Tax Day April 15, 2010 the London Banker’s Celebration of the Anniversary of Lincoln’s Death

reply to post by daddio


Does the code look anything like this: PMP % tt IOI. Translates: Prince Master Prince of the Illustrious Order (of the) I. Illuminati is never spelled out, so, when someone says I in a conversation you will miss it unless you really listen. You know how rebukkah's greet? One says Re the other says Bo then the first says Kah then thet repeat this three times in each others ears. They do this while the 2nd speaker grabs at the 1st speakers right elbowwith his left hand and grips his hand like the cub scouts do with the pinky and the finger next to it positioned side by side and spread apart from the middle finger and finger nxt to it sqeezed next to each other to make a V with 2 fingers on either side, all the while using one finger to press into the palm of the 1st speakers left hand (the second speaker does this with his right hand as the left is occupied holding the elbow. there is also a four step dance to it after the Rebukkah greeting has been exchanged. Complicated to describe but it is well reminds me of a miniature sword ceremony. The problem is that the code for one book may not work with them all. The books I had belonged to their Warder who is low officer on the totem. I'd love to read what the PMP or the High Chamberlain below him read.

reply to post by DISRAELI


That's an awesome quote.
2nd line.

reply to post by Riposte


I haven't read to see if this has happened, but, go to your local courthouse law library. Courts won't generally accept anything from online sources. But, just to gety a feel for it all I used Black's dictionaries, the older versions are more reliable and so best to use. there are good sites too like, Lexis Nexis and Westlaww. Cornell college and Yale have good law sites, too. Then there's going straight to the websites for the Supreme/ federa/ District/ State/ County Courts etc. Brush up on Federal Law as it supercedes State law. Study the laws that affect you in your own state. Look up the US CODE and the US Code of Federal Regulations. Also, while looking up laws look at Regulations and Administrative procedures. But, always start with the local courthouse and ltell them you would like to see their Local Courthouse Rules and Regulations for Filing and Procedure. Each Courthouse administers their paperwork and filing and docket dates, etc differently and they are required to send the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) updated versions of them as well as have one on hand. Remember you pay taxes on the courthouse so you are entitled to see them. If you don't have the Local Rules and Procedures, hang it up. There's no way you can file anything without knowing how they want it filed. No filing no action. And look at legal forms. It is a lot. It will drive you nuts. But, it gets easier, and it helps to be armed with the knowledge. Keep in mind no matter how smart or well versed they seem, they have only been at it a short time compared to the time it would take them to learn and be familiar with it all. It's impossible for anyone to know what the law is entirely. It's just a matter of being better "practiced" than the other guy. Once you are familiar with the lingo. Just take what they are saying and think of how many ways you can interpret each word and their relation to each other so you can take your own words and speak legalese in return. And at the start of each case they always ask if there's anything anyone wants to say or do before they begin-yes, you do, ask whatever questions you may have about the procedure so they give you a firm position on where they stand. I've talkerd to many judges, be cool with them and they won't bite your head off. One of the first questions you should ask is definately: Will we be speaking in English or Legalese today? And one more thing- learn the difference between civil and criminal, hearing and trial. They are vastly different--hearings do not afford you constitutional protections such as a trial does. I could do this all day, but, it should get you started.

reply to post by humilisunus


You're right. You know I've wondered though the Lombard's (hence Lombardi) established the banking system we so fear now, wouldn't it stand to reason they never sold their shares, being such a cash cow of a bank that it was and is. I've not heard about the Lombardi's in these threads, short of mentioning their initial role. Wouldn't they have the lion's share of all that wealth? I have to leave for the week here in a few, but, I will look into it when I get back. I'm kinda curious about that family now. The pope would not have set them up to be so wealthy and powereful if he didn't have some personal family ties or something I wouldn't think, seeing as how they think in generations and not years.

Originally posted by PhyberDragon
Edit: Failing to prove the Lord be first served in a realm where religion and government coexist means you are either a heretic or a traitor, no matter which way you answer, which is why the Court of the Church opted to burn Joan of Ark as a witch instead of as a heretic for which they tried her.


