Read the article by Johnathan Mays and it should completely answer your questions and tell you what China has to do with it, as they are a victim of the scam, too. Note how accurate his predictions have been so far, predicting the housing forclosures in the US as far back as 1986. Consider how the oil trade has put all trade currency in US dollars, except for two country's who put their oil trade in Eoro's (hence the USA/UK divide) those countries being US enemies Iraq and Iran. No small wonder we are putting our boots on their soil, and since we can't get into Iran woithout Russia and China on our heels, we sit back and let Israel do it because they won't be bothered by the giants. Anyways, I'm no genius on this, but, i hope it helps.

Try feeling terrorized for once. Apparently its illegal to do that. And its lawful to collect damages from the alleged terrorist.

People are terrorized alll the time, and if they know the system, they are always given a 'settlement' by an 'arbitrator'.

Its the system itself and not rights that give people power. Like a poster above said, "the only right that you have, is to remain silent". Its basically because everything you say will be used against you. Nowadays, opening your mouth and spitting words is giving up your rights. You signed their contract. By speaking. Implied consent. Admitted is always added to their condemnation, or charge(s) against you. Best bet is to stay in jail and never talk or consent.

Can anyone tell the difference between: expressed, written consent, and implied, oral consent? < Stolen from a Simpsons episode, Bart got jacked on 'focusin' and decyphered major league baseballs sinister advertising efforts. Off topic maybe but its a clear revelation, of which there are many.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

I know, most versions of history put forth by the Masons are wierd and a butchery, but we appreciate that all Centurians have a job to do!

Masons? What does this have to do with Freemasonry? Honestly.. do you actually see how bigoted asinine comments like that are?

Tell us now how the Vatican is a figment of our imaginations

It's not.. but the Holy Roman Empire was not run by the Vatican .. it may have started out as the Pope having control, but by the end of the Empire, it was actually Protestant.

that sovereigns like the Queen of England and the Pope have diplomatic immunity where ever they go and no matter what they do, while we can be thrown in jail for Jaywalking!

OMG are you three years old? There is not a World Leader that can be named that, if they were to visit say America and jaywalked would be ticketed?? Their immunity is simply a nature of their status.. Yes, heads of State do require different circumstances when it comes to mundane laws like jaywalking.

Share with us how you imagine, that the monarchs of Europe allowed an entire Continent they held title to, to simply be stolen from them by a bunch of Masons, and rabble, and they were so impressed by that they said, keep it, it's yours.

Seriously.. what the hell are you talking about? What is your problem with Freemasonry.. were you personally wronged by a Mason? You seem to have a very evident chip on your shoulder....

Love the Thumbs down by the way, always love it when people show their true Roman colors!

Another history lesson for you (since you obviously slept through your history lessons) .. In Rome, the Thumbs Down meant "live" (or more precisely 'sword down') Thumbs UP meant "kill".

Simply put.. your wrong. About essentially everything.. which I find funny that you can post a thread and as long as you hit the key words get 30 stars and flags and a "zomg your so right".

Deny Ignorance.

Wasn't it Henry VIII that created the Church of England and threw off the "Yoke of Rome"?

It that case, why would his successor go to the trouble to calling himself
Elector of the Holy Roman Empire? Perhaps the King of England wasn't as independent
as some think..

Maybe the OP's history isn't as Butchered as our European Friend claims...


OP said:

It became a de facto War Time Emergency Government a CORPORATE
Government operating under Contract Law because at that point the United States
Constitution became desuetude (an outdated doctrine that causes statutes and similar
legislation to become unenforceable by a habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time.)

We have a long history of "habit of enforcement" since that time, with
the Constitution largely being considered in force. So a lapse of procedure
doesn't seem to be sufficient to establish a Habit of non-enforcement. Through most
of my life the constitution was largely taken seriously.

Unless the Constitutional Officers were not present(being from secessionist states),
even if President Lincoln called for a session, its own officers would still legally start
the session. This does raise interesting questions. I don't begin to understand
Constitutional law. Was there sufficient Representatives present without the
Southern States to have a functioning Legislature during the war?

Since it requires 2/3 of the states to ratify an amendment, it seems unlikely that
it could be allowed to lapse due to inattention to Parliamentary procedure

4:6 And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and
the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I
give it.

4:7 If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine.

4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written,
Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

This is an interesting insight into a being that claims to own not only the
Roman Empire, but the whole world. He also claimed the right to give it
to whoever he wants. Whatever claim European Bankers place upon us,
its goes back to a higher claimant. So you don't own anything...

