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: 7
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:39 AM
link   
As for the City Of London proper, or the square mile financial district in the center of Greater London, I'm there quite a bit, Leadenhall Market is a great place to get lunch, especially with out-of-towners whom love the decor.

Yes the area has a separate police force and there is increased security there, but this is nothing like the walled city that some here have made it out to be. I liken it a lot to the financial district in New York City. It is more patrolled and has increased CCTV because it is a massive target for terrorists of all kinds, especially so if The Troubles in Northern Ireland are starting up again. However again, this is kind of like accusations here made against HRM The Queen's banking holdings, a lack of evidence does not make it a good conspiracy at all.

I'd actually suggest the City to anyone whom is traveling in London as it's quite a beautiful part of town and has lots of history to it.




posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
I would like to point out a few things that will help show the obvious inaccuracy of the OP. The "freeman" movement or what not often forgets two key facts regarding their application of Black's Common Law.

1. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution establishes the sovereign and supreme power of U.S. Law. Any notion of another country's "common law" having legal standing within the U.S. is easily dismissed under the Supremacy Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has asserted this in the past.

2. "Blacks Law" was not the material used by our Founders to inspire U.S. Law. Several historical eye witness accounts state that George Washington kept a copy of The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel. This is also the famous overdue library book checked out by George Washington from the New York Society Library. Other founders referenced the Law of Nations in their writings.

I have seen quite a few threads on this topic and have noticed that statements such as the above are often not responded to directly and with relevant information. I ask anyone whom wishes to reply to this to not provide a "fact dump" type of post where you reply with a litany of completely irrelevant information in the hope of distracting me from my above statement. I ask that you do not provide suspicions and sourceless information as a means of "debunking" my above statement; a suspicion or a sourceless bit of information is not an appropriate or defendable response to the above factual information.

I also ask that you do not make a statement and tell me to do the research to find out for myself for to do so is against all the principles of a good debate. If you make a statement in response to me it is your responsibility to back it up with the information you base it upon and not my duty to "find out for myself."

I wanted to cover a few bases their to eliminate meaningless and incomprehensible responses to my post. Deny Ignorance!



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


It is like I always tell my Foreign friends. The USA is a collection of States - meaning individual countries with their own laws and legislature. They just subscribe to the same Union to work together. So yes, technically you are only a citizen of a state or multiple states if you own land in several. Sort of like Dual Citizenship between countries. However, the states have given rights to the Union that allows people to freely come and go between these areas within the union. No different than how the EU does it now. But France is still a country with its own laws - it just has to abide by the rules it allowed the union they entered to make.

So we don't really still belong to the crown.

Also this is exactly why I thought the US Civil War was a bit nuts to begin with. How dare other states tell another state they MUST stay in a union. Uh I should be allowed to leave anytime I want provided certain repayments of Union goods and dues.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
I would like to point out a few things that will help show the obvious inaccuracy of the OP. The "freeman" movement or what not often forgets two key facts regarding their application of Black's Common Law.

1. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution establishes the sovereign and supreme power of U.S. Law. Any notion of another country's "common law" having legal standing within the U.S. is easily dismissed under the Supremacy Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has asserted this in the past.

2. "Blacks Law" was not the material used by our Founders to inspire U.S. Law. Several historical eye witness accounts state that George Washington kept a copy of The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel. This is also the famous overdue library book checked out by George Washington from the New York Society Library. Other founders referenced the Law of Nations in their writings.



I'll second that wholeheartadly. Thanks for taking it up. It's always nice to encounter some reason in these threads!

My rule for conspiracies is: If Lyndon Larouche endorses it, it ain't true!



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dilligaf28
I would like to point out a few things that will help show the obvious inaccuracy of the OP. The "freeman" movement or what not often forgets two key facts regarding their application of Black's Common Law.