[edit on 16-4-2010 by PhyberDragon]

A witch is an extreme heretic!

As for the pope being god or equal to god that is totally perposterous.

First comes god, then the pope and then kings/queens. I though most people already knew this?! I don't care what the legal documents say in regard to *religion versus state* because anyone with "an ounce" of common sense already knows this.

reply to post by PhyberDragon


Thanks man. So courts will recognize definitions from older editions of law dictionaries? I know they have been removing some important things from newer definitions.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


You're debating the semantics between legal and common usage, I believe this thread was about legal and therefore binding usage. As for a witch being an extreme heretic, I won't disagree, I will only say that they tried her for claiming to talk to God then burned her for other reasons qualifying her as a witch to do so, because they refused to answer her with the pope and the king vying for power and sitting in the same court. As for Pope not being God, in common usage--no, for legal land deeds, yes. When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk, the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. avalon.law.yale.edu... The god of a city was originally owner of its land. That is a legal concept, fiction or not. In God we Trust not trust like I trust you to be honest, but Trust :

trust legal definition n

Property that is held by one party, the trustee, for the benefit of another, the beneficiary. The one who supplied the property or consideration for the trust is the settlor. Trust also encompasses any relationship in which one acts as a fiduciary or guardian for another.
blind trust
A trust whereby the settlor places all financial interests under the control of an independent trustee for a period of time, most often in order to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.
constructive (involuntary) trust
A trust that is imposed by a court against one who has acquired property by wrongful means, in order to prevent the holder of that property’s being unjustly enriched and for the benefit of the rightful owner. No fiduciary relationship is created by this type of trust.
discretionary trust
A trust in which the settlor has granted the trustee the discretion to pay to the beneficiary as much of the income or principal as the trustee sees fit. This is the type of trust most often used in estate planning.
express (direct) trust
A trust set up with an affirmative expression by the settlor (usually in writing) of the purpose of the trust. This is an ordinary trust as distinct from a resulting or constructive one.
fixed investment trust
See nondiscretionary trust.
generation skipping trust
A trust set up to transfer property to a beneficiary more than one generation removed from the settlor, such as a grandchild.
grantor trust
In this type of trust, the settlor retains so much control over the property in trust and/or its income that the settlor is responsible for taxes on that property.
inter vivos trust
A trust created and takes effect during the lifetime of the grantor.
pourover trust
An intervivos trust that receives money from another trust or other source or that distributes receipts to another trust.
precatory trust
. Trusts created by a will by use of precatory words such as “wish” or some other entreaty rather than specific direction. See also precatory.
resulting trust
A trust brought about by law when the circumstances in which property is transferred that suggest that it was not the intention of the transferor to give beneficial interest in the property to the transferee.
testamentary trust
A trust created by a will and that comes into ­existence upon the death of the grantor.
Totten trust
A bank account created by the depositor in trust for another. It is often used to name a successor to an account without the need to write a will. It is also fully revocable.
voting trust
The combination of voting rights among a group of stockholders to exert a higher degree of influence or control within the corporation, or to bring about a specific result.

www.yourdictionary.com...

I appreciate the input, and I love to be wrong because I get the chance to learn and be right, but, it goes back to what I have been saying, whether Rome is an empire aside, learn the words they use or you'll never truly know your world.

Well, I gotta go for the week now. Later all.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


King George was only a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire in Germany, not in Great Britain. Also a few years later the Holy Roman Empire was disbanded. Incidentlly, the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire had not been 'crowned' by a Pope in years so was not strictly a Holy Roman Emperor. The catholic church was despised by King George and had/has no place in Great Britain for many years, so owed them nothing.

Where the hell do you get this crap?