Satan was a Hebrew word that means Adversary or Accuser. This Being
maintains his control through secrecy by means of fully binding Blood Oaths There is
no protection in heaven or earth for those who break them.

It is also interesting that the Scriptures don't claim that Christ has taken control
of this world. It does look forward to a time when this will take place. Whenever
the "Seventh Trumpet" sounds.

Rev 11:15 The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and
of his Christ(Greek for Messiah, or Anointed One);

Thats when the real war will be take place!

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Much lies between what is just and what is real ...

I read the OP with much interest for your research always provides information previously unbeknownst to me and often leaves me with more questions than answers. The later element being the worthiest of praise. If it is alright with you I hope to "pick your brain" so to speak further down the line but for now, and until I have fully digested the reasoning and researched the history myself, I make a couple of passing comments.

These days, and for a plethora of circumstances, we find ourselves where a great deal of people find themselves revisiting the US constitution and its meanings. Though that is obviously a virtuous endeavor, many consider and declare themselves instant constitutional scholars. Unfortunately, they unlike yourself do not have the will or follow through to complete the endeavor and thus become as easily manipulated by parties who count of them to have but the most rudimentary understanding. I hesitate to note it but one can observe this on ATS and on this very thread, for the feeble mind will cling to anything to justify its prejudices.

Furthermore as a "slave," being right or being just matters little in our world. I believe that you know this more than most, hence despite you going through the considerable efforts to share the history with us, you did not punctuate your thoughts by suggesting to anyone that they should not pay their taxes. For in many ways, if only for the fact that most are comfortable in their relative slavery, this is an academic conversation.

Folks like the ones in the so called Sovereign/Redemption Movement may have some merit in their reasoning (though anyone familiar with one of its founders Minister William P. Gale might want to pause for consideration), they for all their perceived valid legal standing are enjoying that righteousness behind physical bars and not metaphorical ones.

Please understand that I am not disagreeing with you, just noting that caution and much consideration is required if one is to extrapolate a living action from this history lesson. There are elements in what you have outlined that I do disagree with, some who's causality you've inferred that I believe is tenuous, but I will reserve comment on those later until I feel comfortable enough with my own level of knowledge to attempt to engage intelligently. Plus this is the nature of history ... even the present is subject to interpretation.

Fact is in any case that if one is to understand that we live within a "free range slave" existentiality, one must also be cognizant that that is a global condition from which there is little hope for escape ... even hermeticism becomes increasingly impossible in this world, not that that would be the remedy anyway.

You know there was a time not long ago that a man named W.G. Hill wrote a series of books with the apt acronym "PT" ... Not for Protoplasmic Traveller but for Permanent Traveler. They were a "how to" manage to construct one's life without being bound to the "slavery" to which you refer to. As you can imagine after a few people took advantage of those vehicles they started closing them, then 9/11 conveniently happened and that, along with all the other liberties taken away since, was that.

Anyhoot, thanks for sharing all that with us. (sans thumbs up smiley for I really hate the Romans)


[edit on 15 Apr 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by Jeffdogg


For those of you who still BELIEVE that Lincoln freed the slaves, read again. EXCEPT IN CASES OF CRIME. read this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... and you may learn that because we all owe a debt (the National debt, our individual portion, thereof) in excess of $5000 ( a federal felony-- ask any paying child support, lol) we are all recip[ients of (economic) slavery by law. To be free you'd have to file to be the first recipient of all monies recieved in your name, that includes all monies collected for debt. When a cop pulls you over he logs into his computer and enter a CUSPIS number for you that gets the ball rolling on securities and exchanges created on your behalf (the judge gets a cut on those profits, BTW.) it's a whole complicated mess, but, start with that thread.

Edit: Google Free Man on the Land for more specifics

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

reply to post by Jeffdogg


The South knew what the North ws up to, that's why the K.G.C. hid all the Confederate gold. To have real money when the world turned to fake money. It's like Kennedy being killed after issuing E.O. 11111 I believe it was, allowing for currency backed by silver which is still legal now. You know all the buy gold commercials? Why buy gold that was all hypothecated treasury given to international banks by FDR, buy silver, it's the only metal you can create currency with in the US thanks to Kennedy and the Hunt family (remember John Kerry married a Hunt), but , all that just makes me think of the Smedley conspiracy.

reply to post by UMayBRite!

why would his successor go to the trouble to calling himself Elector of the Holy Roman Empire?

During Henry the VIII's reign the Holy Roman Empire (which wasn't even an Empire by the way. Nor Roman, it was German, nor was it Holy as it was not run by the Pope) was actually called "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" not just "The Holy Roman Empire"

The "Empire" was actually a "Federation" .. it did not have an actual leader, only a figure head that held the title of "emperor" which could be any King.

