It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Amerika still a British colony!!

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on May, 31 2006 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Dae
* The Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986 (United States of America) ...
* The United States of America (Extradition) (Amendment) Order 1987
* The Social Security (United States of America) Order (Northern Ireland) 1997
* The Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (United States of America) (Variation) Order 2003
* The Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (United States of America Dividends) (Amendment) Regulations 1994
* The Protection of Trading Interests (US Cuban Assets Control Regulations) Order 1992

Some are based on the interest of the United Kingdom and relating to UK citizens. You will have to check US laws to see if there is a connection.

this one is abit interesting;

The other order, The United States of America (Extradition) (Amendment) Order 1987 is only about extradition British citizens from the United States. Thats it in my eyes. Im still reading through, but I can see nothing that States we have direct control over laws, but we may influence some laws.

If you search any Country, you get order's relating to them.

[edit on 31-5-2006 by infinite]


posted on May, 31 2006 @ 07:12 PM

Originally posted by infinite
The other order, The United States of America (Extradition) (Amendment) Order 1987

My head hurts, Id rather decipher physics/medical sites than trudge though law!

I agree, the extradition act is a red flag. From my head hurting search I have come to this understanding.

The 1989 act is based on the same titled act of 1870 one. From what I understand the USA is the underdog when it comes to extradition however this can be easily explained by the death penalty. But its not that simple either, as seen from the McKinnon case

Finally, British District Judge Nicholas Evans has announced that Mr. McKinnon—[snip]“will not be extradited to the US if guarantees about his safety cannot be made.”[11] Addressing the prosecution, Judge Evans said “All you have to do is satisfy the court he is not at risk, … [a]nd if you cannot, then there is a problem.”[12] The “risk” involved is the potential for Mr. McKinnon to be sent to Guantanamo Bay.

So despite the whole 9/11 terrorism and the US Extradition Act 2003, this Judge turned the US down unless they guaranteed his saftey/no harm which meant no Guantanamo Bay.

Now, Ive come across something that Im having a hard time finding out about. The US demanded to be known as a “Category 1 territory” , but was denied because of the death penalty. I want to know which other countries are category 1 and what other categories are there and who decides who is in it? And the European arrest warrant (EAW) scheme, thats linked to it and apparently has advantages (over US for instance as they are not a territory 1 category).

*is dizzy*

posted on May, 31 2006 @ 10:09 PM

Originally posted by infinite

Originally posted by Nygdan
The Loyalists and Tories were the ones that maintained ties to the Crowne, before, during, and after the revolution, not the Federalists. Which Federalists can you tie to the Tories???

You refering to the United Loyalists of the Empire, m'dear?

I don't beleive that they were quite so organized, though the sentiment seems to be the same, 'down with the republic, long live the sovreign' or some such.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:27 PM
I think that you will find that the Federalists were almost exclusively of the "Esquire" class...

...his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles.-- Treaty of Paris (1783)

"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosoever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p.561-562.

An Esquire was a title given to an officer of the King's Court. These men swore an oath to the King and worked for the Crown, which is very similar to today's Bar Association.

“The Constitution is swollen with dangerous doctrine; doctrine that will be taken advantage of by the Federalists, a faction of monarchy men, military men, aristocrats and drones whose noise, impudence and zeal exceeds all belief."Richard Henry Lee, letter to George Mason, 1 October 1787

Let's see, what were the Federalists about? Well, they were for a strong centralized Federal Government (Monarchy) comapatible with England. They wanted a commercial cannon law legal system (slavery through chancery contracts) comaptible with England and Rome, which would keep valid all of the contracts and engagements created by the King before the War. They also wanted a centralized banking system, compatible with that of the Bank of England.

Let's view some of the actions of the Federalists, shall we? We have Federalist/Esquire Alexander Hamilton, who once said that "an Executive for life is a Monarch", creating the First Bank of the US (BUS) in 1791. 18,000 of the 25,000 shares of which, were owned by Great Britain. The corruption from this bank was so rampant that it was universally despised by the public. It's charter was not renewed in 1811. In 1812, Great Britain declared war on the U.S. in order to show them who was still King. Of course, the second Bank of the US was soon to follow.

We have George Washington (Federalist), who publicly admitted that he did not want seperation from the mother country, and who created the District of Columbia, and the District States under the authority of D.C. in 1791, which effectively abolished the sovereignty of the States and placed their governors under the authority of the Executive branch, within the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia. Is it a coincidence that the BUS and the District States were created in the same year?

[edit o

[edit on 2-6-2006 by HothSnake1]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 03:41 PM
When the loans came due from the King again, the agent of the King (Washington) needed a way to collect the money that the U.S. Government owed the King, so Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, Esquire, and Secretary of the Treasury, devised a tax on alcohol. When the people rebelled against this unjust tax, Washington ordered the newly appointed District Governors to collect this tax, the militia was organized, and the tax was collected at the point of a gun. This is event is known by historians as the "Whiskey rebellion". The creation of these districts is what made this collection possible, and is what kept the US gov current with the Crown of Great Britain.

