Is The US Declaration of Independence Illegal? - UK (Law) Thinks So...

reply to post by woogleuk


More like some lawyers making something out of nothing so that they can make some money rattling on about a completely irrelevant subject.

Initially I thought this thread was funny and treat it as such....now it's just a farce.

It really troubles me that a group of lawyers, presumably experts, or at least knowledgeable in their field, are having to discuss the question of the legality of the US Declaration of Independence for more than, oh, thirty seconds. Ten of that being spent checking the contents of someone's shot glass or snifter, and twenty to point out the contents of the Peace Treaty of Paris, signed 3 September 1783.

Text provided here, along with some history:
Treaty text and background

Article 1 of the treaty contains the relevant text, presented here:

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, Delaware, 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.

Once the treaty was acknowledged by the Sovereign, and ratified by the government put in place by the citizens of the former colonies, the legality of the original Declaration became a moot point. The ratified and accepted treaty established that the former colonies were no longer colonial property of the King, but were, instead, a new and separate nation. In plain terms, the Treaty of Paris established a new 'legality'. That's really what treaties do...they formalize changes in law.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
Why did he turn his attention towards Russia? Because he thought that once he conquered Russia, and the other smaller nations along the way, he would then have more than enough fire power to come back and defeat England. America saw to it that he would never make it that far. Don't get me wrong... England had a more than capable military, but how long would it have taken until that wasn't the case anymore. Thank you for clarifying who wrote history, because even after my 6 combat deployments over the last 15 years I still had no idea.

First off, thank you for your service. Now, You are correct about the reason that Hitler's Germany turned it's attention to Russia, but, the plan would not have succeeded. Russia had too great a manpower pool to call upon, and you should never try to have a land war in Russia in winter.

The Russian soldiers were used to surviving, working, and keeping their equipment functioning in their harsh winters. The Germans were not. The first winter on the Eastern Front shut Germany's troops and equipment down, allowing guerilla tactics by the Russians to begin forcing Germany back wast. Trying to fight a war on multiple fronts has always ended in the aggressor failing. It might take some time, but it always happens.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by woogleuk

 

More like some lawyers making something out of nothing so that they can make some money rattling on about a completely irrelevant subject.

Initially I thought this thread was funny and treat it as such....now it's just a farce.

This thread, is a prelude to debt collection, by law, via the United Nations.

The next step, if one follows this thread, is "enforcement".

Hmmm, and which nation has a lot to lose if US treasury items fail? Hmmm, and who hold the debt-sword over the US collective neck now? Hmm, and who funds the ideas of bluehats soldiers in all corners of the Earth? Last time I checked, the American people did not invent the bluehat army, and have nothing to do with it.

But if you combine this thread, with the MERS "failure of all land courts in the USA" thread, well, you might be getting the picture I am describing here. All land courts in the US are now sewn with weeds. All mortgage backed securities are now like ships on the bottom of the ocean. We sold this crap, through our criminal-bankers, to all other nations of the Earth. and all of them, and going to be upset, that we allowed this to happen.

Did we "allow it", as Americans? Well, I suppose we allowed it in the same way the common people of Ireland "allowed" themselves to be diaspora'd under Cromwell. See that's the rub: Diasporas and debt and collection, are the only history Earth knows! So now that the sheriff of the US is asked to create homeless people on behalf of the banks, well, it does not take a genius to figure out who the collection soldiers will be, and what nations will provide them.

[image by this dude: www.flickr.com... ..all rights no doubt reserved..]

Hmm, what Hessians and hired "world fairness soldiers", would this man choose in the moderne-day Tax Revolt?

And what if there is a connection, between Dope Inc. run from UK Rothschild (not legal) and the lawyers of the Clearstream banks that fund Dope Inc, and whose grandfathers did the same?

[Dope Inc: lyndonlarouchewatch.org...]
[Clearstream Shadow Bank: en.wikipedia.org...]

