the usa is still owned by the crown

reply to post by XPLodER


You are going off of an unsubstantiated website while I am going off of standing statue and the definition of the Fed as it is given.

No one or entity owns the Fed, as I said you have been mislead by charlatans. You're pulling this information from the American Patriot Friends Network, not at all what I would call a legitimate source and instead it has an agenda. And once more you have no formal proof.

Again, no one owns the Fed, go ahead and ask them yourself if you doubt this. I understand that you believe this to be false but it is indeed fact. You have been lied to by people that want to overthrow the United States.

This is exactly the kind of thing your fellow members here on ATS have been calling you out on and asking why you're believing and backing what these people say.

So again, and I would ask that you answer truthfully, why do you believe these people over all other information?

reply to post by Xcathdra


you my freind are correct and amazing in your maturity on the subject
i love the comment at the end

we have evoled over time to be more than mere colonys of the british
i guess the next step is to gain control of the economy by printing real money like jfk tryed to do the red back before he was murdered

xploder

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


ron paul is why i beleive the fed is owned by the banks that are owned by the crown

if this is true why would there be proof on the internet to stop their scheme ?

if this is true the fed would be the most seceret most dangerous company in the world and the information or proof your asking for would be a death sentence to anyone seeking it

i beleive this because ron paul opened my eyes

im not condoning any politics

i want a list of owners to be published
and not the propaganda the fed prints to sheild itself from the light of scrutiny

xploder

reply to post by XPLodER


I am not sure what "opinion" you want of me. I feel your response was an attempt at misdirection. You in no way responded to my statements regarding U.S. law and its sovereignty or secular nature.

I do not see a particular need to share my opinion of your post. What I do see a need for is that you respond to my initial query.

I am not sure why you think I have become offended either. Perhaps I offended you and in typical "freeman" fashion you wish to project that feeling onto me? I know you have claimed no association with them but as others on this thread have pointed out you certainly employ their reasoning (f you can call the utter nonsense they spout reason) and are espousing the beliefs they hold.

If it offends you that I wish to remain on topic then I guess you shall just have to remain offended.

In all things Deny Ignorance

[edit on 18-8-2010 by Dilligaf28]

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

ron paul is why i beleive the fed is owned by the banks that are owned by the crown

if this is true why would there be proof on the internet to stop their scheme ?

if this is true the fed would be the most seceret most dangerous company in the world and the information or proof your asking for would be a death sentence to anyone seeking it

i beleive this because ron paul opened my eyes

im not condoning any politics

i want a list of owners to be published
and not the propaganda the fed prints to sheild itself from the light of scrutiny

xploder

Representative Paul does not even believe these things to be true. He is a constitutionalist libertarian, not a member of the Redemption Movement where your current ideas are coming from.

Here's a link to Representative Paul's political positions (forwarded to his views on the Fed,) as you will see his reasons for being against the Fed are far different from the ones you've been lead to:

Political Positions Of Ron Paul

Please read it, these people that you are getting your info from are criminals in the United States, they avoid taxes they are legally obligated to pay. They also bilk many Americans out of money for their ideas and commit other financial crimes. Some even call for violent overthrowing of the United States.

Listening to Representative Paul is one thing, he is a well-educated and while I do disagree with him on most issues, he is working within the system to change things legally unlike the people you have been getting information from.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by duality90

 

No worries man.. I rather enjoyed looking back into that stuff. As far as the comment about Americans and dual citizenship I ask you this:

If you kill someone in Wales, can you be arrested for that in Scotland, and sent back to wales without ever seeing a judge in between custody and transfer back?

We are citizens of the states we reside in, and are subject to those laws. If I live in Minnesota, Michigan has no legal authority to deal with me. Even if I killed someone in michigan, they can issue an arrest warrant, and I can be arrested in Minnesota, however I can fight extradition back to Michigan.

We have whats called Govenor warrants that are supposed to be upheld between states (14th amendment, full faith and credit clause) however this has been ignored in the past if the accused made their argument why being extradited is a miscarriage of Justice.

As far as the British Issue.. You can be a citizen of Austrailia, or Britain, or Wales, and yet at the same time you are all subjects of the Crown.

But there is not such thing as 'Citizen' of wales because it is not a sovereign nation, just as there is no such thing as Citizen of Scotland or N. Ireland. And that's an interesting question that I don't actually know the answer to, to be honest, as Scotland has an entirely different legal system than that of England and Wales. I don't think there would be any issue of extradition though; as far as I know you'd just be driven back down to the Court in the locale of where your crime was committed i.e. Swansea Crown Court if you killed someone in Swansea and were arrested on the run in Cardiff or Bristol. As far as I know, you'd have to ask someone who practices criminal defense law in the UK - my practical knowledge is limited.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90

 

the only mention of the city state in london i could find for you is in a you tube video called the ring of power and its 2 hours long and doesnt provide proof just some ones indepth study of

skip tp 3.35

again not proof only reference
sorry best i can do atm very busy

No offense mate, but I wasn't arguing with you about the so-called "City State of London"...it is an objective fact that such a place/ sovereign body does not exist, immaterial of what some dodgy video on youtube may have you believe.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


from the ex fed chairmans mouth





i dislike the free man or anti tax movement or the rap or who ever
i wont say it again im not for anything that is illegal

this includes the fed if it is illegal

xploder

reply to post by duality90


fair enough i can not prove what i have said so i agree to your veiw point that the statement was not fact only speculation on my part and i opologise for the unfactual nature of my statement

xploder

Originally posted by XPLodER
again in a narrow context this video seams very strange have started to look into case law involved so i dont jump to conclusions

but it would seam again to back up the first video
well as you say you can make anything look plausable with a narrow context

this is the original reason i thought the ird was dodgey

XPLOder

So much of the information contained in this is just utter, utter bollocks.