Also for my American Cousins, King George was NOT the tyrant you all seem to make him out to be. Great Britain was a Constitutional Monarchy at the time of the American Revolution and was governed by Parliment. The King in fact had very few powers. It seems you were all brainwashed at school.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
You explained well your own thinking and decision making process, while showing a degree of respect for the authority and the system, no one was harmed, and since you saw no harm in it, you are essentially preventing them from seeing harm in it, that they can reasonably convince you of.

Everything they do is about getting you to see things there way, it’s why they ask “Do you under stand the charges and proceedings against you”. It all depends on your consent because ultimately they are going to ask you to sign that contract. Even if you are sentenced to death, they are going to ask you to sign saying you understand you are being sentenced to death and why.

Ultimately they seek your agreement first on their presumed and usurped authority to pass judgment, judgment for profit, when no damages occurred, and then your agreement that you did something wrong.

It is that contract that denies you any recourse, and them any jeopardy.

Fail to agree you understand, fail to see it their way, demand to see real damages, in real property, or people, and make them understand why the proceedings against you are meaningless and serve no one but them for a profit.

It’s about who is going to be the boss of who, you or them, you are either a sovereign who can’t be compelled, or you are a slave, who can.

There is a middle ground of course, but those are the polar extremes.

Thats assuming the crimes you committed are not too big. If you get arrested for narcotics possesion, rape, drug trafficking, hit&run, murder, grand larceny etc, I assume everything changes.

If you know your guilty of something major, is it better to contest the charges or go for a plea bargain? In the movies it is portrayed that if you contest the charges and have a good lawyer most of the times you walk away scott free. I am not sure what to believe anymore......

By the way, your posts are very inspiring!

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by DISRAELI

 

Actually it was Edward the Confessor!

in the mid 1050's. I stand corrected. The deed and act itself of gifting England to the Pope was quite real, just a bit earlier, and a different King.

Thanks for pointing that out.

It's great when other members help!

And a little later we had a anti-papist uprising, so declaring that null and void.

reply to post by Wotan


Good luck on trying to declare your Mortgage Contract Null and Void.

Or your Marraige Contract Null and Void.

Or your Car Payment Contract Null and Void.

A contract is a contract.

What you tell to the masses? Well, that's something else.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


There is nothing stopping me from breaking any of those contracts that you suggested is there. I would just get them repossessed. I cant remember from my history books, papists repossessing Great Britain, unless that paragraph was torn out.

Rome/Vatican/Pope has had nothing to do with Great Britain for hundreds of years. The Holy Roman Empire never extended to Great Britain. Great Britain never took part in the Inquisition.

Where is your proof that Great Britain and the US comes under the power of the Pope? You seriously need to see a doctor.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Wotan

 

Good luck on trying to declare your Mortgage Contract Null and Void.

Or your Marraige Contract Null and Void.

Or your Car Payment Contract Null and Void.

A contract is a contract.

In fact, there is a difference.

A contract is only binding, in practice, if there is somebody around who can enforce it.

All the legal contracts in the world will give you no power at all if the other party decides to ignore them, and there s nobody around who can twist his arm. In that situation, they become dead letters, and valueless.

Anything involving international politics can fall into this category. To take one random example, Russia was legally bound, by the treaty which ended the Crimean War, to keep naval forces out of the Black Sea. But in 1870, their Foreign Minister announced "that Russia no longer considered herself bound by the clauses of the Treaty of Paris neutralising the Black Sea", and nobody was in a position to enforce it (The Life of Lord Granville, by Edmond Fitzmaurice).

Similarly, if a king decides he "no longer considers himself bound" by a contract made with a previous pope, who's going to enforce it? It becomes dead and useless.

reply to post by DISRAELI


This is why I believe Rome has the power to enforce its contracts.

It has immense and untold wealth. It is easy for it to spend money, to dispatch, highly qualified, assassins, to eliminate anyone, anywhere.

If history has proved one thing, it is that anyone can be killed.

In addition Rome’s wealth is the basis of the banking business. There is an old saying; there is more than one way to skin a cat. Maybe the people shut down one conduit of the transfer of wealth, but who is to say through complex banking arrangements and products, that the wealth is still not being transferred clandestinely.