And what if consumerism --a learned behavior, is like a drug, which gets injected into kiddies minds via the television MK device of the post war WW2 era? And what if those consumers ended up totally hiring Marxist jerks for their leaders and got their whole country sold out to the Dope Inc. powers?

And if that happened, what collection agency would be used, by the China/Dope Inc. "defrauded" parties?

Hmm, what collection agency would be best for the Rothschild UK Dope selling invisible powers? Hmmm... Let me think... Hmm...

I saw this while watching real football..

reply to post by soldita


By real football I assume you mean the game where 11 players aside kick the BALL with their FEET as opposed to that one Americans play where the ball is CARRIED for most of the game, that one is really just rugby for big girls who wear armour so they don't get hurt.

I'm sorry, I had to.

reply to post by gamesmaster63


Just one correction;
Hitler didn't invade the UK because Germany lost The Battle Of Britain.
Goering had convinced Hitler that prior to any invasion of mainland Britain it was imperative that the Luftwaffe had complete air superiority.
During 1940 and 1941 Germany carried out an all out air attack on major seaports, key industrial sites and military camps, especially airfields.

en.wikipedia.org...

They also conducted a terror bombing campaign on most major UK cities, The Blitz.

en.wikipedia.org...

This was intended to eliminate key strategic sites and to demoralise the British public and to force the UK to surrender or at least seek a negotiated peace.

Despite facing superior numbers The Royal Air Force won The Battle Of Britain and The Blitz had the opposite of the desired effect and only increased British resolve and determination to defeat Germany.

Once Germany had lost The Battle Of Britain Hitler knew he had no realistic chance of successfully invading the UK.
In addition to having air superiority Britain also had far greater sea power and would easily have repelled any seaborne invasion.

Despite what some may have you believe Britain was not a nation on it's last legs when the USA was finally forced into the war near the end of 1941.

Hitler was the founder of Israel. Adenauer sat on the sidelines through WW2 and watched the show, before making war rep's to the new state, "Israel".

But everyone knows the Rothschild UK powers, mismanaged the Palestine Protectorate, and every knows the 20th Century was managed by Rothschild and their Lt's so essentially, this idea of debt > collection is a tired old mule they've been whipping forward for 100 years and well before that.

Hitler may have been a tool of the Jesuits, Stalin and Himmler. Hitler may also have been a Frankist-Sabbatean bastard scion. He may have been suicidal, or he may have just been set up like a dummy. Either way, the hexagon gains power. But no hex lasts forever.

Why does the church refuse to discuss the legitimacy of the Jesuits? Why are some men allowed to do evil, in Jesus' name? Who started this absurd idea, that Ignacious was a Christ-like man? He was a horrible creul person, just like Hitler, a damaged child of war and mindfracking.

He and his tribe of blackened hearts, have nothing to do with Jesus. Anyway, my hope is that all Jesuits in the US will realize the spiritual inheritance lies on the US soil, and not in Europe. If they realize this, and come to the light, then they will drop their allegiance to Rome, and thereby join the side of goodness. Nothing good can come from Rome, or London.

This is my first post, but I have been following ATS for quite some time now...so bear with me with regard to etiquette, etc.

I haven't read the entire thread, however one thing that stood out for me in the British standpoint is that, quote "What if the state of Texas were to succeed from the union?"

There are legal arguments for several "states", as they are not in fact states. Texas is a republic that is signed to the Union. It is in their charter that they can succeed when they see fit.

Then it brings into question the "commonwealth" states. I may be mistaken, but do they not have the same premise in their charters?

I'm not to savvy on that, but it seems to make sense.

Originally posted by jimij
one thing that stood out for me in the British standpoint is that, quote "What if the state of Texas were to succeed from the union?"

There are legal arguments for several "states", as they are not in fact states. Texas is a republic that is signed to the Union. It is in their charter that they can succeed when they see fit.

I too have read that Texas can explode itself into something like 7x the # of representatives in the house that they have now. I appreciate your insightful post.

