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.

 

Queen of England Controls our Social Security?

page: 1
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   
Hey folks. Im really not sure where to drop this subject so please mods feel free to move.

This just came to my attention and I must admit, this is something I was really unaware of. In fact, Im sitting here a bit dumbfounded and Im hoping the wiser minds of ATS can put this in a better perspective to understand.

Snip from article:




By: Stephen Kimbol Ames 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 there 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, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England, he was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.


Full Article Continued HERE
You have to scroll down a tad to read it.

Is this really true, and just exactly What does this mean. I don't want to go out on a limb here with my thoughts before I hear some of yours.

I feel a bit silly because I thought I knew our history rather well, or at least for most part. How did this one slip by me?
edit on 24-6-2011 by onehuman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
I would like to see others post on this as well. I'm lost on it.

Is this one of the reasons that the Royal couple is still getting so much attention in the MSM? To keep the family in the limelight when the Queen passes?

I don't know, just theorizing here.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:13 PM
link   
Hopefully this isn't sidetracking your thread, but I saw this short clip a long time ago and I think it mentions this....it doesn't go into great detail about any of this stuff, rather lets the viewer do their own research, but it talks about social security and other interesting stuff, and plus I like the music.




posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 02:44 PM
link   
All true,King George never relinquished America and funded both sides of the war.It was indeed a ruse and America was a creation with a purpose.A large proportion of American taxes go to the United Kingdom to repay the debt of funding the war (still) and also for landlease.However the Queen is only a higher form of executive, than the American President.She too is answerable to a higher Monach.This Monachy installed her line.This Monachy conquered England,centuries ago and were in Canada and North America long before Columbus.They are revealed in the Red and White Stripes of the American Flag.
There are similar ruse's in play with the Civil War, the States are not valid as they were never ratified.There are currently some American Universities researching these subject's.This is a vast topic,and it's only after 5 AM here so I am not running on all engines at the moment.So I'll leave it here for now.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 13th Zodiac
 


I am truely looking forward to hear what else you have to say on this subject and I will wait patiently! From what little you have said so far, this seems like it could open a whole kind of can of worms if more people are aware of it. Seems to me some laws could almost become null and void just can't think of any off top of my head at moment as Im a little tired myself.

and Greenweenie, thank you for posting the video, going to watch it here in a few moments



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Maybe they decided to put it in someone else's hands to keep American lawmakers from stealing it, which they seem so much to want to do.



Just sayin'.



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
Hi, long time lurker on ATS but joined up just to reply as i used to work in Social Security in the UK, and spent many hours interpreting statute law to make low level (on behalf of) Secretary of State Decisions.

This seems to be a bit of a red herring to me, and appears to be just another quite boring piece of legislation relating to an agreement between the two nations to confer the same welfare benefit/pension rules for nationals living and working in each others countries.

I know there are various discussions relating to conspiracy with the Queen and royal family etc, but as far as this specific law mentioned in the OP is concerned (The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997) it's not very suspicious to me, and a rather uninteresting read after trawling through the 1984 legislation it ammends - you can read it here:

www.legislation.gov.uk...


16. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Article, a person in the territory of the United States who is subject to the laws on coverage of the United Kingdom by virtue of any of the Articles 4 to 6 of this Agreement and who satisfies the contribution conditions applicable to sickness benefit under those laws shall, for the purpose of determining his entitlement to invalidity benefit under those laws: (a)be treated as if he were in the territory of the United Kingdom; and(b)each day of incapacity for work while in the territory of the United States may, where appropriate, be treated as if it were a day for which he had received sickness benefit under the laws of the United Kingdom.


I only wanted to mention this to avoid wasting any time investigating it too much yourself.
If there is any secret conspiracy with Social Security and the UK/USA it's unlikely to be found in any published statutory instruments/acts of parliament.
edit on 24-6-2011 by grainofsand because: remove an accidental sad emoticon in the quoted text because there was no space between a : and a (



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:21 PM
link   

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)


Mr Ames is obviously hoping that we will not actually check his references...

This is from the treaty of 1783, not 1738. Since the Declaration of Independence wasn't drafted until 1776, here was no USA in 1738. (duh)

Here is the whole sentence that he pulls his quote from:


It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire &c., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse, between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782, by the commissioners empowered on each part, which articles were agreed to be inserted in and constitute the Treaty of Peace proposed to be concluded between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States, but which Treaty was not to be concluded until terms of peace should be agreed upon between Great Britain and France and his Britannic Majesty should be ready to conclude such Treaty accordingly; and the Treaty between Great Britain and France having since been concluded, his Britannic Majesty and the United States of America, in order to carry into full effect the Provisional Articles above mentioned, according to the tenor thereof, have constituted and appointed, that is to say his Britannic Majesty on his part, David Hartley, Esqr., member of the Parliament of Great Britain, and the said United States on their part, John Adams, Esqr., late a commissioner of the United States of America at the court of Versailles, late delegate in Congress from the state of Massachusetts, and chief justice of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary of the said United States to their high mightinesses the States General of the United Netherlands; Benjamin Franklin, Esqr., late delegate in Congress from the state of Pennsylvania, president of the convention of the said state, and minister plenipotentiary from the United States of America at the court of Versailles; John Jay, Esqr., late president of Congress and chief justice of the state of New York, and minister plenipotentiary from the said United States at the court of Madrid; to be plenipotentiaries for the concluding and signing the present definitive Treaty; who after having reciprocally communicated their respective full powers have agreed upon and confirmed the following articles.


Source

Yes, that is ONE sentence!

The treaty is between the "most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch-treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire &c." (The &c. is an abbreviation for et cetera. King George's title ran to more than a page if written in it's entirety.)

