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.

 

the usa is still owned by the crown

page: 4
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by XPLodER


this is intended to open opinion to the legal points in the first video
if you are offended im sorry this is for educational purposes


So your not just the messenger as you implied in the OP. Just saying.


ats is the best place to get all angles and a subjective anallisys of any subject
because members are diverse and from different countrys and have different opinions this information is picked to peices and debunked or proven to the ATS comunity standard

i like that this is open to interpretation and people can look at what they see and not what i try to tell them too see

the second video is to try a different approach in passing this idea to others for discustion

XPLODER




posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Thanks. You should then know the origins of these things.

The Law is what the modern courts say it is. It evolves with society.

The Crown is no more. The Royal Family may still have massive holdings and wealth, but they no longer rule anything. They are an almost comical remnant of our past. The Queen is just another Bozo on the Bus who's only claim to power is through their wealth.

If she ever issues you an order, flip a booger at her. Ask if you can try on one of their silly hats. Remind her the People are the ultimate authority over here and demand she bow to you. If you are an American that is. If she wants your property, charge her really high rent.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Snarf
reply to post by XPLodER
 



hi this is worth a watch


No, it really wasn't. It was more anti-american propaganda.


That's what I am interested in. This video sites most of its sources in blank vs blank court cases, treaties, other government and historical documents.

Can you refute all of these that they are all taken out of context or are misconstrued, no longer valid or legally binding ?

Do you have any evidence to support your belief that this is anti- American propaganda?

Unless, I can see that and be able to study the truth of it, I have no reason to think there may not be something to this.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 04:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


as a member country of the COMMON WEALTH (means what it says)
we in new zealand are ruled indirectly by the queens concort in our paliment

the govener general who is the highest representitive of the queen in our country
without the signature of the govener general no law is enacted

being rude to the ruler or her efogy or money or land is still a criminal act here so be careful of coments of disrespect to our monarch

be aware the the queen owns more land than any other entity on the planet and you claim they are figurative rulers?

xploder



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by Blaine91555
 


as a member country of the COMMON WEALTH (means what it says)
we in new zealand are ruled indirectly by the queens concort in our paliment

the govener general who is the highest representitive of the queen in our country
without the signature of the govener general no law is enacted

being rude to the ruler or her efogy or money or land is still a criminal act here so be careful of coments of disrespect to our monarch

be aware the the queen owns more land than any other entity on the planet and you claim they are figurative rulers?

xploder


Oh now that's just comical! If you want to leave the Commonwealth (one word not two there mate) your nation can, it's a voluntary institution. Barbados is currently going over just that issue, but it's all symbolic anyways. Elizabeth II isn't even the monarch of most nations in it.

Land tenure, which is the proper term for what you're talking about with land ownership in the Common Law-attending nations, doesn't mean anything today. If you hold tenure in land, you are the de-facto owner of it. It's not even used in compulsory purchase (know in the US as eminent domain.)

My family was granted considerable land by The Crown as well as peerage in the late Middle Ages, we sold most of that land to railways in the Industrial Revolution, you know around the time that things like peerage and being landed gentry stopped mattering at all in the course of real life.

HRM The Queen can be made fun of to a very high extent. The Sex Pistols got to Number 1 on the charts in the UK doing just that for her Silver Jubilee.

Get over it mate, none of this stuff matters anymore, it is kept out of tradition and that's really all.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


thank you for your point of veiw and i admit you make good points for your argument

one point left out was the indication of mine that it was a fact that the crown is the largest land owner in the world

i did not support with facts and you didnt mention this ?
is this because it is acepted as fact?
what is your veiw of the power of land owners vs land users?

thanks in advance

xploder



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Before I say anything I'll just state outright, I have no respect for the crown or royalty. I'll admit there are many families which have power, wealth and influence. The king of England of course supported both sides during the Civil War. This is normal strategy even today. I have to laugh though at this video and the idea. Even if the crown still had influence, it is only through manipulating the masses, not outright power. Kill some here and there sure. America is a large unwieldy Democratic power that can rip the arm off anyone or anything at any given time if properly provoked. Absolute power comes from overwhelming military force which even the UK doesn't have now. No matter how you twist legalities and words, the only true masters are puppet masters.

edit.. spelling

[edit on 17-8-2010 by Seers]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


thank you for your point of veiw and i admit you make good points for your argument

one point left out was the indication of mine that it was a fact that the crown is the largest land owner in the world

i did not support with facts and you didnt mention this ?
is this because it is acepted as fact?
what is your veiw of the power of land owners vs land users?

thanks in advance

xploder


Alright I'll say that by tradition The Crown is the largest landowner in the world, but not at all in practice. As I've said, The Crown as it stands holds no practicable power over the lands they traditionally own. It's a non-issue.

