It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 9
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 09:39 PM
reply to post by EnglishKing

Reading this just recently;

"The present Queen of England is not the “Crown,” as we have all been led to believe. Rather, it is the Bankers and Attornies (Attorneys) who are the actual Crown or Crown Temple. The Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the reign of King John, circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that time has passed to the Crown Temple in Chancery."


and here:
"So, how has this prophesy come upon us?

When the people of North America were pledged as chattel SLAVES to the bankruptcy creditor in 1933, that being the corporate Crown of the City of London, which is owned by the Holy Roman Empire headed by the Pontiff of the Vatican, government came up with the scheme of converting family names to primary or 'surnames', and then claiming the name, derived from the birth registry of the child, as 'intellectual property' owned by the City of London Crown [or State, in the USA].

The 'registry' of a child places that child as a 'ward of the Crown (or State)'. That is how government gains control over our children, and forces parents to have their children educated in the government/Jesuit 'collectivist' brainwashing school curriculum. 'Registry' [offering up to the King (or State)] is the scheme. 'Recording' the live birth of a child with the local level of government is supposed to be merely a safeguard for the child and the parents, and that is what most people think they are doing when completing the birth 'Registry'.

When that child becomes an adult, and uses the Crown/State owned name, the name found on the birth certificate, with that certificate being the pledged document to the bankruptcy creditor, that adult human, by attachment, becomes a SLAVE owned by the corporate Crown of the City of London, and thus to the Vatican. All of the SLAVE's property, including his or her labor (100%) is claimed by the slave owner. All things you purchase, possess, and wages yo

posted on Aug, 18 2010 @ 10:36 PM
reply to post by MAJESCOTT

from the information you provided
does this mean a registration of live birth gives our children into slavery?

does this mean if no birth registration event document can be provided that you are no longer a slave?

am i reading this right?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:09 AM

Originally posted by XPLodER

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

Maybe that is the problem. As someone who has a minor degree in economics, I can guarantee you that there is no doctrine of finance that is not heavily influenced or bases itself on a certain political view. When it comes to State Finances, there is no such thing as an unpolitical concept. The ultra-libertarian stuff that you are peddling with your links is quite easily tied to an underlying interpretation of the social sphere and politics. Maybe you missed that.

what if ron paul is correct?

As others have pointed out. Ron Pauls criticism of the Fed does not consist of the argument that it is owned by the Queen. In fact the owners that you referr to have no saying as to the poltics and day-to-day decisions of what the Fed does. Those sections of the Fed that make these decisions are run by appointees, appointed by the US government. So the whole "take the power of the owners and give it to the people (which are represented by the state, of course) " is kind of moot. The Fed is a completely state run show.

Of course, the people that get appointed stem from a certain strata of society that is linked by class interest and a general philosophy of financial politics that is congruent.
But this happens with any body politic that is constituted by appointed members. The Fed is the perfect place for a structural conspiracy - such as being a bubble-generator for their friends at Goldman Sachs etc. - but it is totally unsuited as a tool for national economic control through foreign interests (in fact, the very structure of the Fed makes such a concept impossible.).

[edit on 19-8-2010 by NichirasuKenshin]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:18 AM
reply to post by XPLodER

That is the impression that i am getting also.

I did dig a little deeper and found this which I think might interest you.

"The United States is still a British Colony

The trouble with history is, we weren't there when it took place and it can be changed to fit someone's belief and/or traditions, or it can be taught in the public schools to favor a political agenda, and withhold many facts. I know you have been taught that we won the Revolutionary War and defeated the British, but I can prove to the contrary. I want you to read this paper with an open mind, and allow yourself to be instructed with the following verifiable facts. You be the judge and don't let prior conclusions on your part or incorrect teaching, keep you from the truth."

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 04:40 AM
reply to post by MAJESCOTT

I think this Horse is dead. We have 9 pages refuting the claims in the video, as well as other info provided, including the one you quoted here.

On page 5 you will find the breakdown point by point with the evidence that refutes the claim we are still under the British.

The USC they are citing are being taken out of contect in order to support their argument.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 05:04 AM
Some replies to the link you posted (

I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.
An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions.

False. Not the rank-meaning is referred to here, but the profession.

1. A man or boy who is a member of the gentry in England ranking directly below a knight.
2. (Abbr. Esq.) Used as an honorific usually in its abbreviated form, especially after the name of an attorney or a consular officer: Jane Doe, Esq.; John Doe, Esq.
3. In medieval times, a candidate for knighthood who served a knight as an attendant and a shield bearer.
4. Archaic. An English country gentleman; a squire.

Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.

No it wasn’t. Esquire denotes the second meaning given in the above definition. There is no indication that the term was used in the way the article implies.
And I mean really. The article you cite says:

I wonder if you have seen the main and obvious point? This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781. If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when we were now his equal in status? We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War! So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War? If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War. To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won. Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did McArther allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way! All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations. Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.

While the treaty clearly says that:

Article 1:
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

I find the level of intellectual dishonesty in that article to be staggering. Here you have, black on white, the King of England acknowledging the sovereignty of the United States – while the article claims that the treaty does exactly the opposite.

Do I have to read on? Or are 2 so obvious dishonesties enough to convince a rational person that he is being served BS?

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:00 AM
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

As the old saying goes "He who wins war, writes history"

There will always be 3 sides to every story. Read all 3 and come to your own conclusions but don't profess yours to be the only truth!