It was not run by the Catholic Church, though the Church like it did to any Catholic nation tried to interfere with it's politics.

After the spread of Protestantism the Empire was mostly Protestant.
Not Catholic.

England (Britain) was never actually in the Holy Roman Empire.. never a member, territory, kingdom, fiefdom, etc etc etc..

WHY then were British Royals touting a title from an organization they did not belong?

The Electors (Prince-Elector) were hereditary Royals that had the title bestowed upon them at birth. however, anyone who has even glimpsed at European history knows that the Royals of Europe NEVER stay within their own kingdoms...

For instance.. the "Windsors" of Great Britain are not British at all.. in fact, they are German. Philip (Queens husband) is the son of royals from Denmark and Greece. The Queen is German.

The titles gave them power to elect the new "Emperor" even though their Kingdom was not in the Empire.

People like to say there is this grand conspiracy about the Holy Roman Empire.. when there wasn't.. they do this because they cannot understand the Empires history, which is complicated by how long it lasted.. and the politics of States and the Church. But most importantly, because it had any form of relationship with the Catholic Church, it must be evil.. because blind bigots like the OP hate Catholics, Jews, Masons or anything else they cannot understand.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


If one stops thinking of the BIBLE as a religious text and think of it as a psychological roadmap, it lays out the psychology needed by the masses to unfold their plans, it is part and parcel to government policy. Note that the enemy of Jesus, for instance, the beast or actually 2 of them were beasts and one was called the antichrist. He would be accepted by all in power and would undermine their authority. So what if I raised a child knowing the truth of governments, but, taught them in secrecy and silence how to play along with the game. What if that child were so eloquent and versed in wordsmithing, that the child actually undermined the law with the law? That person would be their Antichrist. The BIBLE warns the insiders who can really read it for what it is, that there are many Antichrists before the final one who nails the nails into their coffin for good. Just as Jackson, Lincoln at first appeared to, and Kennedy had done. But, it promises that A final sytem will rise from that age long defeat.

Just another interpretation of the BIBLE folks. The same geniuses who wrote it, wrote the law. Scholarly Clerics were religious law merchants.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler



ATS is the most popular conspiracy site because the best brains are here and you are without a doubt one of the best. Reading you is like drinking directly from the river of knowledge.

Your theory of the underground Empire of Rome is fascinating, you seems to have found the missing pieces of the puzzle, that could reveal to us the matrix, the Architects of Power had designed, to control humanity into a prison planet.

I want more...

[edit on 15-4-2010 by Investigateconspiracies]

Originally posted by AlwaysQuestion
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Fascinating... you make very easy reading and if you don't already do so suggest you go down the author route.... I would easily sit back and loose a few hours reading your work.

Agreed. I'd throw some fake currency down on that.

reply to post by Rockpuck

Masons? What does this have to do with Freemasonry? Honestly.. do you actually see how bigoted asinine comments like that are?

It’s called lack of critical objectivity because of shared affiliation. Questions have endured for centuries as to what if any part of the Founding Father’s Masonic background might have had to do on the decision making process.

An objective student of history would realize a shared affiliation in a group, especially a secret brotherhood, could have a potential impact on motive and decisions.

It’s why we rounded up and interned Japanese Americans during World War II, its called shared affiliation.

Because the possibility exists for a conspiracy where shared affiliation is concerned, the questions always have to be asked, scrutiny should always be exercised.

It's not.. but the Holy Roman Empire was not run by the Vatican .. it may have started out as the Pope having control, but by the end of the Empire, it was actually Protestant.

And this is where so many get confused, and some others deliberately confuse by making what is essence a political power structure, and a financial power structure, simply the sum total of religion.

Religion and that kind of pitfall created by that kind of superficial thinking, makes in fact the perfect cover for a political and financial structured group seeking power.

One of the things I am trying to outline, and in fact many lawyers make their living try to outline is a contract is a contract.

The fronts people put on are simply meant to distract and provide a cover, and confusion, where as the details of the Contract, which Treaties are, is legal binding documents between parties.

OMG are you three years old? There is not a World Leader that can be named that, if they were to visit say America and jaywalked would be ticketed?? Their immunity is simply a nature of their status.. Yes, heads of State do require different circumstances when it comes to mundane laws like jaywalking.

Manuel Noriega, comes to mind, Pinochet is another, the Taylor family of Liberia, etc., etc.,

By the way, most ATS members understand that people, who attack the poster, are only doing so to bolster a weak argument or a lack of a genuine one.

