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: 13
130
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLoony
 





Proto, I need to nitpick here.


Thanks, I appreciate you sharing that, and helping me correct the record, it was Edward the Confessor back in the mid 10th Century.

Good job.

Thanks for posting.




posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by rick1
 


1099 Christian Crusades to free Palestine from the Muslims. (To 1270).

1119 Founding of the Knights Templar.

1228 German emperor Frederick II leads a Crusade to Jerusalem.

1243 Centralization of Papal power in Pope Innocent IV until 1254.

1350 Renaissance period, with its emphasis on freedom of the human spirit, replaces oligarchic control structures in Europe. It produces individualism that is immediately expressed as republican nationalism, dedicated to ending all hereditary control and dictatorship over the lives of people. The Rennaissance Period becomes de-structured again by the old families in Europe. England eventually becomes the source of the movement to destroy nationalism (initially through conquest and establishment of the British Empire) and individualism, expressed in the Communist movement. Eventually, two world wars would be planned to restore rule by the oligarchy.

1400 European power centers coalesce into two camps: the Ghibellines, who supported the Emporors Hohenstaufen family, and the Guelphs, from Welf, the German prince who competed with Frederick for control of the Holy Roman Empire. The Pope allied himself with the Guelphs. All modern history stems directly from the struggle between these two powers. The Guelphs are also called the Neri, Black Guelphs, or Black Nobility, and supported William of Orange in his seizure of the throne of England, which eventually resulted in the formation of the Bank of England and the East India Company, which would rule the world from the 17th century. All coup d´etats, revolutions and wars in the 19th and 20th centuries are centered in the battle of the Guelphs to hold and enhance their power, which is now the New World Order. The power of the Guelphs would extend through the Italian financial centers to the north of France in Lombardy (all Italian bankers were referred to as “Lombards”. Lombard in German means “deposit bank”, and the Lombards were bankers to the entire Medieval world. They would later transfer operations north to Hamburg, then to Amsterdam and finally to London. The Guelphs would start the slave trade to the colonies. The Guelphs, in order to aid their control of finance and politics, would perpetuate gnostic cults which eventually developed into the Rosicrucians, Unitarians, Fabian Society and the World Council of Churches.

1454 Pope induced to extend his blessing to the slave trade and his authority to “attack, subject and reduce to slavery the Saracens, Pagans and other “enemies of Christ.” Portugal becomes a prime user of slavery to promote its trade in sugar, to which people were becoming addicted.

1601 Jesuits establish mission in Beijing, China to provide contacts for the Portuguese and Dutch for access to native drug trafficking routes in the East. The Dutch negotiate an opium monopoly for northern India.

1690 John Locke writes “Concerning Human Understanding”. One of the crucial elements of the essay is the belief and concept that children are tabula erasa ie., totally programmable. The idea was immediately taken up by the upper class in Europe (including Rome) and the United States, and it would become a cognitive foundation for the idea of “the emergence of a strong state”, in terms of “programming an analytical systems substructure” - the substructure being the children who , under this paradigm, are entities to be possessed and controlled - paradigm that would persist for 400 years.

1729 Emperor Yung Cheng prohibits opium smoking in China.

1770 Emile is written by Rosseau. The work parallel the work of Locke in 1690, but Russeaus work won the attentions of the Prussian Empire (Germans), essentially a synthetic state founded on a religious principle, due to the fact that Prussians were the subject of a religious war and Crusade by the Pope.

1692 Salem witch trial executions in New England.

1787 British Secretary of State Dundas proposes that Britain storm China and create more of an opium market to suppress the Chinese people. (on behalf of the Jesuits, the Pope?)

1789 Knights of Malta defeated by Napoleon.

1789 George Washington, a mason, becomes President of the United States, following the terms of Presidents Hanson, Boudinot, Mifflin, Lee, Gorham, Griffin and St. Clair.

1798 John Robison publishes Proofs of a Conspiracy in which he describes 84 German masonic lodges and says that the Illuminati still work covertly behind the scenes. Copy is received by George Washington.