I really don't see why it bothers you so much because you're not really answerable to HRM The Queen for your land use but instead to your respective government. They are the ones that would have to do things like issue building permits, assess your taxes and things having to do with the actual management of your land.

So yes, in traditional manner The Queen still "owns" your land, but for all practical intents and purposes you do. Remember that we the citizens of the Commonwealth suffer the royalty at our own option. If we as a whole wanted to, we could become a republic through a general election at any time. We keep the royalty out of tradition and as a figurehead, that's all.

Why does it matter at all if the royalty are the world's largest landowners by tradition if they can't do anything with it?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


I really don't see why it bothers you so much because you're not really answerable to HRM The Queen for your land use but instead to your respective government. They are the ones that would have to do things like issue building permits, assess your taxes and things having to do with the actual management of your land.
But i am directly controlled by the laws the crown signs into law [xp]
And your country is bound by the laws of the district of Columbia [xp]

So yes, in traditional manner The Queen still "owns" your land, but for all practical intents and purposes you do. Remember that we the citizens of the Commonwealth suffer the royalty at our own option. If we as a whole wanted to, we could become a republic through a general election at any time. We keep the royalty out of tradition and as a figurehead, that's all.
Why does the british prime minister report to the queen before any major vote ?[xp]
Does the crown have any say in the outcome of statues?[xp]


Why does it matter at all if the royalty are the world's largest landowners by tradition if they can't do anything with it?
When you own the land that people live on they are required to pay for the use of the land and upon death who then gets ownership if no will or heir is found?[xp]
Do you think britten would go to war without the queens say so?[xp]
What makes obama allowed to sign statues into law ?[xp]
Is he bound by any boundries or does he get orders from the queen?[xp]
Interesting?
xploder

edit to add WHO ownes the corperation THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (capital letters to show incorperation) and why are american citizens employees of the corperation?

could the crown through share ownership acually own the company and therefore any profit due?



[edit on 17-8-2010 by XPLodER]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


I really don't see why it bothers you so much because you're not really answerable to HRM The Queen for your land use but instead to your respective government. They are the ones that would have to do things like issue building permits, assess your taxes and things having to do with the actual management of your land.
But i am directly controlled by the laws the crown signs into law [xp]
And your country is bound by the laws of the district of Columbia [xp]

So yes, in traditional manner The Queen still "owns" your land, but for all practical intents and purposes you do. Remember that we the citizens of the Commonwealth suffer the royalty at our own option. If we as a whole wanted to, we could become a republic through a general election at any time. We keep the royalty out of tradition and as a figurehead, that's all.
Why does the british prime minister report to the queen before any major vote ?[xp]
Does the crown have any say in the outcome of statues?[xp]


Why does it matter at all if the royalty are the world's largest landowners by tradition if they can't do anything with it?
When you own the land that people live on they are required to pay for the use of the land and upon death who then gets ownership if no will or heir is found?[xp]
Do you think britten would go to war without the queens say so?[xp]
What makes obama allowed to sign statues into law ?[xp]
Is he bound by any boundries or does he get orders from the queen?[xp]
Interesting?
xploder

edit to add WHO ownes the corperation THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (capital letters to show incorperation) and why are american citizens employees of the corperation?

could the crown through share ownership acually own the company and therefore any profit due?



[edit on 17-8-2010 by XPLodER]


Wow mate alright a lot to get to here. First off I am British not American.

Of course you are subject by the things that HRM The Queen ascents to, we are all subject to the rule of law under civilization. However those laws are only generated through acts of parliament, which we vote for our representation in.

The United States is subject to Federal Law, which is dictated by powers in the US Constitution and needs no royal approval whatsoever, period.

So you're also mad that the PM has to report to HRM before a major vote? She's a living symbol and mascot, so what keep her in the know.

Of course the monarch can still extend some control, as much as they wish to try for, but the monarchy exists at the will of the people, and the royals know that if indeed they piss us off, they won't have any power anymore, ever.

