It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

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

page: 12
130
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:25 PM
link   
Or, how about

Babylonian Law--The Code of Hammurabi.
By the Rev. Claude Hermann Walter Johns, M.A. Litt.D. from the Eleventh Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1910-1911
avalon.law.yale.edu...

The god of a city was originally owner of its land, which encircled it with an inner ring of irrigable arable land and an outer fringe of pasture, and the citizens were his tenants. The god and his viceregent, the king, had long ceased to disturb tenancy, and were content with fixed dues in naturalia, stock, money or service. One of the earliest monuments records the purchase by a king of a large estate for his son, paying a fair market price and adding a handsome honorarium to the many owners in costly garments, plate, and precious articles of furniture. The Code recognizes complete private ownership in land, but apparently extends the right to hold land to votaries, merchants (and resident aliens?). But all land was sold subject to its fixed charges. The king, however, could free land from these charges by charter, which was a frequent way of rewarding those who deserved well of the state. It is from these charters that we learn nearly all we know of the obligations that lay upon land. The state demanded men for the army and the corvee as well as dues in kind. A definite area was bound to find a bowman together with his linked pikeman (who bore the shield for both) and to furnish them with supplies for the campaign. This area was termed "a bow" as early as the 8th century B.C., but the usage was much earlier. Later, a horseman was due from certain areas. A man was only bound to serve so many (six?) times, but the land had to find a man annually. The service was usually discharged by slaves and serfs, but the amelu (and perhaps the muskenu) went to war. The "bows" were grouped in tens and hundreds. The corvee was less regular. The letters of Hammurabi often deal with claims to exemption. Religious officials and shepherds in charge of flocks were exempt. Special liabilities lay upon riparian owners to repair canals, bridges, quays, &c. The state claimed certain proportions of all crops, stock, &c. The king's messengers could commandeer any subject's property, giving a receipt. Further, every city had its own octroi duties, customs, ferry dues, highway and water rates. The king had long ceased to be, if he ever was, owner of the land. He had his own royal estates, his private property and dues from all his subjects. The higher officials had endowments and official residences. The Code regulates the feudal position of certain classes. They held an estate from the king consisting of house, garden, field, stock and a salary, on condition of personal service on the king's errand. They could not delegate the service on pain of death. When ordered abroad they could nominate a son, if capable, to hold the benefice and carry on the duty. If there was no son capable, the state put in a locum tenens, but granted one-third to the wife to maintain herself and children. The benefice was inalienable, could not be sold, pledged, exchanged, sublet, devised or diminished. Other land was held of the state for rent. Ancestral estate was strictly tied to the family. If a holder would sell, the family had the right of redemption and there seems to have been no time-limit to its exercise.

The temple occupied a most important position. It received from its estates, from tithes and other fixed dues, as well as from the sacrifices (a customary share) and other offerings of the faithful, vast amounts of all sorts of naturalia; besides money and permanent gifts. The larger temples had many officials and servants. Originally, perhaps, each town clustered round one temple, and each head of a family had a right to minister there and share its receipts. As the city grew, the right to so many days a year at one or other shrine (or its "gate") descended in certain families and became a species of property which could be pledged, rented or shared within the family, but not alienated. In spite of all these demands, however, the temples became great granaries and store-houses; as they also were the city archives. The temple held its responsibilities. If a citizen was captured by the enemy and could not ransom himself the temple of his city must do so. To the temple came the poor farmer to borrow seed corn or supplies for harvesters, &c.--advances which he repaid without interest. The king's power over the temple was not proprietary but administrative. He might borrow from it but repaid like other borrowers. The tithe seems to have been the composition for the rent due to the god for his land. It is not clear that all lands paid tithe, perhaps only such as once had a special connexion with the temple.


[edit on 16-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]




posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:26 PM
link   
reply to post by HothSnake
 


Don't know
2nd line



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 


So as we see, in the law, even how the letters themselves are presented in a word, has a meaning all to itself.

The law also allows for people to be tricked through non-disclosure of these things.

It's why talking about them is so critical.

It took all day arguing my case but the last code violation I got, I managed to get dismissed, and compensated by the same amount of the fine, for my time and agravation.

The State's prosecuting attorney tried to tell me I was wrong a few times, and I just kept saying look, I know not everyone knows what English means but I am not one of them.

Some points he didn't even try to argue at all, a couple he did, but I eventually managed to get him to submit and give up trying simply by saying...