Yes, it would seem British Zionism is deeply infiltrated in Texas, considering the UK fomented and supported the Civil War in the US due to their loss of the US bank.

This website, www.nationoftexas.com... contains a curious document, where some Texans appealed to the Jewish Sanhedrin. The document may be fake, but the wording and the motives of this thread, are something all Americans should be aware of. There is kookishness here in this appeal to the Jewish courts, but the uberlegality of the sanhedrin-type thinkers, is a sort of kookishness all to is own, and it happens to be the dominant scheme on Earth, or so it appears.

Great post, thanks a lot. I will look deeper into this question of Texas as a tool of Zionist powers, I know this is a deep rabbit hole.

Originally posted by Klassified
It's interesting to note though. Citizens of both the UK and the US still have our little national pride. And we'll get in a thread and dis on one another about superiority. But we won't come together and throw out the treasonous bastards that sit in the seats of power in both countries. What's wrong with this picture?

edit on 10/20/2011 by Klassified because: (no reason given)

Stuck in the old ways of thinking? We are in very similar situations, and, many of the same situations, as they are global problems. But we still cant work together, even in a place like this..

Originally posted by jimij
one thing that stood out for me in the British standpoint is that, quote "What if the state of Texas were to succeed from the union?"

What I did find, is this yahoo, on Yahoo!(tm) who has a lot to say about how Texas is prepared to starve and freeze El Norte, if they get pushed. This last comment sounded very provocative indeed"

answers.yahoo.com...

[...]

9. We have a ready supply of workers. (Just open the border when we need some)

10. We have control of the paper industry, plastics, insurance, etc.

11. In case of a foreign invasion, we have the Texas National Guard and the Texas Air National Guard. We don't have an army but since everybody down here has at least six rifles and a pile of ammo, we can raise an army in 24 hours if we need it. If the situation really gets bad, we can always call Department of Public Safety and ask them to send over a couple Texas Rangers.

12. We are totally self sufficient in beef, poultry, hogs and several types of grain, fruit and vegetables and lets not forget seafood from the gulf. And everybody down here knows how to cook them so that they taste good. Don't need any food.

This just names a few of the items that will keep the Republic Of Texas in good shape. There isn't a thing out there that we need and don't have.

Now to the rest of the United States under President Obama: Since you won't have the refineries to get gas for your cars, only Mr. Kerry will be able to drive around in his 9 mile per gallon SUV. The rest of the United States will have to walk or ride bikes.

You won't have any TV as the space center in Houston will cut off your communications. You won't have any natural gas to heat your homes but since Mr. Kerry has predicted global warming, you will not need the gas.

Signed, The People in Texas

Have a nice day!

3 years ago

Now, your post has raised a very good question. As we can see here, this is typical Southern attitude. But the civil war was a long-structured effort by the UK Rothschild powers, to get America to submit. The fact of the matter, and which a lot of southerners won't speak to, is that the so-called founding fathers were being harassed by UK courts. John Hancock had been brought up on wine smuggling charges, and others were having their estates pinched. In fact, the idea that the COTUS is written to specifically weaken the ability of the Federal government to sue the wealthy class.

So Texas, is like a leaf way down the branch. The first aspects of the US are issues of Taxation, then revolution, then the UK leaves Florida, and then later, The struggle against Mexico, becomes Texas. Then the civil war removes slavery from Texas. But as you can see from the poster's attitude above, the brown wage-slaves from the south will do just fine --provided they can keep the fence up, personally I think Texas would be devoured by Mexican drug gangs. Texas would be consumed by Aruba, Venezuela, which are completely owned by the Pax Mafiosa, the agreement between global drug traders (See Claire Sterling's book "Thieves' World").