The Constitution was the formative document for a new Crown colony, placed in the united States on a piece of ground ceded by Virginia. This gives the United States the same status under International Law as Canada. This was done by men who had no desire to see the "colonies" separate from Britain. Men who deeply felt the need for a "king".-- David Gould

[edit on 2-6-2006 by HothSnake1]

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 04:01 PM
I won't claim to be a political scientist or a historian, but reading of the events leading up to the First World War recently, and viewing the maps of the time, really made me think of how the Western world seemed to be dominated by the concept of 'Empire'.

Britain, it could be argued, had the largest and most developed global network during the most recent Imperial age and this network, like it or not, encompassed the United States. It is inevitable that such bonds are still evident, in some capacity, from informal, age-old family ties to obscure, and perhaps not so obscure, entries in statute books accross the globe.

It really should come as no suprise to anyone that the most succesful 'old boys club' in the world should still exert such an influence. Some of these links will have been established centuries ago. As I say, some of them will be written in law.

As an aside, I have often wondered about the part the long established British network would have to play in the organisation and execution of plans that constitute some contemporary conspiracy theories.

posted on Jun, 2 2006 @ 09:00 PM
Britain was the pawn, i.e., the front man for the real power, which resides at the Vatican. Since 1215, the Pope (and today the Jesuits) have owned the Crown of Great Britain.. In fact, the term "Crown", as used today, actually refers to a Bar Association that operates from the Temple Church in London ("The City"). This is why we find Roman Commercial Law as the true law of the world.

The Seven Years' War, the Napoleanic Wars, the American Revolution, the French Revolution, the Bolshevic Revolution, WWI, WWII, etc.. Were all ochrestrated from the Vatican via their Crown Temple in London. Really, if you want to understand world history, study the words and actions of the Vatican. British and American so-called Imperialism is nothing more than a front mask that hides the policies and actions of Rome. We are all still very much under Roman rule and subjugation, and yet we have no clue.

Many of you will read these words and say, "that's crazy!" But to anyone that is willing to do the necessary research, they will find the truth. Just remember, you will always have to dig for the truth. Lies will be bandied about every where that you look, endlessly repeated and promoted, because lies are always told for someone's self-interest and benefit. The truth stands alone, and serves to further no one's personal agenda. Liars always seek to bury the truth, which is why you will have to work much harder to find it. The truth is simply-- the truth... When you see it, it will stand out, but you will likely deny it because it will not serve your personal self-interests. You will want to believe that everything is just fine and that America is still "the land of the free and the home of the brave", because that will make you feel better... "If ignorance is bliss, tis' folly to be wise."

posted on May, 20 2007 @ 06:40 AM
I am bringing this thread back to life because we REALLY did find something here regarding the UK being (as it seems) to pass legislation effecting the United States.

posted on May, 20 2007 @ 06:45 AM
This is the interesting thing about it, here is an example of an Act (Crown copyright) that is about the United States

Statutory Instrument 1995 No. 2709
The Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (United States of America) Order 1995 - continued

Article 2






















New Jersey

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota




South Dakota






West Virginia



Search Results - United States of America (Acts passed)

replaced 'quote' with 'external' tags

[edit on 20/5/07 by masqua]

posted on May, 20 2007 @ 06:50 AM
Another Act...

2000 No. 388 SHERIFF COURT Act of Sederunt

Scottish Statutory Instrument 2000 No. 388

(3) In Part III, after rule 5.16 insert the following:-

" Application for transmission of order for enforcement in a specified state in the USA
5.16A. - (1) An application for the transmission of a maintenance order to a court in a specified state in the United States of America for registration and enforcement shall be made by letter addressed to the sheriff clerk.

(2) There shall be lodged with any such application-

(a) three certified copies of the maintenance order;

(b) a certificate of arrears signed by the applicant or his solicitor;

(c) a sworn statement signed by the payee-

(i) giving the address of the payee;

(ii) giving such information as is known as to the whereabouts of the payer; and

(iii) giving a description, so far as is known, of the nature and location of any assets of the payer available for execution; and

(d) a statement signed by the applicant giving such information as the applicant possesses for facilitating the identification of the payer including a photograph if available.".

replaced 'quote' with 'external' tags

[edit on 20/5/07 by masqua]

posted on May, 20 2007 @ 06:55 AM
this is very interesting...regarding tax

Statutory Instrument 1997 No.405

Allocation of foreign tax to United Kingdom years of assessment - United States tax
6 . - (1) This regulation applies to foreign tax that is United States tax paid by Lloyd's in accordance with a United States tax return rendered by them for a calendar year in respect of income that is taken into account in computing the profits or losses of the member's underwriting business.