Rome offers you war or peace, it matters not to Rome which you decide.

In other words, I will argue it until the cows come home, if that's the route you want to go.

Let me tell you when I got that check from the County after they were trying to extort that same amount of money from me, it was absolutely priceless, I had proved to myself, by trying my arguments on the system, that they can work.

It game me a sense of security and power, that was something that money just can't buy!

Getting them to dismiss the charge was pretty easy, getting them to agree they could cut that check for compensation, was the real argument.

He kept claiming he didn't have the authority, I kept telling him as an officer of the court he did.

The funny thing is, the guy was upset he couldn't convince me, but he didn't hate me or disrespect me for it.

I pretty much ate the man for lunch, as a citizen, and I am sure that is not something that happens often or at all.

But the law is the law, and learning it, and believing in it, and being willing to stand up for it, and for yourself, can make all the difference in the world in my humble opinion.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:40 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


If people were to learn anything in law it would be the Rules pertaining to the CONSTRUCTION OF SENTENCES. A closely guarded work. In it it clearly states that legal sentences must not be constructed with what it calls "touchy feelgood statements." They don't put those titles to their names because they want to.

Edit: It's been great posting with you, too.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Absolutely fantastic work here my friend. Once again, very enlightening. I grasp the whole concept of the iron grip that Rome has on the world. I just see something else controlling Rome.

We've seen the examples of how the media is used to persuade us and basically tell us things straight to our faces. I'll reference that famous picture of one of the Simpson children with the reference to nine eleven in it well before the event. There were plenty of other ones like that too.

Now if it was just about collecting Rome's money we wouldn't have these other things going on. Unless of course they just like to screw with us while we toil to pay them! Which is not far from the realm of possibility knowing how sadistic the average Roman citizen was.

I guess what I'm asking is how are these phenomenon like the programming in the media related to the grip that Rome holds over us? Or is it even? This is really good stuff Proto, S+F all the way.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 


Yes, the Laws created before Rome are what Rome is controlled by and bound to. 2nd Line.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 


More importantly when you read the sentences that they construct literally you will see how they betray the deceptions that they use.

A lot of what we debated was the meaning of some of those words, that I contended were not absolutes but offers of acceptance.

He would say, not it doesn't mean that, and I would say, look it up in the dictionary it sure does.

Eventually as the debate progressed and he realized I would not accept any alternative meaning for some words, he would drop his arguments claiming they meant something else, than I said they meant.

They clearly, at least he wasn't used to having someone do that, but had a full expectation he could use his colour of authority to simply say, no, it means this, and that I would accept it because of that colour of authority.

I finally eased him off of it, by saying I was virtually a freeman on the land, and a natural human being, and the steps I had been taking to reach freeman status, by severing the contracts with the state.

What's more importantly I came right out and said, that all these codes were illegal and they were simply manipulations of the commerce system, and that I would not agree to them under any conditions.

He made no attempt to refute that they were using and abusing the commerce laws, and that they were simply offering me a contract, to protect themselves legally.

I justified my demand for payment, by saying that because the codes were illegal, that the officer issueing it had intruded on my world, and into my world, which was a violation against me, because the code he was using to do that was not lawful, but an attempt to trick me into agreement to a contract through non-disclosure.

I told them that in essence the state and it's henchmen, and I clearly identified the issueing officer as a henchman again and again, has committed a crime against me, as a result, and as a result, they should have to pay a penalty.

At one point once he conceded that he had no valid case without my agreement, he tried saying, look everyone makes mistakes, meaning, that it was a mistake to try, to try to do this to me, and I should forgive them and not demand compensation.

I laughed and said oh, what you imagine are my mistakes, should result in the State netting hundreds of dollars, but the State's mistake should be foregiven?

I told him, I don't think so.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