The Vatican owns the UK? Obviously, that makes sense since in 1534 Henry VIII broke his Kingdom away from the Holy See and began his own Church, of which he would be the head aka the Church of England/Anglicanism.

I have a very difficult time believing the detailed legal research of someone who cannot even properly spell 'citation' (the video-maker). Just because something is on youtube, does NOT make it true...

EDIT: apologies, quoted a wrong date for England's separation from the Catholic faith. 1534 was the correct date, by the Act of Supremacy.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by duality90]

Originally posted by WHOS READY
reply to post by XPLodER

 

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

www.natural-person.ca...

Again I would urge people to read the entire document in its context, and not belive the bits and pieces people pull out to further their point.

This is what they are referring to:

The Crown - Social Security

Now, reference this:

Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows: S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security ( United States of America) Order 1997 Made 22nd of July 1997 coming into force 1st September 1997. At the Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her Majesty an pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is please, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:

"This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997." Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice stating in court that he takes his orders from England? This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law. Remember, King George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America." See: Treaty of Peace (1738) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large. Great Britain which is the agent for the Pope, is in charge of the USA 'plantation.' What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers and King George were working hand-n-hand to bring the people of America to their knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. 28 U.S.C. 3002 (15)

Now, if you check the section they are referring to from the UK, and actually read it in its entirety, you will see that:

Section 179 - Reciprocal agreements with countries outside the United Kingdom

Scroll down to 179 to see the reference in its entirety

Again, people taking bits and peces and rewriting the picture.

Originally posted by XPLodER
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

I have no knowledge of NZ law beyond that it is derived from English law, but are you actually sure that your courts use American cases? I am fairly certain that that is not the case (although I would be welcome to see evidence to the contrary), and I'm fairly certain your Court of Last Appeal, until recently, would have been the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (House of Lords) in the UK. I can see no logical reason why a legal system would simply decide to begin letting other legal systems make up their corpus of domestic law.

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by duality90

 

fair enough i can not prove what i have said so i agree to your veiw point that the statement was not fact only speculation on my part and i opologise for the unfactual nature of my statement

xploder

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hurt your feelings or be a dick to you, but I just don't get why believe so fervently in something which is blatantly not true. It's like me saying that Obama was in fact born on Mars...it is just blatantly not true.

reply to post by ProjectJimmy


i am offended by the nature of you discreaditing my information because the source i googled something and posted the first answer on the page

the place i get my ideas from are financial not political
follow the money

i do not condone anything illegal or subversive and the debate seams to be now freemans vs loyalists

this is not a political debate but an ownership debate
this isnt about wheather taxes should be paid
this is about the control of a nation by an other by way of printing money

this money printing does effect
politics
law
treatys
religions
and life and happyness

your point of veiw has been noted and i would like to point out that factually you are correct

what if ron paul is correct?

xploder

reply to post by duality90


Check some of this:

British overseas Citizen

British Nationality Law

Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by ProjectJimmy

 

i dislike the free man or anti tax movement or the rap or who ever
i wont say it again im not for anything that is illegal

this includes the fed if it is illegal

xploder

Oh boy, alright, first Former Chairman Greenspan was talking about the rise of China and the abandonment of centrally planned economies in the former Soviet Union as the external forces that made the Fed keep rates low, not The Crown. That's blatantly clear from the video you yourself posted.

Secondly, Representative Paul states in the opening seconds of the video you posted that the Fed gives government the ability to print fiat currency. Right there, the government has the ability to do so, not The Crown.

Finally if you're against the illegal activities of the Redemption Movement, then you should not listen to their propaganda because it is just a system of lies meant to give them legitimacy.

Now, I've seen this thread through far longer than I should have, but it was rewarding to see you defeat your own claims. Your OP has been debunked completely and totally despite your best efforts to guide the discussion away from it and some very slippery arguments.

It is done, finished, and over.

Cheers to you mate!

Edit: removed the previously posted embedded videos, they are posted above no need to eat up users bandwidth.

And a note: I am factually correct, that's good enough for me. I am a journalist, facts are my business. Thank you for admitting it XPLodER.

[edit on 18-8-2010 by ProjectJimmy]

reply to post by Xcathdra


the point you made to me about taking things out of context is to be applied to any further posts

my mistake in the op was to fact check the case law existed instead of looking for periferal case information that coloured interpreted or overides the case being sighted

i will state that my knowledge of this subject is evolving with the posts of diferent opinions and veiw points as i had hoped

moral lesson for me is people with hidden agendas tend to represent the case law they want while blocking or not presenting the case law that discredits their own agenda

i may be biased in my veiw point from the information presented in the utube videos

but thanks to ats my bias is being watered down to consider the information itself is propaganda for a purpose unknown to me
previous to the op

thanks for presenting a non bias veiw point and pointing out the deeper meaning to this subject

xploder

reply to post by duality90


upon studying your question i have found error to my statement

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the court of final appeal for the UK overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and for those Commonwealth countries that have retained the appeal to Her Majesty in Council or, in the case of Republics, to the Judicial Committee.

The Judicial Committee moved to the Supreme Court Building in Parliament Square on 13 August 2009.

ex linky
www.privy-council.org.uk...

it appers we are going to have our own sepreame court in new zealand


[edit on 18-8-2010 by XPLodER]

reply to post by Xcathdra


well by difinition im a botc
british overseas terratory citizen
lol

thanks for that i didnt know that hehe

I highly doubt Britain is owned by the Vatican, there was a reason for the Magna Carta....and a treaty is only an agreement between two persons, NOT a contract meaning it can easily be broken.