April 16, 2010

A Tale Of Two Crowns

I have nicked this from the FMOTL forum. Tip of the beret to HV who found the article.

This is short but fascinating.

How the Crown Rules the World
by MARK OWEN


There are two Crowns operant in England, one being Queen Elizabeth II.

Although extremely wealthy, the Queen functions largely in a ceremonial capacity and serves to deflect attention away from the other Crown, who issues her marching orders through their control of the English Parliament.

This other Crown is comprised of a committee of 12 banks headed by the
Bank of England (House of Rothschild). They rule the world from the
677-acre, independent sovereign state know as The City of London, or
simply 'The City.'

The City is not a part of England, just as Washington, D.C. is not a part of the USA.

The City is referred to as the wealthiest square mile on earth and is presided over by a Lord Mayor who is appointed annually.

When the Queen wishes to conduct business within the City, she is met by the Lord Mayor at Temple (Templar) Bar where she requests permission to enter this private, sovereign state. She then proceeds into the City walking several paces behind the Mayor.

Her entourage may not be clothed in anything other than service uniforms.

In the nineteenth century, 90% of the world's trade was carried by
British ships controlled by the Crown. The other 10% of ships had to
pay commissions to the Crown simply for the privilege of using the
world's oceans.

The Crown reaped billions in profits while operating under the
protection of the British armed forces. This was not British commerce
or British wealth, but the Crown's commerce and the Crown's wealth.

As of 1850, author Frederick Morton estimated the Rothschild fortune to be in excess of $10 billion [today, the combined wealth of the banking dynasties is $300 trillion]. Today, the bonded indebtedness of the world is held by the Crown.

The aforementioned Temple Bar is the juristic arm of the Crown and
holds an exclusive monopoly on global legal fraud through their Bar
Association franchises. The Temple Bar is comprised of four Inns of
Court. They are; the Middle Temple, Inner Temple, Lincoln's Inn and
Gray's Inn. The entry point to these closed secret societies is only to be found when one is called to their Bar.

The Bar attorneys in the United States owe their allegiance and pledge
their oaths to the Crown. All Bar Associations throughout the world
are signatories and franchises to the International Bar Association
located at the Inns of Court of the Crown Temple.

The Inner Temple holds the legal system franchise by license that
bleeds Canada and Great Britain white, while the Middle Temple has
license to steal from America.

To have the Declaration of Independence recognized internationally,
Middle Templar King George III agreed in the Treaty of Paris of 1783
to establish the legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States,
referred to internally as the Crown Temple States (Colonies). States
spelled with a capital letter 'S,' denotes a legal entity of the Crown.

At least five Templar Bar Attorneys under solemn oath to the Crown,
signed the American Declaration of Independence. This means that both
parties were agents of the Crown. There is no lawful effect when a party signs as both the first and second parties. The Declaration was simply an internal memo circulating among private members of the Crown.

Most Americans believe that they own their own land, but they have
merely purchased real estate by contract. Upon fulfillment of the
contract, control of the land is transferred by Warranty Deed. The
Warranty Deed is only a 'color of title.' Color of Title is a semblance or appearance of title, but not title in fact or in law. The Warranty Deed cannot stand against the Land Patent.

The Crown was granted Land Patents in North America by the King of
England. Colonials rebelled at the usurious Crown taxes, and thus the
Declaration of Independence was created to pacify the poplulace.

Another ruse used to hoodwink natural persons is by enfranchisement.
Those cards in your wallet bearing your name spelled in all capital
letters means that you have been enfranchised and have the status of a
corporation. A 'juristic personality' has been created, and you have
entered into multi-variant agreements that place you in an equity
relationship with the Crown.

These invisible contracts include, birth certificates, citizenship
records, employment agreements, driver's licenses and bank accounts.
It is perhaps helpful to note here that contracts do not now, nor have
they ever had to be stated in writing in order to be enforceable by
American judges. If it is written down, it is merely a written
statement of the contract.

Tax protestors and (the coming) draft resistors trying to renounce the
parts of these contracts that they now disagree with will not profit
by resorting to tort law (fairness) arguments as justification. Judges
will reject these lines of defense as they have no bearing on contract
law jurisprudence. Tort law governs grievances where no contract law is in effect.