Now, one may say that they identify with Texas as being against the Federal Gov't. Sure I guess, but their whole state is based on the same land seizure as all colonial empires. Really, that is the nature of "adventures" is that they create one-way journeys that can't be unrolled. So yes, it is a puzzle for Americans, to undo the intrigues of the UK Rothschild powers. However, with the spirit of the Natives, like for example a great Texas Irish-American Native, Comanche chief Quanah Parker, who held the land and the rivers as the highest value, I think the US is in far better spiritual hands than London and Rome.

If Texans want to adhere to the UK and Rome powers, as Mexico has done, then their nation will turn out the same as Mexico. When one studies the intrigues which caused the Civil War, and note that Jefferson Davis appealed to the Pope, then it becomes clearly a Pope v. Jacobin type of battle. Both mental schema derive from UK based mental illness. Their whole concept of "Legality" is what the founding fathers were dissenting against. It's only people like Southern UK citizens who owed their very lands to the King himselfe, who were so vociferous to maintain that allegiance.

So yes, you raise a great point. I would not be surprised to see:

1: Suitable event which exposes DC powers as being anti-State (let's say)
2: Texas and Israel unite under the scheme of "Sanhedrin Legality" (Really just UK Zionists Rothschild and Rome)
3: Civil Tax Collection/Psuedo Drug War for 100 years(?)

Essentially, lawyers are all loyal to UK powers first. But it's not law, its code, as in tax code. If the US people didn't pay the IRS, I expect Texas would secede very quickly, and we know who'd be behind it.

here it is...

www.snopes.com...

Claim: A clause in the document annexing Texas to the United States allowed for Texas to be divided into five different states.

Status: True.

Origins: [...snipped prelude...]

[...] Not Texas only would the annexation of Texas add another slave state to the U.S., but that state would be a vast chunk of territory - nearly four times as large as the then-largest state, Missouri - which would extend the slaveholding portion of the U.S. far beyond its current western boundary. Moreover, the northern portion of Texas intruded beyond the 36°30'N line of latitude which had been established as the demarcation point between free territory and slave territory by the 1820 Missouri Compromise (although the provisions of that compromise technically applied only to "all that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana" and therefore did not encompass Texas). For their part, some southerners wanted to be able to carve additional slave states out of the huge Texas territory in order to counter the admission of free states and thereby maintain the balance of power between free and slave states in the Senate. The slavery issue (at the time, 90% of Texans were neither slaves nor slaveholders) was addressed in the Joint Resolution for Annexing Texas to the United States, approved by Congress on 1 March 1845, which included a provision allowing Texas to be sub-divided into up to four more states with slavery being banned in states carved out of Texas territory north of the Missouri Compromise line and left up to popular sovereignty in states formed south of the line:

New States of convenient size not exceeding four in number, in addition to said State of Texas and having sufficient population, may, hereafter by the consent of said State, be formed out of the territory thereof, which shall be entitled to admission under the provisions of the Federal Constitution; and such states as may be formed out of the territory lying south of thirty-six degrees thirty minutes north latitude, commonly known as the Missouri Compromise Line, shall be admitted into the Union, with or without slavery, as the people of each State, asking admission shall desire; and in such State or States as shall be formed out of said territory, north of said Missouri Compromise Line, slavery, or involuntary servitude (except for crime) shall be prohibited.

Texas was officially admitted to the Union when President James K. Polk signed the Joint Resolution to Admit Texas as a State on 29 December 1845.

The most likely possibility that Texas might be split into more than one state was headed off in 1850. California (recently acquired by the U.S in the war with Mexico) had approved a free-state constitution and petitioned Congress for statehood; meanwhile, Texans were engaged in a border dispute, claiming that their territory included half of present-day New Mexico and part of Colorado. Had the boundary issue been decided in favor of Texas, southerners might have pushed to create a second state out of the larger Texas territory in order to balance California's admission as a free state. The series of congressional bills collectively known as the Compromise of 1850 (temporarily) settled these troublesome issues by admitting California as a free state and giving Texas $10 million to relinquish its territorial claims, while the pro-slavery section supported these proposals in exchange for the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act.