That's the way to do it. I mentioned ten cases, but I had 5 other cases where I represented other families and helped them get their kids back. The Court told me I could not practice law without a license and I reminded them that each individual has a right to their own defense and may choose anyone to represent them they wished, then I further reminded them that they also had a right to state appointed counsel (as indigents filing, pro se or in forma pauperis) and the Court assigned them counsel, then I made the lawyer sign an agreement that he would folllow my instructions on behalf of their client who had contracted to have me so represent them to him, and that he had to agree to suspend any oath or pledge made in deference of my instructions, SO HELP HIM GOD. And he agreed. The case went on for weeks, but, in each case I won and cost the State #loads in paperwork doing so. In my first case ever I represented myself against 55 federal Class A and B felonies (that's after having them agree beforehand to drop 15 other lower felonies and misdemeanors. I pled guilty to the charges so there was no case at controversy, fired the prosecutor who agreed and the Judge allowed, to step down after I informed them all he could do was state what he believed I was guilty of. I pointed out that I had already plead guilty, and that he isn't in possession of the facts of what I had done and that I could tell the court exactly what I had done as I had done it and that I could tell the court more that I was guilty of than the prosecutor could. I then fired my attorney on the spot as he had agreed to a plea bargain I didn't and he had violated my instructions not to discuss the case with the prosecutor and judge without my being present. Then, I told the judge he would have to be my Counsel (which is legal) and then I presented the judge with a sealed signed letter of all my misdeeds written two weeks prior to committing the crimes in anticipation of being caught and which letter I had mailed to myself to have a poor boy patent on it so to speak. He opened the letter, read what I had wrote, quietly put it away and then, despite being red in the face and pronounced ready to send me to prison for 45 years (BEFORE PAROLE) he instead, dismissed the case quickly and expunged the records of the case. So, I think I do alright on my own against them. But, I'd love to study law and learn more and so I'm working on a Bachellor's in Legal Studies as a foot in the door to the actual practice of law.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PhyberDragon
 


What an outstanding occurence, and what many people don't understand is the incredible courage and verve it takes to do that.

The whole system is designed to be intimidating, and bigger than life, and full of distracting spectacle and pomp and circumstance.

Most people end up feeling small in the face of it, and it's designed to intimidate them that way.

The whole system is designed in a way where they go out of their way to try to convince you that you will just make things harder on yourself and gain a more severe punishment by not just going with what they tell you and what they want you to do.

There are multiple avenues like comon law, roman law, religious law, and natures law, to turn the tables in your favor, but you have to have the courage to use them, and have taken the time to understand them enough first so you have the confidence of using them.

Ultimately a Judge is supposed to provide a remedy, and there is no reason, no matter what the codes are, as long as you haven't hurt anyone or damaged property, for them not to find a remedy in your favor.

The trick is providing them an avenue where they are compelled to do that.

Attorneys never really will do that, because they are always going to approach as an officer of the court, bound by the codes, and their oaths.

Unless of course you can get that superceding contract to unbind them.

A lot of people think that's wrong, and some think its not just morally wrong but crazy too.

But in a world where choices are puposefully limited for you, to your detriment, and the rules made to your disadvantage, some would argue that it is not morally wrong or crazy, as long as you harmed no one or any property.

We have been tricked into a very skewered version of right and wrong through all these codes.

Yet what is really right and wrong, only you can be the judge of.

That's what they want to take away from you, and reserve for themselves, for profit, in the guise of common good.

People should not be fooled by this, it does not serve them well!



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 



What an outstanding occurence, and what many people don't understand is the incredible courage and verve it takes to do that.


That's the understatement of the year. I thought I was screwed, but, the angrier the judge got, the madder I got and raised my voice back at him. He said he'd hold me in contempt and I responded, "great cause I have nothing but contempt for this Court, though I don't know you personally." After he told me I'd get 45 years before parole as a minimum I said what's the max? 50? 100 years? Then I told him to give me life. He said he couldn't go that far but he'd like to. I told him that I would sign whatever he needed me to agree to and sign to make it happen. Then he said he couldn't then I said about his 45 years before parole is that all you got and he got pissed so I said why don't you come over here and hit me. Then I told him he's not GOD to get over himself. He couldn't believe that I had the entire Burlington policeLEO with guns drawn on me in a standoff and that I resisted arrest. I informed him the only reason I resisted getting out of the vehicle once they put me in handcuffs was because the idiot cheif of police had handcuffed me to the seatbelt and he could only pull me out so far, repeatedly attempting his mistake until I pointed it out. I only surrendered to the one guy who didn't have his gun drawn as I told the judge, I only respond to civility. I'd rather be shot otherwise. It went on, but, it was a good first case.

It takes alot of nerve to stand up for yourself to a bully, indeed. He only let me go because there was no case at controversy as I had plead guilty so he had no jurisdiction. And once the prosecutor stepped down there was no injured party. I had them so angry at me, they failed to see it until it was too late.