These private agreements/contracts that bind us will always overrule
the broad general clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the
Constitution being essentially a renamed enactment of English common
law). The Bill of Rights is viewed by the Crown as a 'bill of benefits,' conferred on us by them in anticipation of reciprocity (taxes).

Protestors and resistors will also lose their cases by boasting of
citizenship status. Citizenship is another equity agreement that we
have with the Crown. And this is the very juristic contract that Federal judges will use to incarcerate them. In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, "Equity is brutal, but we are merely enforcing agreements." The balance of Title 42, section 1981 of the Civil Rights Code states, " .citizens shall be subject to like
punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every
kind"

What we view as citizenship, the Crown views as a juristic enrichment
instrumentality. It also should be borne in mind that even cursory
circulation or commercial use of Federal Reserve Notes effects an
attachment of liability for the payment of the Crown's debt to the FED. This is measured by your taxable income.

And to facilitate future asset-stripping, the end of the 14th
amendment includes a state of debt hypothecation of the United States, wherein all enfranchised persons (that's you) can be held personally liable for the Crown's debt.

The Crown views our participation in these contracts of commercial
equity as being voluntary and that any gain accrued is taxable, as the
gain wouldn't have been possible were in not for the Crown. They view
the system of interstate banks as their own property. Any profit or gain experienced by anyone with a bank account (or loan, mortgage or credit card) carries with it - as an operation of law - the identical same full force and effect as if the Crown had created the gain.

Bank accounts fall outside the umbrella of Fourth Amendment protection
because a commercial contract is in effect and the Bill of Rights cannot be held to interfere with the execution of commercial contracts. The Crown also views bank account records as their own private property, pursuant to the bank contract that each of us signed and that none of us ever read.

The rare individual who actually reads the bank contract will find
that they agreed to be bound by Title 26 and under section 7202 agreed not to disseminate any fraudulent tax advice. This written contract with the Crown also acknowledges that bank notes are taxable instruments of commerce.

When we initially opened a bank account, another juristic personality
was created. It is this personality (income and assets) that IRS
agents are excising back to the Crown through taxation.

A lot of ink is being spilled currently over Social Security.
Possession of a Social Security Number is known in the Crown's lex as
'conclusive evidence' of our having accepted federal commercial
benefits. This is another example of an equity relationship with the
Crown. Presenting one's Social Security Number to an employer seals our status as taxpayers, and gives rise to liability for a reciprocal quid pro quo payment of taxes to the Crown.

Through the Social Security Number we are accepting future retirement
endowment benefits. Social Security is a strange animal. If you die,
your spouse gets nothing, but rather, what would have gone to you is
divided (forfeited) among other premium payers who haven't died yet.

But the Crown views failure to reciprocate in any of these equity
attachments as an act of defilement and will proceed against us with
all due prejudice.

For a person to escape the tentacles of the Crown octopus, a thorough
going study of American jurisprudence is required. One would have to be deemed a 'stranger to the public trust,' forfeit all enfranchisement benefits and close all bank accounts, among other things.

Citizenship would have to be made null and forfeit and the status of 'denizen' enacted. If there are any persons extant who have passed through this fire, I would certainly appreciate hearing from them.

15 comments:

Goodnight Vienna said...

So maybe the Swampy's had it right all along? I don't want to believe this CR. I want to believe that we're a sovereign nation with a Monarch who acts in our best interests. I want to believe we're a self-reliant and resilient people.

It's good to challenge in a free society, but, unfortunately, we're not in one. Good luck to you going down the legal route. I sometimes think it's just more direct to say 'and who tf are you to ask me that?' and take it from there. From A-Z because there's no time for niceties.

Snakey said...

I read George Mercier's Invisible Contracts (c1984) yesterday. Some of Owen's stuff is very similar, although he puts it more simply than Mercier, who tends to repeat himself a lot lol.

The Merry Man said...

Hi Ranty,

Great blog,complex post,I shall have to read it a few times, when I have some peace and quiet.