1. The Supremacy Clause in Article VI of the Constitution establishes the sovereign and supreme power of U.S. Law. Any notion of another country's "common law" having legal standing within the U.S. is easily dismissed under the Supremacy Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court has asserted this in the past.

i think that the older the law the more relevent it is in law but the less so in a scociety that has changed over time
if one supreame founding law was written and over time that founding law has statues written to lessen that law then is obvious the statue has to be shown to be morally ok with the poulace with which it is to be enforced (obama care is a statute yet 50% would repeal it)
i beleive that this law is not in the spirit of the constitution thus the earlyer law should have presedent and standing ie supreame court rules on the constitutionallity of the new statue [xp]

2. "Blacks Law" was not the material used by our Founders to inspire U.S. Law. Several historical eye witness accounts state that George Washington kept a copy of The Law of Nations by Emmerich de Vattel. This is also the famous overdue library book checked out by George Washington from the New York Society Library. Other founders referenced the Law of Nations in their writings.

blacks law dictionary is what law definitions have evolved into as there is a seperate language called legaleze and languages can evole and change over time unlike supreame laws
blacks law dictionary is the translation book for the evoled lawers language the new statues are written in and decided on
the supream laws are able to be understood by the layman
the statues are designed to fool the people with a forign language that sounds like englsh this is why we have it [xp]

I have seen quite a few threads on this topic and have noticed that statements such as the above are often not responded to directly and with relevant information. I ask anyone whom wishes to reply to this to not provide a "fact dump" type of post where you reply with a litany of completely irrelevant information in the hope of distracting me from my above statement. I ask that you do not provide suspicions and sourceless information as a means of "debunking" my above statement; a suspicion or a sourceless bit of information is not an appropriate or defendable response to the above factual information.

I also ask that you do not make a statement and tell me to do the research to find out for myself for to do so is against all the principles of a good debate. If you make a statement in response to me it is your responsibility to back it up with the information you base it upon and not my duty to "find out for myself."

I wanted to cover a few bases their to eliminate meaningless and incomprehensible responses to my post. Deny Ignorance!




to say common law has been made irrelevent by the supreamacy clause is to say that
man can over ride gods law with a pen and paper
the fact that these laws are self evedent
right to life
right to a trail by peers
right to freedom of religion

the founding document doesnt give these rights they are asumed to be given to man by god
no man my over write gods laws with a pen and paper
=statutes or acts

i am no part of any free man or soverign group so just dont go there
just interested in this thing for education i hope my veiw is aceptable to you as i have a right to beleive it and you have the right disagree

please go to hawks link for all the information surrounding this subject

XPLodER



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Identified
 


in new zealand we have no real founding document and our laws originally came from brittish law we now follow us supreame cases for precedent and standing. maori royalty are the only soverign people in the country .
but we were founded on brittish commons law as a colony
but the maori people have natural law rights and as you cant have two seperate laws for two ethnic groups .
so both laws were removed from the minds of people over time and now only statutes and acts are considered law but they only apply to people who have birth certificates, drivers licences, social security ect

recently a tribe living in the hills or bush country claimed soverinty and royal tittle (acually fully lawful) the govenment went in and arrested these people for statute violations that they lawfully dint have to comply with

our founding documents consist of 3 or more treatys signed by maori
leaders thet they had no understanding of except they demanded the be free to exist and self govern in the country they discovered
laws of discovery give them ownership and treaty laws give the crown the right to build a colony

at what point do the statutes apply to the maori
and if i claim maori royal blood do these laws then not apply to me?

xploder



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Your reply failed to recognize the secular nature of the United States. The notion of God's law did undoubtedly supply inspiration for our legal statutes. However being that we are secular a nation as spelled out in the first amendment your claim that Common Law is God's law and therefore irrevocable is invalid when spoken in the context of American Government. America was founded as a new model of government and represented a fundamental change in the way governments are formed. Our founder's built a nation "from the ground up" with the intent of establishing a government of by and for the people. To suggest that these Founders, whom had just fought a war for their independence, would allow English law to preside in America is an insult to the very fiber of our nations being.