1798 Publication of Augustin Barruels “Memoirs of Jacobianism”. Barruel comes to similar conclusions as Robison, that when the Illuminati was outlawed it went underground and resurfaced as an organization called the German Union, which played a role in creating the French Revolution in

1789. This thesis is later discussed in 1918 with Stauffer´s New England and the Bavarian Illuminati. Knigge was allegedly involved with both the German Union and the Eclectic Alliance, which was used as a cover for converting Masonic lodges to Illuminism between 1780 and 1784.

1799 George Washington dies. With his death Masons were again trusted, and the controversy about the Illuminati faded.

1806 Napoleon defeats Prussia (Germany) at the battle at Jena, causing Prussia to realize that their defeat, they believed, was due to soldiers thinking only about themselves during time of stress in battle. Prussia then took the principles set forth by Rosseau and Locke and created a new three-tier educational system. The Prussian philosopher Fichte, in his Address to the German People, states that the children will be taken over and told what to think and how to think it.


1819 Prussian (German) law makes education compulsory. The Humboldt brothers, Stein and others divide German society into three distinct groups:

(1) those who will be policy makers who are taught to think ( .5 %),

(2) those who will be engineers, lawyers ,doctors who are taught to partially think (5.5%) and

(3) the children of the masses (94%), who were to learn obedience and how to follow orders. The school of the masses (volkschulen) divided whole ideas into subjects which did not exist previously . The result was that people would

(1) think what someone else told them to think about,

(2) when to think it ,

(3) how long to think about it ,

(4) when to stop thinking about it, and

(5) when to think of something else.

This way, no one in the masses would know anything that´s really going on. (Although brilliant, the system is inherently negative in nature - it would lead eventually to German mind control paradigms in the late 19th and 20th century. The system also weakens or breaks the link between the child and the capacity to read (cross-assimilation creating whole ideas) by replacing the alphabet system of teaching reading with a system of teaching sounds, (breaking into smaller units). The same paradigm relative to reading is currently injected into US Society by the Peabody Foundation, who imposed a northern system of schooling on the US South between 1865 and 1918. The system in the northern US is the Prussian system. Over 48% of the soldiers in the American revolution against the British, on both the American and British sides, were Prussian (German) mercenaries.


So, history is full of good things to learn about. The Germans are no different. Whether the Holy Roman Empire or the Unholy Alliance, the name is irrelevant. They sought/ seek the Pope's blessing though independant and soveriegn and as China learned by cutting of the Opium trade of the Roman Jesuits, England will take steps to restore it by force. And whether English or Germanic in origin the title Elector and Arch Treasurer imminate from ROME. The empire may have changed in form, but, not in substance. I change my name and I am me no more. Not. I am me.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
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!



You might be interested to know that John did as well. He submitted to the papal legate Pandulph in 1213 and promised to pay 1000 marks a year.

I suspected that you were subconsciously remembering this when you quoted a date in the 1200's. Certainly that was the reason why I suggested it.

I'm glad that you do appreciate help. I'm not in the business of putting people down, and that's not why I try to point out the occasional misunderstanding. If we're looking into history, we're all anxious to find out what really happened- but an overall picture does need to be built up on accurate details.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhyberDragonHe 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.


Hahaha! Holy cow!

But why did he dismiss the case and expunge the records? What felonies did you commit and why did you do all of that?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Great job PT!

Glad to see this topic get the recognition it deserves...

and I see you have gotten PhyberDragon involved as well...

The last time he posted was on my Matrix Thread...

You two make quite the "Tag Team"!



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
reply to post by DISRAELI
 





I suspected that you were subconsciously remembering this when you quoted a date in the 1200's. Certainly that was the reason why I suggested it.


There is no shortage of occurences of extortion by Rome, Wycliffe, will certainly tell you.

I think that sum in those days was equivelant to about 250 Million Pounds a year by today's standards.

I actually am very open to other members research, corrections, opinions and contentions.

I always appreciate when people have a focus on the continual upgrading of the subject matter and the discussion.

Much obliged, thank you.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hx3_1963
Great job PT!

Glad to see this topic get the recognition it deserves...

and I see you have gotten PhyberDragon involved as well...

The last time he posted was on my Matrix Thread...

You two make quite the "Tag Team"!



PhyberDragon is every bit as knowledgable as you my good friend.