"and of the United States of America"

If you include the " and of the United States of America" as part of King George's title, then there is no one he would be making a treaty with. What would be the "two countries" referred to later in the sentence if this were so? This is a good reminder to all of us on ATS to check references when they are given, and demand them when they aren't.

Peace,
Montana



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Really? The queen has no power in the UK what makes you think she has it in the US?



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
To truely cover this topic, I shall have to go well beyond the scope of this thread.It is truely vast in it's nature and covers nearly every forum topic on this site.I kid you not.From the litteral perspective of the original post about the logistic's and academic's of the cited material, this would best be covered by my close friend Lord Kelly.This is more his portfolio and he is personally involved with the Universities I previously mentioned.I expect a call during the middle of the week,I would rather use his choice of words than mine.

I will begin my side of the process from a different angle to begin the dialogue.The foundation of all of this is the WORD! The WORD you may ask?

It start's like this.In the begining God was the Word and the Word was God.Now please do not let me lose you here.Bare with me because this is not about religon, it is the other way around.Religon is about this.Follow?
For example the World Leader's are practicians of words are they not ? There are deceptions here as to the true meaning of words used in society today.A Sub-English language being used in parallel to the one being used by the general populace.One that is not taught in schools.One comes from a Dictionary such as the Oxford and the other being the Legal Dictionary. That is where things begin to part ways.
For example, to the average Person, Person now that is the catch.To most people,a person is a person.This being just any man or woman.In legal terms a Person is a fictional Corporation(Stem-root,Corpse,abody).A human can not be Governed, but a person can.Many words can and are surplanted by legal terms and can be interchaged.Must changes to may and so forth.There are many ATS member that understand what I am saying here.But this is a small part of the puzzle. This come's under the Uniform Commercial Code, or Maritime Law ( Law of the Sea ),feel free to visualize the East India Tea Company here! Don't forget their role in the War.Also you need to research the American flag and why Government buildings are adorned with this flag,but with a gold fringe.I tell you it is not to look pretty.Also the Presidents flag act's as a Coat of Arm's.A war can only be declared by a Coat of Arms!
We need to go further back in history, back to the roots of it all.Back to the roots of a certain Tree of Knowledge.But that is another story.However note that this is metaphor, again another type of word magic.I am trying hard to keep religon out of this topic so not to lose people.It is hard as the thread does contain characters such as the Pope and the Monarchy.
Firstly the first Pope was appointed by a Monarch.Who was the Monarch?Who carries the descendancy(take note that dan=Dan forms part of this word for a later referance as well as descend) today? and note they still have the authority to elect or remove the Pope.I'm not going to give you the answer to this.Research for yourselves for now.I will cover this in another post here at a later date.For now the most important thing for you to comprehend the belief in the Devine right to rule! I don't ask you to believe it or accept it.Simply to understand that they believe it.Research this it is important.

I will need to log off shortly as I have a number of responsiblites,so I will leave you with this little tid bit.Did you know that the land that is now Washington DC was donated by a individual by the name of John Pope and that the Estate was called Rome.Rome is on Capitoline hill as Washington's Capitol Building is on Capitol Hill?Also note both have Dome's.Both have/had Senators.How can people over look these obvious connections?Because it is hidden in plain sight!

I will try and cover the significant's of London,Rome and Washington in another post and cover a little about my background.



posted on Jun, 25 2011 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by 13th Zodiac
 


Thank you for taking the time to do this. I myself truly appreciate it. The good news is so far I follow you! Very interesting that little tidbit you left at the end.



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 07:57 PM
link   
I wonder why almost no one knows about this or talks about it or why would they release this to the public.
edit on 18-11-2011 by Elieser because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by 13th Zodiac
 


Thanks... much to mull over and assess...



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:37 PM
link   
In short, no she does not...Read the PDF and find the United States of America in the text (if you can):

www.legislation.gov.uk...



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by 13th Zodiac
large proportion of American taxes go to the United Kingdom to repay the debt of funding the war (still) and also for landlease


Care to show us in the Budget where exactly that payment is made?

no, of course you cannot, as it is just a lie!



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Elieser
I wonder why almost no one knows about this or talks about it


Because it is not true, just a silly conspiracy theory!



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by spoor
 


Ummmm, no it isn't, It clearly states in the O.P that it is the S.I. 1997 NO.1778 and it is an Official document.
1997 No. 1778
SOCIAL SECURITY
The Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997
Made 22nd July 1997
Coming into force 1st September 1997
At the Court at Buckingham Palace, the 22nd day of July 1997
Present,The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty in Council



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


Your link is for some other thing from 1998


From S.I. 1997
" Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in pursuance of section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and of all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows: "

edit on 18-11-2011 by Elieser because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Elieser
 


Try this and tell everyone what it says...this is straight from the horse's mouth...show me something sinister or covert or unknown or otherwise indicating the Queen has run of it here...the agreement lays out what it is...:


U.S.-U.K. Social Security Agreement Agreement and administrative agreement both signed at London February 13, 1984; entered into force January 1, 1985, except Part III of the agreement entered into force January 1, 1988. Amended by supplementary agreement and supplementary administrative agreement signed at London June 6, 1996, entered into force September 1, 1997.


www.socialsecurity.gov...



posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 09:40 PM
link   
It's right there. No one from any other government is allowed to change our laws.


Now, therefore, Her Majesty, in pursuance of section 179(1)(a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 and of all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, by and with the advice of Her Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:—
reply to post by jeichelberg
 


www.civil-liberties.com...
www.legislation.gov.uk...


edit on 18-11-2011 by Elieser because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2 >>

log in

join