If the Vatican is behind the Papal Rothschild Family, which that Title Papal tends to suggest they are. Who is to say their shenanigans with the post Battle of Waterloo crash of the English Stock Market, and the advent of the Rothschild controlled bank of England aren’t that conduit?

Unlike most Heads of State and its important and I think very relevant that the Pope, who is in essence nothing but a priest is a Head of State, the Pope happens to be exceptionally well guarded and protected.

Not only does he enjoy diplomatic immunity, his enclave of Vatican City not only has it’s own police force, but the legendary and feared Swiss Guards to protect his person.

Plus unlike most Heads of State that often have a government centered on their unique personality and agenda. The Pope, should he be killed in some form of retaliation or intrigue, as many believe happened to John Paul I, and the infamous Vatican Banking Scandal with Roberto Calvi, simply is replaced by another Pope, with the Vatican’s policies rarely ever changing because they are doctrines written into a book that more or less can’t be rewritten.

I think it’s incredibly naïve, to imagine, with all the wealth the Vatican has, the richest single entity in the world, and it’s many friends, not to mention the rumors of Secret Societies that serve it, that any one who signed a contract with Rome, would renege on it, and expect no reprisal.

Publicly things of course can be manipulated to please the masses, policies that mean nothing, laws that go unforced, commissions like our own Warren and 9-11 Commissions, who effectively are just road blocks to getting at the real information.

My personal belief is that we are being lied too. No other church leader enjoys the Sovereign Status of the Pope, save the Queen in her role as the head of the Anglican Church, but that is different, her Sovereignty stems from her Monarchy, and not from her role as a Church Leader.
That some people enjoy these exceptional privileges, of liberty, and virtual impunity, the rest of us are in fact, virtual slaves, ruled by hundreds of thousands of restrictive laws, many with perverse penalties and fines, that profit the state even when there is no victim.

When it comes to profiting a State, who would profit more in theory than a Head of State?

We clearly live in a world, where there are two sets of rules. One set for a privileged class of Elites, who is Sovereign but earn this distinction only through the luck of the draw by birthright. One set of other rules, for the masses, that are much more restrictive and totally unforgiving.

The system does not serve the masses well, yes now and then, when times are good, times are good, but for far too many, times are never really good. We live in a world, a world full of war, violence, artificial scarcity, and incredible indifference to it.

There is an old saying that the Fish is Rotten from the Head Down and where we see that greatest indifference is in our sovereigns and heads of state.

We are taught through Medias, and institutions, laws and other things, to accept and sometimes even applaud their cruelties, and to even cheer them on, when it comes to things like the war on terror.

The indifference, and the hording of wealth starts at the Top, not at the bottom, and I think its incredibly foolish to make excuses for these people, and to imagine that in a pyramid hierarchy everything is not flowing to the top.

It is after all designed to do that.

To be that way, and these things prevent so many people from ever having anything close to a quality of life.

I will not make excuses for these people, my opening post might not have all the details of how their system works, and how our money flows to them, it might even have an incorrect detail here or there, but nonetheless, I am convinced that all of our money flows to them, because it is a logical assumption, based on their status, based on the power of their institutions, and based on the Treaties, which are contracts.

The people deserve better.

Once upon a time Ronald Regan looked to the Soviet East, and implored, but more demanded, that the Berlin Wall be torn down.

The world has become a prison because of these people, because of their system, and it is time we tear down the walls of secrecy and sovereignty, and realize as we do, that no, we are not all equal, but we should be.

Catholicism was hounded out of England by Henry VIII, made a bit of a revival under the Stuarts (scotsmen) and then was finally banished for good by William of Orange. It became acceptable for the commonfolk to be Catholic again around the time of King George actually, but no Catholic can sit on the throne of Great Britain. To this day

Look up the Spanish Armada. Look up why Spain wanted to conquer England. It was a holy war. They wanted to re-introduce Catholicism. Thankfully, Good Queen Bess and her mucker Sir Walter had other ideas.