Seriously.. what the hell are you talking about? What is your problem with Freemasonry.. were you personally wronged by a Mason? You seem to have a very evident chip on your shoulder....

See answer above when it comes to OBJECTIVE, and OPEN MINDED, CRITICAL research.

Sounds like you are the one with a problem with Freemasonry too me.

Mainly your inability to understand that no organization nor it's members should be above question, scrutiny or critique.

Another history lesson for you (since you obviously slept through your history lessons) .. In Rome, the Thumbs Down meant "live" (or more precisely 'sword down') Thumbs UP meant "kill".

This is a subject for debate amongst many scholars, in fact no one I know was there, how about you?

But overall they were nice efforts to split hairs, focus on personalities, and resort to non intellectual replies.

Thanks for the amusement.

Simply put.. your wrong. About essentially everything.. which I find funny that you can post a thread and as long as you hit the key words get 30 stars and flags and a "zomg your so right".

In your opinion, let me say, clearly emotional opinion, since laughter, and scorn seems to be more your forte, than any topical grasp of the subject, you consider me to be wrong.

While others with no affiliation or allegiances to Secret Societies, like the Masons, are not quite so jovial about the subject.

Lot’s of attempts to clearly demonstrate your arguments are selective, and based on a poor, and agenda ridden of history and ego.

Thanks for sharing them!

reply to post by Rockpuck

During Henry the VIII's reign the Holy Roman Empire (which wasn't even an Empire by the way. Nor Roman, it was German, nor was it Holy as it was not run by the Pope) was actually called "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" not just "The Holy Roman Empire"

Treaties are legally binding documents enforceable through law that simply do not change because of a person’s religious affiliation or attempts to alter or amend a contract.

This is what most people don’t get, a Contract is a Contract.

What is also relevant is that all Treaties have Clauses that State that the signatories have disclosed their full and respective powers amongst one another, but they do not state them in the Treaties.

You’re your self pointed out that the Queen of England’s various titles are so numerous she often only refers to them in part, except in situations where she has to disclose FULL AND RESPECTIVE POWERS, which is quite likely NEVER GOING TO BE TO YOU!

You also pointed out that the Holy Roman Empire was similar to the European Union, and in fact you are right, it was a series of contracts between Sovereign Entities and principals.

Much like the TREATY OF ROME signed on March 25, 1957 that ESTABLISHED THE EUROPEAN UNION.

What a funny place to have that happen, and a funny name for the TREATY?

The Treaties of Rome are two of the treaties of the European Union signed on 25 March 1957. Both treaties were signed by The Six: Belgium, France, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and West Germany.

The first established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the second established the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom). They were the first international organisations to be based on supranationalism, after the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) established a few years prior.

The treaties came into force on 1 January 1958 and the EEC treaty has been amended many times (see Treaties of the European Union). The updated Treaty of Rome is now called the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

Wikipedia

How odd we would see Rome's fine hand in such a thing?

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Wars are started when the creditors need to balance the books, by offing the source of that credit- people.
2nd line.

reply to post by Rockpuck


It would seem the OP has laid out a fairly intricate set of evidences for his assertions. You are going to have to do more than call into question his motives, and call him a bigot, to debunk his story.

I respect you, Rockpuck. Make a presentation worthy of that respect.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

It’s called lack of critical objectivity because of shared affiliation

Because I am a Mason, I cannot talk about history.. because I belong to a historical organization.

I also have a degree in history.

Questions have endured for centuries as to what if any part of the Founding Father’s Masonic background might have had to do on the decision making process.

Well less than 1/3rd were actually Masons.. but a great deal of Masonry was put into the Constitution. Freemasonry is a biproduct of the Age of Enlightenment .. and the Constitution is an Enlightened Document (as in, it pretains to Enlightened ideas from this time period) .. you know, really radical stuff like letting Catholics and Protestants drink beer in the same building. Damn Masons.

Whether or not you believe Masonry its self had any hand in the framing of the country, I suppose its a matter of perspective.. which came first, Masonry or enlightened ideas? I believe the Enlightened ideas came first.

And besides, look at it this way.. if the Constitution and founding is Masonic, and the current day process is we've drifted off course from our Nations founding.. then are we not trying to go back to original Masonic ideas?

And if Freemasons were trying to form a country to rule with an iron fist, why were almost all of the Masons strictly anti-Federalist? And the ONLY person in American history to be offered the title King of the United States of America.. was a Freemason, and refused it? In fact, that same Mason (Washington) refused honorary titles of all kinds.. thats why we simply call the President "mr. President".