Would the UK go to war without the approval of HRM? Ask PM Thatcher about that one, and what the true role of the monarch is in regards to her military.

President Obama's power to sign legislation into law comes entirely from the US Constitution, he does not need to ever ask for royal ascent for any law ever.

The United States is not a corporation it is a government. If you want I'll actually go through the idiocy of the Redemption Movement for you a little later but I don't have the time or the file right here with me now (I've got to try to get some sleep tonight for once.) Better yet, look my previous posts up, as it will probably be the billionth time if I explain it again.

Do some research of your own! Stop buying into all of the paranoia here. HRM The Queen can't hurt you anymore, those days are long over.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Johnze
 





There is a video on youtube by some english dudes, going on about it all, Freeman Group or something?, worth a watch, some of it with regards to your actual legal rights is quite interesting. Most of it will land you in jail if you listen to them though.


This is the guy you're referring to his name is John Harris, I've checked him out as much as I am able and he seems to be onto something.




If you compare both the info on the OPs video in relation to the US and What John Harris is exposing there appears to be a great deal of similarities almost carbon copies of (for want of a better word) entrapment.

This topic was discussed before on ATS but the thread was shut down for no apparent reason.


I would sincerely recommend every US member to compare videos and as much info as possible.

As a rule I don't lose any sleep over conspiracies and some of the madness reported on ATS (including my own) but the info in relation to these 2 vids appears to be as far as I can see based on pretty solid ground.


I've been troubled (and angered) so much by what I found whilst trying to verify some of these claims that I'm off to hear John Harris speak on Friday.

I hope to grab hold of the guy and interrogate him, but I'm getting the feeling that his info is based on solid ground, perhaps there may be a little artistic license afforded but I've yet to come across it, time will tell.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


I already posted Link to this on page one of this thread !
The link i posted was for the entire video not in 'parts' as on YT !

[edit on 073131p://08America/Chicago17 by ProRipp]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by The Djin
 


this post isnt about any movement in particular just looking big picture at how the govenments have been set up as for profit corperations

and the fact that someone must have shares in this corperation

and it is my theory that the crown ownes these shares
if the govenment is for profit are the courts?
if the courts are for profit is the irs?
look at dunn and brad street (not sure of spelling)

this english guy goes into the how does the corperation make itself act legally and removes some of the myth that we are taught in schools

note even if the lawful truth is uncovered i advise seeking the advice of a lawer in your country state as these truths will be faught against by the existing courts

none of this thread by any poster consitutes legal advice and is intended as educational material only please concult a lawyer for any legal advice required

it is my opinion that a court on the land should be common law
a court on the water should be maritime law

when you enter a court of law you are entering a ship and are losing all common law rights and have to abide by the law of the saes

THE captain of the ship (judge) is judge jury and sentencing officer
even if your case involves the ship or judge

justice is imposable when you factor into the equation that the courts are a for profit corperation

does the crown own the shares for the courts too?

XPLodER



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:42 PM
link   
That this topic has continued for so long (and that that prior video was even made) appalls me in that it shows a shocking ignorance to the 'legal' meaning of corporation: an office or political seat of authority made up of two or more persons i.e. the Corporation of London, or the manner in which the property belonging to a Corporation (such as a Bishopric) ceases to pass on to familial successors on death (as would happen with any other person) by virtue of the fact that the office is made up of two or more individuals.

I apologize for explaining this so poorly, the concept is slightly abstract and hard to get across when you consider the typical meaning of 'corporation' to which we have long been exposed, but I assure you, simply being a 'corporation' does not mean that such a body is for-profit or set up for the sole intent of conducting business.

EDIT: I've also done some further research on several of the claims, and have found the claims made by many websites documenting such a conspiracy to be frankly, absurd. One claims that King George was also King of France. Well, he may have considered himself to be, but the Sovereign French nation sure as hell did not consider him to be their King (anyone need reminding of the numerous times England and France went to war with each other?)

It makes further claims that no land is 'owned' in the United States by citizens. I cannot comment on the veracity of this, as I do not have any knowledge of American property law, but I know that in the UK, at least, this is, strictly speaking, true. The Crown holds allodial title to all land in the United Kingdom by virtue of it being the Crown; it is, bizarrely, one aspect of our feudal system that was never 100% abolished (although it has been in everything but name - let me explain...). The Queen and Crown, by virtue of their being the Royal family, immediately own everything.