Go to Lewes on Bonfire night and see the people marching around with NO POPERY banners, burning an effigy of the Pope.

Also note Tony B.Liar's conversion to Catholicism AFTER he was PM.

An interesting theory you've got there, but pretty much lacking in any empirical historical fact.

A good read though, and thought provoking which is what this site should be about

reply to post by CRB86


My personal belief is that the Vatican is a front for Rome, and the Roman Empire, not the Holy Roman Empire, but the Roman Empire never went out of business.

It simply set itself up as a Religion, but Rome is not about that Religion. Rather it’s about control, and a system, and a hierarchy that controls the world.

Communists, Fascist, and Muslim, and Jewish and Israeli Leaders meet with the Pope all the time and they meet with him on his terms, with his Protocol.

None of those are even Christian let alone Catholic, yet they treat the Pope with an incredible deference, even when they are Heads of State in nations and systems where no religion is allowed.

That says something.

Rome through the Vatican is the largest land owner in the world. I don’t share my landlord’s religion, but I share my rent with him each month.

Even many Christians who aren’t Catholic have come to realize that the religion Rome and the Vatican espouses, leaves a lot to be desired in their eyes.

But the Vatican and the Holy See remain the richest single entity on earth, and the largest property owner on earth, and continues to earn a tremendous amount of revenue off of those things, and can leverage those things, as a Business, and as a State, which they are both, and not just a religion.

The Roman Patricians and Equites survived the fall of the Empire, with their wealth in tack, there is no doubt in my mind that they have set up a powerful Shadow Government that rules most nations on earth. The Vatican is simply a front for that.

I think Rome and the Vatican very much like for people to think it is merely a religion, and that if you protested as did the Protestants, or the Anglicans, that because you were free of it religiously, but are you were free of its power of wealth, resources, and lands.

That’s the question, and I would argue, no one is free, and Rome sits on top of the World Wide System of Trade, Banking, and International Law.

Thanks for posting, glad you enjoyed reading my theories and contentions.

reply to post by PhyberDragon


No, they are symbols within words and then some words are missing letters. I can figure some of it out but the odd symbols are needed to read the whole thing. My step father was a 9th degree mason i think and it was his book I kept after he died, the coroners took everything else. Thought that was odd.

Back on subject though. The truth will be known and soon.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by Wotan

 

Good luck on trying to declare your Mortgage Contract Null and Void.

Or your Marraige Contract Null and Void.

Or your Car Payment Contract Null and Void.

A contract is a contract.

What you tell to the masses? Well, that's something else.

Proto, I want to make this perfectly clear. I have told my credit card company to take a flyin' leap and stopped paying my mortgage back in Novemeber of last year. I have sent correspondence to both of them demanding that they prove up their claim.

THE TRUTH IS..... your signature creates the authority that TPTB need to print money, it is YOUR money, but they keep it and tell you that you owe them that amount. I have put links and quotes in before.

A contract is null and void, Nunc Pro Tunc, if there was not full disclosure and a meeting of the minds, which there never is. You will never get full disclosure as it is all fraud or based on fraud. This is how the rich get richer and we get dumber.

We owe nothing. And there is no way to pay as a result of HJR-192. Please rea dthe quote below, it explains it. That is why I made the thread, You "owe" it to yourself.