The issue of the 36°30'N slavery demarcation line soon became moot when the Missouri Compromise was effectively repealed by the 1854 passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and explicitly ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court's 1857 Dred Scott decision. Any real likelihood that Texas might be carved up into additional states was ended when Texas seceded from the Union in 1861, joined the side of the Confederacy in the Civil War, and was not formally re-admitted to the U.S. until after the 1865 ratification of the 13th amendment which abolished slavery throughout the jurisdiction of the United States.

Although the provisions of the Texas Annexation document allowing for the creation of four additional states are popularly regarded as a unique curiosity today, they were largely superfluous. Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution already specifically provided for the formation of new states through the junction or division of existing states:

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress

As I mentioned, land courts in the US have been utterly sewn with weeds, on purpose. There was an amicus brief in the recent Larace and Ibanez Mass Supreme Court cases (the key cases of MERS case) [link here which said this whole several-year undertaking of defrauding Americans through bank-fed corruption was "The greatest fraud in history" or something like that. So basically, we are being set up, and this thread, is a prelude to collections based on "what America did to us all!" meaning the world who bought our tranched non-products, aka 'weapons of financial destruction'

But who are the guilty parties, which enable to "debt collecting armies of the defrauded nation"?

This is a good video, at 20:00 in, the dude talking says plainly the the Fed stopped States from trying to inject clarity or truth into "robo-signing" and outright falsification of documents i.e. inherently fraudulent activity. But even with proof, I have to agree with Max Kaiser, there is little hope Americans can shake the middle-class comfort level, he seems to mock Americans, but I think it is in a hopeful sort of way, combined with sheer amazement that nobody in America has called upon the leaders to execute their duty to the law. Again: Law as weapon as I have described. They crap codes and statues and call it necessary. The legislature, issues positive law. Yet much if that law is philosophically and really, anti-human and negative, in its intent.

And yet sometimes, some law which is helpful, like corralling usurious paperhangers called bankers, is allowed through. BUT even when the 3% nugget of goodness in the loaf of legislative positive law, is allowed to pass through, the nugget of goodness, (law which actually helps protect the citizens from theft and defraud and seizure and financial crimes) --will not be acted upon, by the boss!


at 20:00 Fed fails to listen to States. So evictions, seizures and collection actions by the world, can naturally be expected to result.



This video is great. Max Kaiser needs to be allowed to interview Obama and David Cameron simultaneously for at least an hour, preferably more. Nothing else will do. Throw in Putin and Sarkozy, Soros, Buffett and the rest and just let Max expose them. Make them sit there and take it, as he shames them. That is what I recommend, rather than revolution and war and all that. A good shaming instead.

en.wikipedia.org...

Issue of diplomatic recognition (February - August 1861)

[...]

British leaders -and those on the Continent- generally believed that division of the U.S. was inevitable. They considered Union efforts to resist a fait accompli to be unreasonable, but they also had to accept Union resistance as a fact that they had to deal with. Believing the war’s outcome to be predetermined, the British saw any action they could take to encourage the end of the war as a humanitarian gesture. Lyons was instructed by Russell to use his own office and any other parties who might promote a settlement of the war.[9]

[...] Belligerency also gave the Confederate government the opportunity to purchase supplies, contract with British companies, and purchase a navy to search out and seize Union ships. The Queen’s proclamation made clear that Britons were prohibited from joining the military of either side, equipping any ships for military use in the war, breaking any proper blockade, and from transporting military goods, documents, or personnel to either side.[11]

On May 18, Adams met with Russell to protest the declaration of neutrality. Adams argued that Great Britain had recognized a state of belligerency "before they [the Confederacy] had ever showed their capacity to maintain any kind of warfare whatever, except within one of their own harbors under every possible advantage [...] it considered them a maritime power before they had ever exhibited a single privateer upon the ocean." The major United States concern at this point was that the recognition of belligerency was the first step towards diplomatic recognition. While Russell indicated that recognition was not currently being considered, he would not rule it out in the future, although he did agree to notify Adams if the government’s position changed.[12]

[...]