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:56 PM
link   
I was just watching Rob and Bigg on MTV and they got pulled over the cop said they should have yeilded to an emergency vehicle, Bigg said he didn't feel safe that he wanted to be in an area just in case the cop wanted to beat him, the cop said he was nervous he was pulling into a spot to ambush him and that Bigg's story didn't hold water. Then he cited him for not yeilding. I got the same thing once, I didn't yeild to a cop and parked in a well lit populated area. I got a ticket for not yeilding (resisting arrest they called it) and went to court. The judge asked me why I didn't stop and I said I didn't feel safe so I went somewhere I did feel safe. I said for all I knew he wasn't a real cop but someone who had stolen a cop car and uniform like that one guy in California. He said, what do you think the likelihood of that happening is. I said, I don't know. Why don't you ask the families of the victims it's happened to. He dropped the case right there.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]



posted on Apr, 15 2010 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by jackflap
 





I guess what I'm asking is how are these phenomenon like the programming in the media related to the grip that Rome holds over us? Or is it even? This is really good stuff Proto, S+F all the way.


I touched on this briefly in my exchanges with Rockpuck, but so much of it has to do with productivity.

I live in Miami, and many of the Cuban Exiles here, from the more recent decades grew up in the Communist System there. You can’t be fired from your job, the state gives you one, and you are required to go to work. They don’t pay well though and offer no incentive, so they largely purposefully sit around all day and do the very bare minimum of work they have to, not to be disciplined. If another new person comes along who really wants to work and put in effort, they basically use peer pressure and even violence to dissuade him not to work.

When you take away incentive, productivity goes way down. The welfare mentality is much the same, people who are guaranteed sustenance by the state, have less compunction and initiative to seek sustenance on their own, many people would accept the bare minimum to survive in exchange for having to do nothing.

Forced labor like in Nazi German, or in the old days of Rome and Egypt, often leads those forced to do that labor, to sabotage the quality of the product they are laboring on.

Ultimately as free range slaves they want us to labor to our maximum potential, which we only will, if we have the illusion we are laboring for ourselves, in a relatively free and open system where we can get ahead and enjoy a gradient reward for our labor.

Armed with the illusion of freedom and the incentive for extra rations and script for working harder for our masters, we are highly productive slaves, and that has a benefit for our masters.

Until they breed too many, which is part of the problem right now.

Where the proof lies in the fact that we are free range slaves is today, when we must pay a significant portion of what we make back and a lesser amount the whole year through.

In truth the homes we think we are buying and the cars and such, we are buying for the state with out labor, they have title, they can reposes them through imminent domain at any time, the banks can manipulate the conditions to make us default on them, and should we ever fail to pay our taxes they can take them.

Hardly any of that money goes to our upkeep or real services, it goes to our Masters, and the truth is the key to us working hard, is getting us to do everything willingly in a way where we think it’s a good idea.

So everything they do is about convincing us, what’s good for them, is good for us, and a good idea.

Its all about maximum productivity, and that’s how they achieve it.

What they put out there, in regards to the truth, through surreptitious means like cartoons, and art, and TV is for those with eyes that see, and a mind to know.

Some of those people are part of the system, and how they are communicated with and informed are in ways that are totally dismissible as coincidence.

There are few smoking guns out there when it comes to our Masters, because the deception is key to their whole system.

Thanks for a great post my friend.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
I was just watching Rob and Bigg on MTV and they got pulled over the cop said they should have yeilded to an emergency vehicle, Bigg said he didn't feel safe that he wanted to be in an area just in case the cop wanted to beat him, the cop said he was nervous he was pulling into a spot to ambush him and that Bigg's story didn't hold water. Then he cited him for not yeilding. I got the same thing once, I didn't yeild to a cop and parked in a well lit populated area. I got a ticket for not yeilding (resisting arrest they called it) and went to court. The judge asked me why I didn't stop and I said I didn't feel safe so I went somewhere I did feel safe. I said for all I knew he wasn't a real cop but someone who had stolen a cop car and uniform like that one guy in California. He said, what do you think the likelihood of that happening is. I said, I don't know. Why don't you ask the families of the victims it's happened to. He dropped the case right there.

[edit on 15-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]


You explained well your own thinking and decision making process, while showing a degree of respect for the authority and the system, no one was harmed, and since you saw no harm in it, you are essentially preventing them from seeing harm in it, that they can reasonably convince you of.