The Promissory Note To Pay Our Debts

HJR-192 of June 5, 1933 is the promissory note (the promise of Abraham) the government issued to balance the exchange to credit the people. The Promissory note is on the debit side of the United States Governments ledger, which was a debited from their credit, created by the Executive Order of April 5, 1933 when they took the gold out of circulation. Public Policy is rooted in HJR-192 and is Grace that creates our exemption. This is your temporal saving grace. Under grace, the law falls away to create a more perfect contract. Public Policy removed the people's liability to make all payments by making a contract null if it required the payment to be in substance, because the people didn't have any money to pay with. All that must be done now is to discharge the liability. Pay and discharge are similar words but the principles are as different as Old and New Testaments. The word "pay" is equated with gold and silver, or something of substance like a first-born lamb, which requires tangible work to be invested in it to remove the liability because an execution must occur. The word "Discharge" is equated with paper, or even more basic, simple credits and debits, that exist on paper only, like the slate held by the agents/angels of heaven that get swiped clean. You cannot pay a bill with a bill and you cannot pay a debt with a debt. What HJR-192 did was, remove the liability of an obligor (someone obligated to pay a debt) by making it against Public Policy to pay debts. All that needs to be done now is discharge the debit with an appropriate credit "dollar for dollar." Debt must be discharged dollar for dollar in the same sense, as sin was discharged on the Cross. The moment a debt exists, it must be written off. The catch is, we can't write off the debt because we are not in possession of the account in deficit; our fiduciary agent is in possession of the account so we must provide him with the tax return (by the return of the original offer) so the fiduciary can discharge the liability through their internal revenue service (the bookkeeper). Most feel that when the money was taken out of society, the people became the slaves, this is not true, the people were freed from every obligation that society could create thus freeing the people from any obligation which they may incur simply because we cannot pay a debt. Ask yourself the question, What are you charging me with? And how do you expect Me to pay? Simply said, there is no money, plain and simple for me to make the payment with and on top of that, if I were to pay, who is paying Me to pay that guy and who's paying that guy and so on... Public Policy is the supercedious bond because it limits our liability to pay. It is the more perfect contract because it operates on grace to pay our debts after we have done all that we can. We go as far as we can to fulfill the obligation (acceptance and tax return) and after we have done all we can, mercy and grace kick in being our exemption to make the payment. Grace creates our exemption in the industrial society so long as we accept the charge.

This is the way we need to go to remove the power from TPTB. We can stop their shenanigens once and for all. But everyone must get on the same page. This is the truth and fact. We have been robbed and it is time to reclaim what is rightfully ours. Stop this nonsense of monarchy and pomp and circumstance. The circus is being taken down once and for all.

reply to post by Wotan


prince George was first and foremost a prince of the Holy Roman Empire, it is why it appears FIRST in his Title, his most important role was prince elector, and arch-treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire and the United States of America, his last title.

the most important Titles in a sequence of Titles are the First and the Last.

Where do I get these crazy ideas?

Reading comprehension, common sense, and absolutely no need to lie to myself.

If the Titles had no meaning, they would not have been included, and certainly would not have framed all his other titles as bookends!

England is the property of Rome and always has been and always will be.

That is why London is a City/State immune from the Laws of England, like the Vatican is a City/State immune from the Laws of Italy, like the District of Columbia is a City/State immune from the Laws of the United States.

Comforting illusions by the way are not really all that comforting, when they bind you into a system of slavery and servitude to sadistic and indifferent rulers.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Comforting illusions by the way are not really all that comforting, when they bind you into a system of slavery and servitude to sadistic and indifferent rulers.

Illusions are one thing but your making a mountain out of a mole hill. The vatican officially has no jurisdiction over england, the usa or any other country.

It has jurisdiction only within the catholic church. Why you need to carefully scrutinise hundreds of pages of official documents is beyond me.

Its as though you are searching for the "magic bullet" to make some kind of case, which is not necessary to begin with. Yes there is oppression in today's world, in some places its worst than other places but you really need to stop and think more. The vatican, as powerful and corrupt as it has always been, is still the predominant christian sect, not so much in america as in other countries. With money and power comes influence and corruption. They are all inseperable!

If you need to put the blame somewhere, then look around you and realise that unfettered capitalism, over many decades of loose federal control, has allowed for the infiltration of government by vultures of which a lot of people are familiar with. I won't list the family names but finding them is easy; just google *satanic bloodlines of the illuminati*! I have no idea if they are truely satan worshippers, but their cunning ability and motivation to manipulate systems speaks for itself.