(2) For the purposes of regulation 3 and subject to paragraph (3), United States tax paid as mentioned in paragraph (1) shall be allocated to the year of assessment next but one following the year of assessment to which the underwriting year for which the return is made corresponds.

(3) Where the member's final year of assessment is the year 1996/97, United States tax paid as mentioned in paragraph (1) which under paragraph (2) would have been eligible for relief in a later year of assessment had not the member's final year of assessment been the year 1996/97 and which has not been used for relief in an earlier year of assessment, shall be allocated to the year 1996/97.

2 . - (1) In these Regulations -

"Canadian tax" means the appropriate income tax or income taxes imposed by the Government of Canada;

"final year of assessment" shall be construed in accordance with section 179(2)[2];

"foreign tax" means tax chargeable under the law of a territory outside the United Kingdom;

"member" means a member of Lloyd's who is an individual and who is or has been an underwriting member;

"Part XVIII" means Part XVIII of the Taxes Act;

"the Taxes Act" means the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988[3];

"United States tax" means the appropriate Federal income tax or Federal income taxes of the United States of America imposed by the Internal Revenue Code.

(2) For the purposes of these Regulations an underwriting year and a year of assessment shall be deemed to correspond to each other if the underwriting year ends in the year of assessment.

(3) References to a section, without more, are references to that section of the Finance Act 1993.

Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 405

[edit on 20-5-2007 by infinite]

posted on May, 20 2007 @ 07:07 AM

Why does a Royal Act name US Embassy officials as "Ministers"?

That is the biggest question.

I am looking at the US Embassy in London, why do you call them "ministers" in London and not "ministers" anywhere else?

That is what I don't understand.

[edit on 20-5-2007 by infinite]

posted on May, 21 2007 @ 04:55 PM
infinite, thanks for the resurrection and reaserch. Great work!

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 03:02 AM
Smallpeeps and Hot Snake,

First off Smallpeeps, I know about lawyers and the arena of Admiralty Maritime Law...sometimes refered to as Proctors in Admiralty. I came to learn that this is something very different from Constitutional Law.

I can clearly see why lawyers would want to keep the public very ignorant of the workings of this system or any education which would make a person independent and able to contract on their own outside of this commercial system of Admiralty Law...enroaching onto land.

HotSnake...where did you learn all this history..sufficient to connect the dots. This menu or bill of fare is most certainly not what is taught in public schools. No way would this be allowed to happen especially in a public school system paid for and or financed by the body politic. No way would they be willing to educate you outside of dependency on themselves.

By the way..I am surminsing that you have also read this book...

The Empire of the City by E. C Knuth.

A small but very informative book on the workings of the City or London seperate from the House of Lords and House of Commons in England. Very very telling about economics and wars since the 1600s in the Empire.
Also this book ties in the managing of America into this fold as a junior partner or boot lacky to do the bidding of the City when needed.

At first I did not buy into the premise of this book until I began to realize that this country... America....continually gets involved in one war after another but actually brings home no new spoils or territories. You know the olde saying..... "The Victors get the spoils." When the totality of this olde saying dawned on me I realized that we lost all these wars or were actually fighting for someone elses spoils or investments.
I also realized that Americans are so dumb that this scenerio can be played on them over and over while they wave thier flags. Astonishing!!
Dont misunderstand me here. I am as patriotic as the next American....I just know a bit more history than most. Its a rigged show and has been for a long time.

I did not learn this history thorugh the normal public education television education. It took some doing and effort but I learned it.

How about you ?? Curious about this on your part...both you and Smallpeeps


posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 07:10 AM
No matter what happens, Britain will always have an imperialist agenda. It's the way we are.

I've read lots of books and articles on the idea of a Third British Empire (Second Empire started after American independence). The likely hood will be the European Union. Britain will start to heavily influence its economic and foreign policy very soon.

Plus, we still do (in theory) have an Empire. Britain still has 14 overseas territories (15 if you include British Antarctica).

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 07:32 AM
Beautiful thread. keep up the good work guys!
The City of london may be run by The Vatican but who controls the Vatican?

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 07:51 AM
not much to add except...

it's spelled AMERICA, not with a K

thank you, come again.

posted on Jun, 12 2007 @ 01:46 PM
Would someone please stick a sock in the queens mouth, she never ever shuts up!

posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 12:58 PM

Originally posted by infinite

The United States is a Republic. The US constutition was based on the British Bill of rights and the Magna Carta 1216. But so are most of the constutitions in the World.

[edit on 26-5-2006 by infinite]

No, the US constitution was mainly based off of French philosophe ideas.

posted on Jun, 13 2007 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by wildcat
No, the US constitution was mainly based off of French philosophe ideas.


how come its basically the same principles as the English Bill of Rights then?

new topics

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in