We all have a right to agree, disagree, offend, or be offended and on that issue I am glad to know we agree. But lets not forget if we lived under God's law I would have the right to buy your daughter and enslave her unless you lived in a neighboring state.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Dilligaf28]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
to say common law has been made irrelevent by the supreamacy clause is to say that
man can over ride gods law with a pen and paper
the fact that these laws are self evedent
right to life
right to a trail by peers
right to freedom of religion

the founding document doesnt give these rights they are asumed to be given to man by god
no man my over write gods laws with a pen and paper
=statutes or acts

i am no part of any free man or soverign group so just dont go there
just interested in this thing for education i hope my veiw is aceptable to you as i have a right to beleive it and you have the right disagree

please go to hawks link for all the information surrounding this subject

XPLodER


The only three basic laws as grated by a higher power recognized by the United States are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights are to be afforded to all of humanity, without exception.

All other rights as outlined in the US Constitution are granted to citizens by the government which is comprised of citizens.

You may believe what you wish and disagree with the interpretation of rights as outlined by the United States Constitution, that's your issue really and not the focus of your thread.

What was given was a great explanation of why the United States is not subject to The Crown by US law was given. Couple that with my previous explanation from The Crown's perspective as to why the US is not Crown property and your OP is quite well and debunked.

Edit: Furthermore I have to completely question your distancing yourself from the ideas of the Freemen (Redemption Movement, Sovereign Citizens, ect) while making a great many of their arguments and pushing their agenda. I understand if you are a Republican (Commonwealth anti-Royalty movement not the American political party) and want to abolish The Crown buy why mix your message in with radical and patiently false American tax protesting ideas?

What do you want, really? What is your end goal? Please do not say something along the lines of learning more or good conversation because we're not buying that any more.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by ProjectJimmy]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


i hope your not offended by my statements as that was not my intent
i understand the difference between church and state
i think the idead of natral law is that before orginized law or founding documents and treatys were in existance people recognised that cetain things were unacceptable to the larger group or village
1.murder
2.theift
3.injury or loss caused by another

protection from these for the layman was the basis for all law from what ever country or religious beleif

all statues and acts in law just refine the rules for living in a world of people but

the inverse of murder is the right to live
the inverse of theift is the right to private property
the inverse of injery or loss is the right to redress grevencess

these are the basis for common law

statues and acts define how a moral civilization wishes its people to ACT and states how in STATUES

xploder

my opinion what is yours?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


Unfortunately for the Indigenous Persons of these nations they really don't have a case in Modern Day International Law. Under the laws when New Zealand was colonized it was pretty clear that the conquerers (Britain) could do whatever they wanted to the natives and they did. They took their land, they homes, their children, and their "citizenship".

I am not familiar with how the Maori are classified but in the US the people who belong to an Indian Nation have Dual Citizenship. They have the laws on their reservations including driver licenses and car licenses but they also can get US passports and must have a state drivers license in the case of many states because those states can choose to not recognize any other drivers license they so choose.

Nowadays invading armies don't usually occupy and take over the country they invade and international law tends to frown on it if they do so the "original" inhabitants of that land get some say in how they are viewed as citizens.

Sorry but the Native American and Maori and the Abos pretty much are out of luck now as they were "conquered" many years ago under a different set of laws and morals.

We can't apply today's standards to incidences that happened many years ago.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by blackrabbit1
If this is the case, why are we so broke? surely we should be living in luxury from all the massive debt payments the USA is pumping into our treasury?


Not to mention how the USA made an absolute fortune on loans to us, during the war.

The USA could and did win the Revolutionary war, they weren't outnumbered, we were outnumbered. We were busy fighting the French and Spanish, we only had a relatively small number of soldiers in America.

If any of what that guy above just said was true, then what did the French get out of it? They sacrificed men, money and tech to win the Rev War for the USA, so what did they get if a "contract" was signed?