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:19 AM
Personally the ONLY self declared state of America I know of that fell to the Crown and is still Crown land to this day, is the short lived self declared 24th State of America.

[edit on 19/8/10 by thoughtsfull]

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 06:38 AM

Originally posted by MAJESCOTT
reply to post by NichirasuKenshin

As the old saying goes "He who wins war, writes history"

There will always be 3 sides to every story. Read all 3 and come to your own conclusions but don't profess yours to be the only truth!

Uhm.. that's what you are doing... But anyway....

I quoted the relevant parts in my post. It is not a question of "how I see it". Your article claims that the US forfeited it's sovereignity with that treaty. I have quoted the part of the treaty wherein Britain explicitly acknowledges the full sovereignity of the USA. Logic should be the only thing to dictate a conclusion in this case, not opinions.

posted on Aug, 19 2010 @ 08:52 AM
In the end it's all about jurisdiction, in regards to the which law is correct debate regarding natural/common law and enactments/statutory law. Statutory law by definition and implementation requires consent, or it is fascism. I'm pretty sure that's what our side went to war against.
A statement which cannot be rebutted becomes truth in law; estoppel by acquiescence when used deftly hath more power than any weapon. This is the basis of the freeman movement.

Anyway.. back on topic I guess, we are getting distracted.

[edit on 19/8/10 by GhostR1der]

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 07:37 PM
reply to post by GhostR1der

i think your right but when this is legal how can courts justice really be fair

How can the federal judiciary be independent and impartial when the law permits the federal government to secretly award judges up to $25,000 in undisclosed secret “cash awards,” and to privately, secretly and “erroneously” overpay them up to $10,000, and “waive” these erroneous overpayments?


justice is a word that means we all pay in the end if we allow unfair practices to continue


posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:06 PM
Look- Britain or America, Federal Reserve or Bank of England ! We ae all paying for our own SLAVERY ! Wake up ! The only FREE people of this Earth are in the THIRD WORLD ! Why do you think WE ? are trying to abolish the THIRD WORLD and embrace (enslave) them ? Democracy my ARSE !

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 08:33 PM
Not the crown, but something that rhymes: Rome.

The Vatican is what is in control, the Empire never fell, its still running strong.

posted on Aug, 21 2010 @ 12:33 AM
reply to post by Rodaggam

i watched the movie ring of power the other day
related very much to all of this stuff dont know how credable it was but they said
religion centre= vatacan
political centre= washington dc
financial centre= london city state

was worth a watch 2 hours long tho


posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:21 AM
great video! ...the police arent there to protect US...i say we start a revolution!!! ..also, all the constitutional laws, like 'innocent until proven guilty' clearly arent even meant for us... heres an article to prove it.

i feel so bad for this guy...

obviously, if the FBI is looking for you, and you're innocent, you would turn yourself in too, and be very scared of the police brutality you may face.

"an eyewitness to the shooting came forward with new information." ...?? did they even say what that new information was, or who the eyewitness was?? ..they just sort of pulled it out of their ass that this guy is a suspect.

i love how the police keep saying that theyve turned him in and now the streets are safe.. wha?? ..anyone else have any interesting stories/articles like this ?? anyone agree?

[edit on 27-8-2010 by srahhhhh]

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 11:56 AM

Originally posted by MAJESCOTT
reply to post by EnglishKing

Reading this just recently;

"The present Queen of England is not the “Crown,” as we have all been led to believe. Rather, it is the Bankers and Attornies (Attorneys) who are the actual Crown or Crown Temple. The Monarch aristocrats of England have not been ruling sovereigns since the reign of King John, circa 1215. All royal sovereignty of the old British Crown since that time has passed to the Crown Temple in Chancery."


This is very plainly not true, I regret to inform you.

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:05 PM

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by duality90

Check some of this:

British overseas Citizen

British Nationality Law

I'm not sure what you're suggesting with these. I am aware that one can have dual citizenship and that people that were born in British colonies whilst they were still British colonies/dominions/protectorates are British Citizens (although their citizenship is not the same as mine, having been born in the UK; I'm not certain what the difference is exactly, but I know a friend of mine was born in Bermuda and her British passport certainly looks quite different from my own), but I still contend that there is no such thing as being a 'Welsh Citizen'. Although Wales is, in a sense of the word, a nation of peoples, it does not have full legal and political sovereignty and is effectively run as a satellite of the Westminster government (although Plaid Cyrmu and the Welsh Assembly have the right to legislate on tax, education et c. they are still subject to the ambit of Parliamentary legislation).

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:07 PM

Originally posted by 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

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

[edit on 18-8-2010 by XPLodER]

As far as I know, you already do, as the NZ Parliament (or legislative assembly, whatever the name was) voted to cease appeals to the Privy Council in 2007 or 8, I think.

posted on Aug, 27 2010 @ 12:10 PM

Originally posted by EnglishKing
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.

You're quite right. I'm glad you have some sensibility unlike many other posters in this forum. Even when the Vatican owned the vast majority of lands in what was then the Kingdom of England (remember, prior to the Act of Union 1707, England and Scotland were completely different nations), they still did not "own" the Kingdom. The power of rule was vested in the King and Crown by virtue of their birth, and, although he may have followed edicts issuing from the Pope, as a Catholic, the Pope nor the Vatican in any way "owned" England in the sense that they had greater sway over the country and politics than the King.

new topics

top topics

<< 6  7  8   >>

log in