What a treat it has been to learn so much from him.

It's a fascinating subject, and its great that people with so much insight and knowledge of history and the law are weighing in.

Who is not waying in?

The Queen of England has no retort thus far.

Rome is typically silent too, though it would seem Benedict has his other problems.

When it rains it pours huh?

Thanks for posting my friend.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 

Someone secure in their post does not need to be offended if someone disagrees with them. Someone secure in their post does not need to attack anyone. I am certainly not offended by your ideas I simply disagree. However you must be offended if someone disagrees with you because you said I was attempting to derail your thread. That is a convenient way to chase off anyone who disagrees with you. I guess another way my be
to lie about them and say you know they haven't read anything related to a topic your discussing when you don't know that person at all.
My question is this? What in the heck are you so threatened about?
Can't 2 people on this site disagree?



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
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]


You are a flesh and blood living soul. That statement stops ALL legal attempts to trap you. Also the way you present your name...John-Henry: Doe, that is the proper way. Doe is the family name, if someone in law were to address you as Mr. Doe, you explain to them that Mr. Doe was your father and is not you. You would be John-Henry.

I find it funny, you are correct in your entire post but the people do not know the legal aspect of it and therefore may be misled.

Going back to all the history of law including the Magna Carte, which I see no one referenced, it is amazing how much we truly have forgotten or have been misinformed on in school. I will admit, I NEVER learned anything of value while IN school. All my knowledge comes from research outside of school and after graduation. The "Public Fool System" is great!!!

Good on all who presented factual information. There are many books that expose Freemasonry for what it really is. I have the little black book of freemasonry but can't decifer the code. I have asked several masons to give me what the symbols mean, but they refuse. Too bad.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler


I always appreciate when people have a focus on the continual upgrading of the subject matter and the discussion.

Much obliged, thank you.


Continuing that theme, do you mind if I quote one of my favourite passages from Arnold Toynbee, taken from the Reconsiderations volume of his Study of History?

"A more creative kind of criticism is the kind that blows in like a sand-laden wind from the desert; for this usefully transforms the landscape. It finds out the softer rocks and scours them away, and it grinds away the harder rocks' sharp edges. Anything that still stands after this wind has done its testing work will be that much nearer to reality."

That strikes me as the essence of ATS.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by DISRAELI]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   
Not to distract here PT, but...

Some members might want to look into the history of the 13th Amendment...

The Original Thirteenth Amendment
www.abovetopsecret.com...

(some liinks have been changed since it was written, but, can still be found on other sites)

And

USAvsUS
www.usavsus.info...

...A literal "boatload" of intel there...

[edit on 4/16/2010 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by anglodemonicmatrix
 




What beats me is that logic suggests that there is a top dog or dogs who run the show and own the show,I accept that ,what beats me is the lengths to which this people hide,obfuscate or lie about themselves.What is the harm in knowing well its the Black Pope followed by the White Pope,then the Queen or Rockerfellers why do they have to hide under layers or legalese and obscure history.Why all the secrecy?


All the secrecy is for their own protection. They need to hide their monumental fleecing from the people of the world. Otherwise, they will end up like Charles I of England and Louis XVI of France. Executed. The 1st English Civil War and the early stages of the French Revolution were fought, in essence, over money and property. Money and property that the monarchs and nobles controlled. Money and property that the people wanted back. Even more important, the people KNEW who had the money and property. The people KNEW who to attack.

The details regarding those civil wars are unique but both boil down to the majority being oppressed by the minority. Read up on the history of those civil wars. If you can read between the lines well, you will realize why the oppressors of today maintain their secret ways.

If we could truly expose them they would most likely suffer the same fate as the above monarchs. I think the OP information is well written with very few flaws. We just need the damning proof.

[edit on 16-4-2010 by My_Reality]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


Those are some excellent threads and resources you put together there.

Thanks for posting them my friend, especially the history of the real 13th amendment, a must read for anyone really concerned about the duplicity in our government.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:25 PM
link   

31 Questions and Answers about the Internal Revenue Service
www.supremelaw.org...

~snip~

10. How many classes of citizens are there, and how did this number come to be?

Answer: There are two (2) classes of citizens: State Citizens and federal citizens. The first class originates in the Qualifications Clauses in the U.S. Constitution, where the term “Citizen of the United States” is used. (See 1:2:2, 1:3:3 and 2:1:5.) Notice the UPPER-CASE “C” in “Citizen”.