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


well i was hoping without too much leading questions or pointed information people would independantly come to the conclusion i did

legally the us is a soverign nation
but to be soverign nation i beleive you must satisfy a few criteria
founding documents (that shows independance)
self determination of laws (that shows independance)
the printing of soverign money (that shows financial independance)
rights of people to
a fair trial (most people cannot afford represntation or understand legaleze)

and the only criteria america fails is that you dont print value money
a private bank prints debt money for you and that bank is owned by banks that are owned by the crown when it comes down to it any person who thinks the fed is not in control of your country (they blocked the audit the fed bill) this is not self determination of laws
and the fed can pump and dump your economy (this shows your at the mercy of the finacial wizards in london

please dont be angry but
he who issiues the money controls all else by proxie
laws
politicians
and the self determination that make a country soverign

and the crown controls the fed by proxie

i was hoping others would conclude the same but i am proberly only looking for the qnswers i want to find so i started the thread to ganer opinion and imput to temper my own agenda

to prove creation of money is the ultimate power in control of the world

please dont be offended by my bias

xploder



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by triplesod

Originally posted by blackrabbit1
If this is the case, why are we so broke? surely we should be living in luxury from all the massive debt payments the USA is pumping into our treasury?


Not to mention how the USA made an absolute fortune on loans to us, during the war.

The USA could and did win the Revolutionary war, they weren't outnumbered, we were outnumbered. We were busy fighting the French and Spanish, we only had a relatively small number of soldiers in America.

If any of what that guy above just said was true, then what did the French get out of it? They sacrificed men, money and tech to win the Rev War for the USA, so what did they get if a "contract" was signed?


I wouldn't say Britain had a relatively small number in North America. Including some 10,000 American Loyalists and the Hessans you had 60,000 plus at the time that France finally declared they were with us in 1778. AT no time did America ever have more than some 100,000 on the rolls at any given time. Sure we had several hundred thousand come and go off the rolls but they didn't all fight at the same time.

And at no time could Britain ever say they were outnumbered Naval wise.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by triplesod
 



What did the French get? They got to see their enemy lose. They also got exclusive trading rights with the new nation since Britain would no longer trade with America and France didn't trade with Britain either.

Also several years later we did help with their little revolution.

In fact the French didn't actually enter the war until the Colonists had proven they might could win this against Britain when they won the battle of Saratoga against odds.

And Spain and Netherlands entered because they sided with France against Britain in various areas around the world including Gibraltor and India.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


I agree the money situation in the US is out of control. However really the only person you could say owns us monetarily is China under that criteria. In the mean time we still have the Federal Reserve.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


well i was hoping without too much leading questions or pointed information people would independantly come to the conclusion i did

legally the us is a soverign nation
but to be soverign nation i beleive you must satisfy a few criteria
founding documents (that shows independance)
self determination of laws (that shows independance)
the printing of soverign money (that shows financial independance)
rights of people to
a fair trial (most people cannot afford represntation or understand legaleze)

and the only criteria america fails is that you dont print value money
a private bank prints debt money for you and that bank is owned by banks that are owned by the crown when it comes down to it any person who thinks the fed is not in control of your country (they blocked the audit the fed bill) this is not self determination of laws
and the fed can pump and dump your economy (this shows your at the mercy of the finacial wizards in london

please dont be angry but
he who issiues the money controls all else by proxie
laws
politicians
and the self determination that make a country soverign

and the crown controls the fed by proxie

i was hoping others would conclude the same but i am proberly only looking for the qnswers i want to find so i started the thread to ganer opinion and imput to temper my own agenda

to prove creation of money is the ultimate power in control of the world

please dont be offended by my bias

xploder


You failed to show that The Crown controls the United States Federal Reserve Bank, and you were shown that there are indeed founding documents showing the US is a sovereign nation and that the US does indeed self determine their legal system.

According to the Fed, they are not owned by anyone, nor are they a private profit-motivated enterprise. It is an institution, there is nothing else truly like it in the world but it is completely encompassed within the United States Federal Government while remaining independent within it. The member banks of the Federal Reserve System do not in any way own the Fed. It is a bank for banks, not a credit union or co-op.

Since the government of the United States has been proven to be sovereign in law and declaration, and contains within it the Fed, the third criteria of yours is also met.

Therefore, The United States of America is wholly and completely separate from The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland, The Crown and The Commonwealth at large.

No US citizen can be proven to pay tax to The Crown by virtue simply of paying taxes in the US. We, the fellow members of ATS, by and large have come to the conclusion that the US is not beholden to HRM The Queen because it cannot be proven to be so.