Everything they do is about getting you to see things there way, it’s why they ask “Do you under stand the charges and proceedings against you”. It all depends on your consent because ultimately they are going to ask you to sign that contract. Even if you are sentenced to death, they are going to ask you to sign saying you understand you are being sentenced to death and why.

Ultimately they seek your agreement first on their presumed and usurped authority to pass judgment, judgment for profit, when no damages occurred, and then your agreement that you did something wrong.

It is that contract that denies you any recourse, and them any jeopardy.

Fail to agree you understand, fail to see it their way, demand to see real damages, in real property, or people, and make them understand why the proceedings against you are meaningless and serve no one but them for a profit.

It’s about who is going to be the boss of who, you or them, you are either a sovereign who can’t be compelled, or you are a slave, who can.

There is a middle ground of course, but those are the polar extremes.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 06:45 AM
link   
When Lincoln PAID Pardons Son 1913 Film




you people would not believe this

but the irony in my local newspaper had this in it

Found 1913 = When Lincoln Paid = Pardons Son = Reel

A well know Director John Fords Brother Francis Ford Stars as Lincoln in this film

The Irony is it was in my Local News Paper April 15th and among others and websites like this one ! that even has (some how ) video clippings of the film, a film that NO other copy existed until this was found ! and just Now its posted in the public news! ? sounds strange ! ya think ! OP have you seen this ! ? well look at this site and Google for the others

This copy of When Lincoln Paid was actually discovered in 2006 '
'

Abraham Lincoln's Birthday - February 12, 1809
Abraham Lincoln Assassinated - April 14, 1865


website posted 14th geeksofdoom.com...
website post 15th flavorwire.com...

it thought it was just fishy being posted at his death and tax return day
and not his Birthday a Official Holiday or the republican Lincoln Day Dinner

Seeing this was found on 2006!!!!!! in a Barn and Only one to exist !






[edit on 16-4-2010 by Wolfenz]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 07:19 AM
link   
This was probably one of the best posts I have read on ATS. Thanks for sharing your insight, it was a well compiled article!



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 

Way to go! I didn't want to be the first to chime in. I just followed the thread to see if
ANYONE would question this. This particular conspiracy shows up on every political site I've ever been on at one time or another. I was truly amazed at ATS because the other sites didn't wait near as long to start questioning it. I was beginning to really wonder if
there was one single person here that would question it.
Thank you for the history lesson. It is much appreciated!



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by rick1
 


Yes a lot of people, who don’t understand or know History well, do question these things.

They question them with contradictory statements that are then pointed out to them like in this thread.

They eventually display they have never read the source material like they did in this thread.

They eventually start actually debunking their own arguments like they did in this thread.

Masons in fact have an obligation, through their oaths, to do these kinds of things, when anyone begins to link them to the Knights Templar and Rome.

Not only was nothing of substance revealed in these attempts to derail the thread and keep it away from those critical topics, eventually thought those contradictory statements, and inability to discuss source materials honestly they have never read, they end up discrediting themselves in the process, and likely making people more skeptical about the Masonic Craft than less skeptical.

It’s a shame that some with secrets have that kind of level of contempt for the average person’s intelligence that they engage in those kinds of practices.

It’s a shame further, because in a thread that was about taxes and central bank manipulation, someone just ended up casting more skepticism upon Masonry that really was not a prevalent element.

One day the world won’t be about the blind leading the blind.

Till then I guess we just have to grin and bear the foolish of the world.

Thanks for posting.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Proto, I need to nitpick here.




He was also the arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire, because back in the 1200’s William the Conqueror bequeathed England and all his, and his heirs possessions to the Pope and Rome in exchange for his Blessing.


From Wiki:




William the Conqueror (French: Guillaume le Conquérant) (c. 1027 or 1028[1] – 9 September 1087)


Either your date is wrong or the name is wrong as William wasn't around in the 1200's.

I'm not arguing the conclusions you have come to as they make sense to me but I think this little tidbit is off a bit.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheLoony
[i



He was also the arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire, because back in the 1200’s William the Conqueror bequeathed England and all his, and his heirs possessions to the Pope and Rome in exchange for his Blessing.


Either your date is wrong or the name is wrong as William wasn't around in the 1200's.



At a guess, the intended name is John.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 


Actually it was Edward the Confessor!

in the mid 1050's. I stand corrected. The deed and act itself of gifting England to the Pope was quite real, just a bit earlier, and a different King.

Thanks for pointing that out.

It's great when other members help!



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join