An objective student of history would realize a shared affiliation in a group, especially a secret brotherhood, could have a potential impact on motive and decisions.

True.. except nothing I've mentioned in my previous posts was about Freemasonry at all .. it was about the Holy Roman Empire, which you were woefully ignorant of.

You simply know I'm a Freemason, and try to belittle me for it, because your a rude, closed minded bigot.

The fronts people put on are simply meant to distract and provide a cover, and confusion, where as the details of the Contract, which Treaties are, is legal binding documents between parties.

That's complete BS .. the Empire, for one doesn't even exist anymore, it ended under Francis the Second. Also, there is NO such thing as a legally binding Treaty.. a state may draft laws in line with said treaties, but the theory of sovereignty states that no state is bound by external control while retaining sovereignty. The Holy Roman Empire was endorsed by the Pope, way back in the 900's .. however there was a bitter relationship that eventually destroyed all ties with the church.

Mainly your inability to understand that no organization nor it's members should be above question, scrutiny or critique.

Not at all, all organizations and it's members are, or should be, open to critique. You can insult the organization I belong to all you want, it's a bit unbecoming of you, but that's your problem. When it comes to leaders you have a highly flawed view that they need to treated strictly as civilians would, and a single toe over the line of "special treatment" like, as you say, jaywalking, requires reprimand. That's just ignorant.

This is a subject for debate amongst many scholars, in fact no one I know was there, how about you?

Actually almost all evidence suggest, through art work and even poems, that thumbs down meant spare the life, up meant kill and drag out.

But overall they were nice efforts to split hairs, focus on personalities, and resort to non intellectual replies.

These other ignorant fools might inflate your ego, and you might feel secure in this bubble you build around your self that with any quip you can dispell anything said against you. Fact is: You were wrong. I point out yet another topic that you are completely wrong about. You take issue with it. THAT is what I find amusing. And sad.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Treaties are legally binding documents enforceable through law that simply do not change because of a person’s religious affiliation or attempts to alter or amend a contract.

Treaties are not laws. They are agreements. Laws are Laws.

You’re your self pointed out that the Queen of England’s various titles are so numerous she often only refers to them in part, except in situations where she has to disclose FULL AND RESPECTIVE POWERS, which is quite likely NEVER GOING TO BE TO YOU!

Right, but that's not the point of the matter.. the point of the matter is that she holds absolutely NO title "Elector of the Holy Roman Empire".. some of her ancestors did, however it was disposed of.

Royals change nations quite often .. the Queen being from Germans, and her husband Denmark and Greece, the Nation of Great Britain, and the entire United Kingdom is not therefore German. Often certain titles must be done away with all together, her husband for instance had to renounce all his Greek/Danish title and was granted a title from the Queen in its place.

Much like the TREATY OF ROME signed on March 25, 1957 that ESTABLISHED THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Quite right.... except treaties are not contracts, they are agreements. When a state enters the EU they must meet certain requirements, and then they must maintain them.. if they fail to do so, they could be removed from the EU (such as Greece) .. However, any Nation that is so inclined may break all treaties regarding the EU and operate outside the Euro Zone. There is nothing preventing a state from breaking the treaties (like say the Lisbon Treaty, which is more in the lines of a Constitution) .. Theory of Law is that a law is only a law so long as it can be enforced.. if it cannot be enforced, if there is no repercussion, it's not a law. If say Italy decides tomorrow its going to break every treaty its signed... what would happen? Nothing. Except angry retorts from other countries and maybe, if unlucky, some nations might group up to attack them with sanctions.

What a funny place to have that happen, and a funny name for the TREATY?

Just a name? .. The treaty that ended the Kosovo conflict is called the Dayotn Accord.. because it was signed in Dayton Ohio, even though its a random midwest town that had absolutely nothing what so ever to do with the Kossovo conflict.....

How odd we would see Rome's fine hand in such a thing?

Tell me.. what's wrong with Rome? If I lived in Rome, I'd be insulted.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I have not called into question his Motives. I have called into question his statements and assertions that he claims as fact. He's provided no evidence for his claims, as "intricate" as they may be.. I am simply stating a side from a historical perspective.. though apparently I shouldn't be allowed to do that since I also happen to be a Freemason. (Which until 2 posts ago I never even mentioned it.. only when he repeatedly commented about it)

reply to post by schrodingers dog

Much lies between what is just and what is real ...

Just like legalese, I could take that in several ways. lol.

Snide comments and insults are NOT the way to get your point across. At least not intellectually.

Especially here on ATS

Any further such will be removed and the Member possibly Warned..

Thank you

Semper