Further problems developed over possible diplomatic recognition when, in mid-August, Seward became aware that Britain was secretly negotiating with the Confederacy in order to obtain its agreement to abide by the Declaration of Paris. [...]

[text (c) wikipedia, doorway to history]

So we can see that in November 1861, UK powers have been exposed helping the Southern European-yearning landowners. which is where the South got their power anyway. Hmm, the Brits fled through Florida during the revolution, but also tried to leave their stamp upon Canada. I think Canada will adhere to the US/Native powers along with Ireland, in the future. Well that's my opinion, once people see that UK Rothschild powers were responsible for slavery, exploitation of Africa, etc, etc.

Heck the "London" Queen is a German, as is their current royal family en.wikipedia.org... Why would they allow Germans to rule over London Scotland and Ireland? Seems silly. I imagine the future US allies will push these Germanic royal houses back onto mainland Europe where they can deal with their other creations, post-War Germany, Israel, and Rome, oh and the legacy of Stalin the Jesuit.

Who is the originator, of anti-human acts on Earth? HINT: The anti-human, warmongering, deception-as-rule people in question do not come from America.

Americans, are innocent of the intrigues of the Adam Weishaupt crew of 1776 and other anti-human European institutions like the Vatican, Marxism, etc which proceed thereupon. Europe cannot decide what they want to do with these Jesuits. Shall they ban them? Should they un-ban them? Today we have allowed them to create the two largest bloodlettings in history, WW1 and WW2. How much is enough before we expose the truth about their actions? Jesuit priests operate under a cloak of lies, and they operate above the law, and they, and their ideas, do not originate in America, but in Europe. So this part of the Earth, is frankly, in need of salvation, from America.

My suggestion would be to place the land and the rivers and the common man, on the same worshiped level as the priest, the King, and the "Lord Right Honorable etc etc". Titles are inferior, to nature. That is the truth.

How could anyone on Earth, say that these same UK powers, just a few years earlier, having begun the slave trade themselfes, and fomented adventuref in america, were saddened to see the State of Texas be created? No instead but surely they were surely most pleased to turn these pastoral Indian lands, into slave lands with barbed wire, for slavery was the source of their wealth from time immemorial.

Therefore, when Texas be a Confederacy state, and now has the Israel flavor of modern rebel yell, then one can easily see the UK/Rothschild machine trying to lurch its rotting corpse into the future through some Zio-Texas intrigues. Seems like an obvious ploy, and this thread sets the tone for it.

Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
It really troubles me that a group of lawyers, presumably experts, or at least knowledgeable in their field, are having to discuss the question of the legality of the US Declaration of Independence for more than, oh, thirty seconds. Ten of that being spent checking the contents of someone's shot glass or snifter, and twenty to point out the contents of the Peace Treaty of Paris, signed 3 September 1783.

Text provided here, along with some history:
Treaty text and background

Article 1 of the treaty contains the relevant text, presented here:

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, Delaware, 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.

Once the treaty was acknowledged by the Sovereign, and ratified by the government put in place by the citizens of the former colonies, the legality of the original Declaration became a moot point. The ratified and accepted treaty established that the former colonies were no longer colonial property of the King, but were, instead, a new and separate nation. In plain terms, the Treaty of Paris established a new 'legality'. That's really what treaties do...they formalize changes in law.

It's funny how this debate and this thread for that matter wouldn't have existed if someone just provided that simple piece of information. Really does say alot about the lawyers (and some of the members of this site for that matter).

Originally posted by woogleuk
that one is really just rugby for big girls who wear armour so they don't get hurt.

orthopedics.about.com...

This isn't really an issue..

The story is about a group of British lawyers saying that under British law, the declaration of independence is illegal. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. British law would be unable to question the legitimacy of the monarchy and Britain's own political foundations. Therefore, there's not much point in critiquing those of another nation.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Europe cannot decide what they want to do with these Jesuits. Shall they ban them? Should they un-ban them?