Initial thought`s,we dont really know our Queen do we,and those Rothschilds seem to be all over the place and yet I know so little about them.

Captain Ranty said...

Well, I just offered it up because it contains a lot of things that I tend to see in a lot of places. More often than you would imagine as well.

I think we are very close to something but, as TMM says, it is complex on the one hand and very basic on the other.

The trick is using this new found wisdom to our advantage.

Saying "No" seems to start the process, and having a road to go down after you have said it is extremely useful.

CR.

Kit said...

Fiction.

Silly fanatasy stuff.

Captain, why are you posting such silliness here?

Captain Ranty said...

Silly? Fantasy?

Hardly a cogent rebuttal.

Refute if you must but the words "silly" and "fantasy" do not an argument make.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, i didn't bother refuting it because i didn't know where to start. It is such a complete farego of complete inventions and factual falsehoods.

Ok, just to touch on the very surface, the statement that all non British shipping had to pay a commission simply for sailing on the ocean. Do you not see how that is not only not true but clearly and demonstrably not true, that it is just an obvious untruth that anyone repeating it with a straight face must be a fool or a knave.

Captain, really, i could make up a better fiction with my eyes shut and i wouldn't have to resort to easily noticed factual faslehoods to do it.

Simply stating that the Bank of England is run by the Rothschilds (it's actually owned by the British government, having been nationalised by Clement Attlees administration) and that the Square Mile is an independent State doesn't make it so. Stating that Bar attorneys in the USA owe allegiance to the Crown will come as a great surprise to those attorneys, as will the bland statement that the US declaration of independence is not legally valid.

This sort of stuff is for people who want to avoid facing reality. It is on a par with believing that the Royal family are actually Space Reptiles. You don't believe that do you?

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

Elizabeth, a lizard?

Of course! Don't you?

Just kidding. I don't buy into absolutely everything I read.

This article isn't mine to defend. I can, if you wish, put you in direct contact with the author.

I do agree that a fair amount of stuff I read has tenuous links, at best, but there is more truth in this article than you think. I never claimed it was 100% accurate. If it leads other readers to investigate, then that is enough for me. Even you must admit that we live in a matrix of sorts, and that those in (ultimate) command feed us bullshit on a daily basis.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, we are fed on a diet of bullshit. Politicians don't have our best interests at heart and big companies have an incestous relationship with big government. The mainstream media organisations deliberately slant news and attempt to manipulate and manufacture public opionion.

None of that means that there is a secret conspiracy run from the Temple Inns and that the United States of America is actually a possesion of the Crown.

Captain, that sort of nonsense simply acts to distract attention from the realities of the abusive political system we have. As for not believing it 100%, frankly there is more reality in a Terry Pratchet novel.

Captain Ranty said...

I hear you Kit, but it's all grist to the mill as far as I am concerned.

FWIW, I think there are far fewer "secret conspiracies" than many bloggers/writers would have us believe. I do not think the vast majority of stuff is hidden. It may be thinly disguised but it is there if you dig. I think "they" do this deliberately so that if/when a truth emerges, they can say "Ah, well. It wasn't hidden at all. It was in the statutes, you just failed to interpret it correctly".

The American Constitution is a prime example: judges have thrown people out of court for citing it. The reason? It was a compact between the signatories and those who lived at the time. It did not create joinder with generations to follow. Basic contract law.

The Declaration of Independence you mentioned earlier is also worthless. No-one signed it. I agree that there are signatures on the document but the rider is explicitly clear. It says, and mark this well, "In witness thereof". That does not (in law) make the DoI a binding document.

If that is not evidence of pulling the wool over peoples eyes, I don't know what is. As you yourself have mentioned before, people see what they want to see. I admit that I am guilty of this on occasion but I am also willing to be corrected.

I think though, that you use too broad a brush. A little finesse from you would not go amiss.

But again, I do thank you for your comments.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, i'm sorry but when someone in all seriousness makes claims which are more fanciful and less reality based than a Terry Pratchet novel then i don't really think finesse is required.

I don't really want to focus too much on the American declaration of independence, it isn't hugely relevant to us, but i think the statement that it is 'worthless' is maybe lacking in a little finesse.