You add the addendum to your argument that the US does not print "value money" I assume you mean a currency backed by a commodity by this, however this is meaningless currently as the US Dollar is ascribed value by the government, declared legal tender for all debts public and private. That is value, open to the markets and the dollar can be exchanged for goods and services at market rates.

To reiterate, nobody owns the Fed, especially not the member banks. It is contained within the US Federal Government which means that it meets the third requirement in your self-made test for sovereignty. The United States is a sovereign country and nation.

The charlatans whom have convinced you otherwise are wrong.



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by XPLodER
 


for anybody still in denial that britain owns america, have a read of this-

www.natural-person.ca...



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   
Common Law is still around in some States (IE people who reside together, male-female- for a period of 7 years are considered "married" under common law). As was pointed out earlier regarding common law, not all states accept it, and the 14th amendment does not protect it either.

Common Law Marriage is valid in Iowa (If I am getting this wrong someone let me know, im almost positive its Iowa though). The "married" couple visits Missouri, and one spouse ends up in the Hospital. Under Missouri Law, they are not married, and are not afforded the same courtesies as actual married couples.

So to say Common Law is completely gone is not accurate.. Its still around, its just not recognized by everyone. A lot of militias (the more extreme ones) make the same argument that the Government cannot take those away from the people, in addition to many other thoughts on their end.


Native American Indians are somewhat unique in their case. For all intents and purposes we have over 100 soviergn countries within the borders of the United States. Indian Reservations are their own entity, with their own legal system, and are not subject to State Laws outright.

As far as them being conqured I would agree somewhat with that statment. The difference in my opinion is the US Government has established treaties, where as the British did not when they conquered their lands. Not that US Federal treaties mean anything these days when it comes to Native Americans, but you get the idea.

If anyone still thinks the US answers to the Crown, and if the Crown subscribes to this, I would suggest we take a look at History, particularly he part where we opened up one big can of whoop ass on them at Yorktown


As a further sign of the Crowns ability to let bygones be bygones, I refer people to this incident at Buckingham Palace. This is the first time this has ever occured, and was approved by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the 2nd. Contrary to all the debate surrounding the events, we all can agree that the British have class and are stand up people.

British Class as only the British can
Further proof the Brits dont hate us
...and more

...and to show their sense of humor:
I love the British sense of Humor

The incident at Buckingham Palace was actually talked about by Scholars for some time. At no point in History has the Queens own played a foriegn national anthem at the changing of the gaurd at Buckingham Palace. The feeling was the British have come full circle in terms of how they view our Country. The dislike for our National Anthem seems to have faded into the anals of the History books as well (Our NAtional Anthem was british drinking songs etc).

The suggestion is our "Parents" have accepted us into the World as an Adult, and not as an errant child. We have a link with Britain that will last for enternity in my opininon, because of our common past, and intertwined futures.

God Bless the USA / God save the Queen.

I could think of a lot worse things in todays day and age than being subject to the Crown.

The sun never set on the British Empire.....
..........Because God does not trust the British in the Dark

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Xcathdra]



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ProjectJimmy
 


you make some very good points and i acept them as you have made a good argument in your reply
i would like to correct you on who owns the federal reserve


Rothschild Bank of London Warburg Bank of Hamburg Rothschild Bank of Berlin Lehman Brothers of New York Lazard Brothers of Paris Kuhn Loeb Bank of New York Israel Moses Seif Banks of Italy Goldman, Sachs of New York Warburg Bank of Amsterdam Chase Manhattan Bank of New York (Reference 14, P. 13, Reference 12, P. 152)

These bankers are connected to London Banking Houses which ultimately control the FED. When England lost the Revolutionary War with America (our forefathers were fighting their own government), they planned to control us by controlling our banking system, the printing of our money, and our debt (Reference 4, 22).

The individuals listed below owned banks which in turn owned shares in the FED. The banks listed


linky
www.apfn.org...

these banks own controling shares in the fed reserve
who owns controlling interest in those banks?

xploder



posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
reply to post by WHOS READY
 


well i must say your the only person who has presented the case in this much detail outside of hawks thread

thank you for the information i will be recording reading and cross checking agaist the info already posted here

xploder



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 4  5  6    8  9 >>

log in

join