The pertinent court cases have defined the term “United States” in these Clauses to mean “States United”, and the full term means “Citizen of ONE OF the States United”. See People v. De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870); Judge Pablo De La Guerra signed the California Constitution of 1849, when California first joined the Union. Similar terms are found in the Diversity Clause at Article III, Section 2, Clause 1, and in the Privileges and Immunities Clause at Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1. Prior to the Civil War, there was only one (1) class of Citizens under American Law. See the holding in Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), for definitive authority on this key point.

The second class originates in the 1866 Civil Rights Act, where the term “citizen of the United States” is used. This Act was later codified at 42 U.S.C. 1983. Notice the lower-case “c” in “citizen”. The pertinent court cases have held that Congress thereby created a municipal franchise primarily for members of the Negro race, who were freed by President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation (a war measure), and later by the Thirteenth Amendment banning slavery and involuntary servitude. Compelling payment of a “tax” for which there is no liability statute is tantamount to involuntary servitude, and extortion.

Instead of using the unique term “federal citizen”, as found in Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, it is now clear that the Radical Republicans who sponsored the 1866 Civil Rights Act were attempting to confuse these two classes of citizens. Then, they attempted to elevate this second class to constitutional status, by proposing a 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As we now know, that proposal was never ratified. (See Answer to Question 6 above.)

Numerous court cases have struggled to clarify the important differences between the two classes. One of the most definitive, and dispositive cases, is Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914‑915 (1918), which clearly held that federal citizens had no standing to sue under the Diversity Clause, because they were not even contemplated when Article III in the U.S. Constitution was first being drafted, circa 1787 A.D.

Another is Ex parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855) in which the California Supreme Court ruled that there was no such thing as a “citizen of the United States” (as of the year 1855 A.D.). Only federal citizens have standing to invoke 42 U.S.C. 1983; whereas State Citizens do not. See Wadleigh v. Newhall, 136 F. 941 (C.C. Cal. 1905).

Many more cases can be cited to confirm the existence of two classes of citizens under American Law. These cases are thoroughly documented in the book entitled “The Federal Zone: Cracking the Code of Internal Revenue” by Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S., now in its eleventh edition. See also the pleadings in the case of USA v. Gilbertson, also in the Supreme Law Library.

13. What is a “Withholding agent”?

Answer: (See Answer to Question 7 first.) The term “Withholding agent” is legally defined at IRC section 7701(a)(16). It is further defined by the statutes itemized in that section, e.g. IRC 1461 where liability for funds withheld is clearly assigned. In plain English, a “withholding agent” is a person who is responsible for withholding taxes from a worker’s paycheck, and then paying those taxes into the Treasury of the United States, typically on a quarterly basis. See IRC section 7809.

One cannot become a withholding agent unless workers first authorize taxes to be withheld from their paychecks. This authorization is typically done when workers opt to execute a valid W‑4 “Employee’s Withholding Allowance Certificate.” In plain English, by signing a W‑4 workers designate themselves as “employees” and certify they are allowing withholding to occur.

If workers do not execute a valid W‑4 form, a company’s payroll officer is not authorized to withhold any federal income taxes from their paychecks. In other words, the payroll officer does not have “permission” or “power of attorney” to withhold taxes, until and unless workers authorize or “allow” that withholding ‑‑ by signing Form W‑4 knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily.

Pay particular attention to the term “Employee” in the title of this form. A properly executed Form W‑4 creates the presumption that the workers wish to be treated as if they were “employees” of the federal government. Obviously, for people who do not work for the federal government, such a presumption is a legal fiction, at best.

15. What is “tax evasion” and who might be guilty of this crime?

Answer: “Tax evasion” is the crime of evading a lawful tax. In the context of federal income taxes, this crime can only be committed by persons who have a legal liability to pay, i.e. the withholding agent. If one is not employed by the federal government, one is not subject to the Public Salary Tax Act unless one chooses to be treated “as if” one is a federal government “employee.” This is typically done by executing a valid Form W‑4.