BTW, 'In witness thereof'is not any sort of 'rider' and it doesn't invalidate a document. It just means that a documents signing has been witnessed, which it was. The document is most certainly binding, it was not a contact in the narrow legal sense of contract law but rather the fundamental legal document establishing a legal system.

Captain, there is a lot of pseudo legal bollocks coming from the FMOTL and i'm almost convinced that it is deliberately being propagated by those in power in order to distract and divert peoples attentions from the real abuses. The more people obsess about obscure legal nonsense the fewer people actually trying to hold the powers that be to account.

Captain Ranty said...

Kit,

Our banknotes are "worthless". They only have value as long as people have faith in them.

The DoI is worthless too. IT only has value whilst people have faith in it. When push comes to shove, it's a piece of paper. No more, and no less.

I dispute your claim that FMOTL is pseudo legal bollocks. It makes a damn sight more sense than your average everyday legal bollocks. And I vigorously dispute your assertion that they have been set up to distract. There are government plants, but they do what you do, they do not advance theories or ideas. They throw spanners in the works without ever explaining themselves. I would urge you to have a close look at both TPUC and FMOTL (the fora) and then come back and try to convince me that either of the principals are shills for this government. It doesn't wash.

Your last sentence is the best among a poor bunch. It had me interested straight away. Look, what I have now is all that's on the table. If I can cause some disruption with it, then that is what I am going to do. Until or unless a better plan is tabled. I see you criticising but I have yet to see any alternative suggestions from you. You may have several that will work but you don't lay them out for all to see.

If you are uncomfortable with that, or unwilling to elaborate, then you can always email me and I will happily put it out for discussion here.

Many years ago I worked under my Journeyman. He would say to me "You are doing it wrong, son. Get out of the way and I'll do it myself". Halfway through my apprenticeship, he left. A new Journeyman was appointed to continue my training. This one said "You are doing it wrong, son. Try doing it this way instead".

Guess which one won my respect?

We both know that something is wrong. We both know that something can, and must, be done.

But one of us isn't saying anything.

CR.

Kit said...

Captain, i may not know how to repair a microprocessor, but if i see someone trying to repair it with a hammer then i'll tell them they are wrong.

The plain fact is that most FMOTL stuff is a pseudo legal fantasy based on a very elementary misunderstanding of the nature of Common Law. This is then compounded with a lot of perculiar and fantastical claims about overarching conspiracies of the Crown and the Rothschilds controlling the world.

I'm certain that most people involved in the FMOTL ideas are sincere, just as in a cult, most of the people involved will be sincere. However, when people think that the government can be opposed by waving birth certificates around in magistrates courts then people in government must be laughing and when people in all seriousness claim that the American Declaration of Independence is void because it used the phrase ''In witness thereof'' then they just expose themselves to well deserved ridicule and by extension help to discredit all people who are trying to point out the failings and abuses of the State.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but i can see that the FMOTL pseudo legal nonsense is the wrong answer.

Anonymous said...

Trouble is Kit you don't seem to have any answers other than trying to hold the political class to account. A forlorn hope as my political contacts have proven. They care not a jot about the number of 'votes' they get only that they remain at the public trough for a few years longer to get their exit plan sorted.

Surely even you can see that trying to improve a broken system is pointless after all the politicians have gotten away with in 2009 and what they are still getting away with here in 2010.

There seems to me to be no national appetite to upset this precious form of human population control laughingly labelled democracy, no matter how corrupt it is proven to be.

The people are not for revolting unless you can somehow get access to a soap opera and get that soap opera to wake people up, another forlorn hope, so the only option is to look to yourself and do what you can to make the changes in your life to be rid of as much state oppression as possible.

Unless you really do have a grand plan that doesn't involve violence, exposing conspiracy, trying to change a system that may have worked once upon a long ago but is now utterly broken. If you do Kit please come clean because this country need your ideas.

Kit said...

Anonymous, regardless of whether i have the 'answer', weird fantasies about the Crown secretly ruling America are not only deeply stupid but are actively unhelpful for making any constructive changes at all.

Until we first recognise reality we are not going to do anything about it.