However, this is just an archaic holdover from a bygone era. In no way, shape, or form does the Queen 'own' our land in a practical sense. The vast majority of estates in land have not been subject to interference or dealing with by the Crown since the estates from which they were carved were granted to various Noblemen by William the Conqueror in the post-1066 era. Even the Queen herself would likely say that, although she owns all of the land in the UK, strictly speaking, she also does not own that land. She is not the landlord. She cannot dictate what is to be done with land and who can control it. I would honestly bet that, if it ever came to it, and by some bizarre and ancient legal process, the Queen or Crown attempted to annex privately-owned land, the police and Courts would probably simply just refuse to comply (most people in the UK don't really seem to give a toss about the Crown anymore, and I wholly applaud their sentiment).

As for the Statutory Instrument no 1778 of 1997? I can't deign what it actually means, as it amends prior legislation (the Social Security Administration Act 1992), but it should be kept in mind that as a Statutory instrument and not primary legislation, is that it is therefore delegated legislation, requires no consent from the Queen to be enacted (as it derives from it's authority to do so from prior legislation), and is not therefore in and of itself issuing forth from the Crown or Parliament.

I still have absolutely no idea what either the Social Security Administration Act 1992 or the SI no 1778 of 1997 mean or do, however, so can anyone enlighten me?

[edit on 17-8-2010 by duality90]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:47 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


If corporations DON'T exist for profit what DO they exist for ? Please explain ? And NOT in legalese ?



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
reply to post by duality90
 


i think i understand your point that at face value there is multipul meanings for the word corperation
but why then are citizens considered employees of this corperation?
if the citizens were friends of the corperation or trading parties of the corperation or even enemies of the corperation

but employees?
is there another meaning to this i am missing?

XPLodER



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProRipp
reply to post by duality90
 


If corporations DON'T exist for profit what DO they exist for ? Please explain ? And NOT in legalese ?


I am quoting from what little knowledge I have of the term, but as far as I know it was simply a title invented to describe a body of two or more people which was a 'public office' or similar thing which would be exempt from certain restrictions and operations of the law (as I described before, there is no passing-on-death of the properties of Corporations).

You have to keep in mind that the term 'corporation' existed before people began making private companies (themselves corporations, as they were an organisation of several people who joined together, were not related, and who owned land or certain resources or property) for the sole purpose of profit. The Virginia Joint Stock company is amongst the first - although that was a 'corporation', corporations existed prior to the VA Joint Stock Company.



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
I would also urge people to look up the cases described in the video. I have no knowledge of the meaning of American legal citations, but I recall seeing one example in the video which was from the 1st Session of a legislature - i.e. the 1st ever in it's existence. I don't think that quoting from jurisprudence of the late 18th century is an entirely appropriate means of describing the status quo today.

Also, if the UK owns the US, why is the US so much more incredibly wealthy than the UK, so much less socialist, and politically divided from the UK on certain issues? (i.e. the US refused to toe our line on the Argies and the Falkland islands, and recently expressed dissatisfaction with our Security services for publishing details of Binyam Mohamed's custody)



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I would urge people to actualy research the claims made in this video. They are distorted to fit the view of the film.

Please people, think for yourselves. As an example check into EO 12803.

EO-12803



[edit on 17-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Aug, 17 2010 @ 09:14 PM
link   
The video in the OP's post also seems to confuse British Admiralty Law with the very distinctly American Uniform Commercial Code ( they are very different things altogether).

Also, many jurisdictions (to the best of my knowledge - again, if I am any point wrong in what I am saying, I urge someone to come forward and correct me) choose to continue using British Admiralty law as it is another historical hangover that has influenced the commerce of many nations. Due to the Royal Navy having a presence throughout most of the world at some point in time or other (as well as the British Empire having occupied so many countries), it naturally follows that the naval commerce and maritime trade of many nations was regulated by English law. As a result of this law being so deeply entrenched in the maritime commerce of many nations, it's use and influence remains throughout the world.

If I may, I would like to use an analogy: simply because we use the roman alphabet and because many of our governmental institutions (if not all) use latin in their mottos or work otherwise, one would not therefore jump to the conclusion that the Roman Empire is behind the scenes pulling strings.

The British influence and the influence of the Crown is not something which should be surprising. Simply because certain facets of British culture (be that through law, government, or otherwise) have rubbed off on the US does not mean to say that the US is run by the UK.



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join