Yeahmmm anyway, to continue the thought above...

www.theforbiddenknowledge.com...

Phelps: [...] So, this Timothy McVeigh thing—is that what we’re leading to?

Martin: Well, no, but go ahead.

Phelps: This Timothy McVeigh thing—here’s another Irish Roman Catholic sacrificed, just like Kennedy, for the sake of attempting to create a national backlash or agitation against the Right-Wing Movement people, because a lot of the Right-Wing Movement people are true patriots who want their liberty; they want to maintain their guns; they want freedom to educate their children as they wish; they’re decent people, but they are not aware that the leadership is controlled by the Vatican.

So, the Jesuits in control of Clinton fomented the Oklahoma City bombing to justify going after these Right-Wing, conservative, many of them Bible-believing, people in this movement, for their round-up and extermination. But it didn’t quite work.

So, they imploded the building. They got rid of Timothy McVeigh. That whole execution could have been stayed with one phone call from the Archbishop of New York to the Bishop of Oklahoma City, and he wouldn’t do it.

That was the purpose of the Oklahoma City bombing, the creation of anti-Right-Wing feeling. And the people at the top, controlling the Right-Wing organizations, will betray their own people, just exactly as the White Russians were betrayed during the Communist Revolution from 1917-1922.

Their own leadership will betray them—just as Hitler betrayed his armies to the East, cut-off supplies, would not allow them to take Moscow, froze them in the snows of Russia; just as Napoleon betrayed his armies in the East, abandoned 250,000 men; that’s exactly what’s going to be done to our Right-Wing patriotic people who are the only bulwark against tyranny in this country today.

So, just to clarify, the cult of Rome, is the enemy of the world, and Europe is the home to all of the true historical horrors. America is innocent of illegality on a global scale, is was a HOLY ACT OF TRUTH to break from the hellish intrigues of Europe.

So I am glad these lawyers are stepping into domains they don't understand. I look forward to the day when US universities serve truth, and not Europe. I look forward to the day when the people of Earth yearn for a law that is simple, attainable, and positive for humans. I look forward to the day when this horrid tool today called "law, codes, statues, regulations" is cast down as the oppression to the human spirit that it is.

Some day, the US will be able to produce law-knowers on its own soil. Until then, we are doomed to further court-based tax-based European law-as-weapon violence. Let us not be a tool of the Jesuits, as Hitler, Stalin, and the Vatican and their hoffjuden are. Let us find a new American way, a law of the land, and a belief in females, and motherhood --two things that are utterly unknown to the Jesuit tribe of women haters. Let's find a new way forward, by casting off these law-as-weapon lawyers of the UK realm of insane Kings and "Vatican priests" and their SS sturmtroops, the Jesuits.

There is a true court that exists outside these Earthly courtrooms, and it judges courtrooms themselves. Most courtrooms on Earth, are tools of Satanic aims. That is an observable truth if you've even been unlucky enough to be tricked into going into one. It is obvious that anyone who studies law on this Earth, up until now, has had to confront the most evil people existing on this planet. It is practically impossible to approach the law code, and remain human. One feels an instinctive desire to flee from it, as if from a demonic talisman, whose purpose is to harm humanity. That is what the UK Barristers do to the human family: They destroy it. The essence of illegality, is to betray the family unit, as Jesuit priests must do.

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by woogleuk

 

More like some lawyers making something out of nothing so that they can make some money rattling on about a completely irrelevant subject.

Initially I thought this thread was funny and treat it as such....now it's just a farce.

Well is this not the way when it comes to US/UK threads on the net?

As for the topic at hand, we could pull it a bit further apart by saying the Glorious Revolution was equally an illegal act therefore those in power at the time of the American Revolution where in power illegally, so we have an illegal act against an illegal power... which pretty much sums up my view of the current system we live under