However, as discussed above, Form W‑4 is not mandatory for workers who are not “employed” by the federal government. Corporations chartered by the 50 States of the Union are technically “foreign” corporations with respect to the IRC; they are decidedly not the federal government, and should not be regarded “as if” they are the federal government, particularly when they were never created by any Act of Congress.

Moreover, the Indiana Supreme Court has ruled that Congress can only create a corporation in its capacity as the Legislature for the federal zone. Such corporations are the only “domestic” corporations under the pertinent federal laws. This writer’s essay entitled “A Cogent Summary of Federal Jurisdictions” clarifies this important distinction between “foreign” and “domestic” corporations in simple, straightforward language.

If Congress were authorized to create national corporations, such a questionable authority would invade States’ rights reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, namely, the right to charter their own domestic corporations. The repeal of Prohibition left the Tenth Amendment unqualified. See the Constantine case supra.

For purposes of the IRC, the term “employer” refers only to federal government agencies, and an “employee” is a person who works for such an “employer”.


[edit on 4/16/2010 by Hx3_1963]



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Can you recommend any books/websites I can read to get an understanding of the law and legal system, so that I could handle myself as well as you can in court and with other legal issues?

I'm currently looking into Tim Turner, various sovereignty groups and www.supremelaw.org... which is especially amazing. Thanks!



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Ive been saying these things for years, being a canadian we get all info from both the south and east, a port of information if you will. I'm glad you did all the reasearch and posted it, you could say that the Brits run the show, but they report to rome so even this info doesnt fill in all the wholes, or give us the names, say rothchild all you want, but if its out/public its never fully wholesome truth.

Never forget though, the winners write history, so im most cases when we open a book it is a one sided affair. Also the same book will never tell the whole truth of who is behind everything or we would have already had their head on a plater.

Its deeper and darker than royalty, royalty are the handlers, but we never EVER get to know who are the owners. Its like race horses, you see who the rider is, the trainers, the people that house the horses, but you never truley know who all the owners that profit from it are, the "share" holders if you will, they must be protected from the spotlight no matter the cost.

These are the ones that will kill their own for gain, but never get found out, the ones that play us against each other and come out on top while we pay the price.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by humilisunus
 





Its deeper and darker than royalty, royalty are the handlers, but we never EVER get to know who are the owners. Its like race horses, you see who the rider is, the trainers, the people that house the horses, but you never truley know who all the owners that profit from it are, the "share" holders if you will, they must be protected from the spotlight no matter the cost.


It's so true we never get to see or really know who the true Puppet Masters are.

I think that is the greatest mystery, finding out who sits ontop of the Roman pyramid and rules the world.

If nothing else knowing their story would certainly be fascinating.

Thanks for posting my friend.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 


Illegal possession of firearms/possession of drugs/grand theft auto/ kidnapping/attempted bank robberyetc.--hey I was 18. He dismissed it because there was no prosecutor to object to my motion to dismiss, he actually got angry enough to let me convince him to withdraw himself from the case, remember. The judge had told him after he agreed to do so that he was free to leave the courtroom, but, he said I was doing such a fine job of digging my own grave he wanted to stick around and watch how it played out. Should have seen his face when I won. He was present but as a spectator only, not as a prosecutor.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Hx3_1963
 


Long time no see Hx3 (hey that rhymes) I referenced that Matrix Thread in this one earlier on. lol.



posted on Apr, 16 2010 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
Illegal possession of firearms/possession of drugs/grand theft auto/ kidnapping/attempted bank robberyetc.--hey I was 18. He dismissed it because there was no prosecutor to object to my motion to dismiss, he actually got angry enough to let me convince him to withdraw himself from the case, remember. The judge had told him after he agreed to do so that he was free to leave the courtroom, but, he said I was doing such a fine job of digging my own grave he wanted to stick around and watch how it played out. Should have seen his face when I won. He was present but as a spectator only, not as a prosecutor.


I mean this as a compliment -- you are crazy!!!

How did you learn to do that, I mean what kind of things can I read to learn more about this stuff? Books, websites, etc.?

Thanks for any help!



new topics

top topics



 
130
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join