Does Great Britain own America?

[newspresenter]

So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/ultimate_delusion.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRWmvFTJMWY&feature=related 1min 58

[91181]

Everything about the USA is not what it seems imo , you may like this essay imreading at the moment , im about half way through now and it confirms what your links say , have a buthers and let me know what you recen.. Its quite a long read so i will only post a segmnet of it here ..


The full essay an be fount here..

http://z10.invisionfree.com/The_Unhived_Mind_II/index.php?showtopic=130


Intro


This is the latest from a man who visits me quite often. He and another man researched my theory that we have never been free from the British Crown. This disc shows the results. I have states that we will never win in their courts. This shows conclusively why. We have the hard copy of the treaties that are the footnotes. This predates Schroder's material, my research of the 1861 stats by Lincoln that put us under the War Powers confiscation acts, and John Nelson's material. All our material supports that the real Principal, the King of England, still rules this country through the bankers and why we own no property in allodium. This is why it is so important to start OUR courts of God's natural (common) Law and break away from all the crap they have handed us. This is one reason Virginia had a law to hang all lawyers but was somehow, by someone, (the King) set aside to let them operate again. Some good people put in the original 13th amendment so that without the lawyers the King could not continue his strangle hold on us. James shows how that was quashed by the King. I am happy that James' research of six months bears out my theory, that most people would not listen to me, that we are still citizen/subjects under the kings of England. My article called "Reality" published in the American Bulletin and the article of mine on the "Atocha case," wherein Florida in 1981 used it's sovereignty under the British crown to try to take away the gold from the wreck found in Florida waters supports this premise. James makes mention of the Law dictionaries being England's Law Dict. you will not is lists the reign of all the Kings of England. It never mentions the reign of the Presidents of this country. Ever wonder Why? Get this out to as many people as you can.



The United States is still a British Colony


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


I too was always taught in school and in studying our history books that our freedom came from the Declaration of Independence and was secured by our winning the Revolutionary War. I'm going to discuss a few documents that are included at the end of this paper, in the footnotes. The first document is the first Charter of Virginia in 1606 (footnote #1). In the first paragraph, the king of England granted our fore fathers license to settle and colonize America. The definition for license is as follows.


"In Government Regulation. Authority to do some act or carry on some trade or business, in its nature lawful but prohibited by statute, except with the permission of the civil authority or which would otherwise be unlawful." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.


Keep in mind those that came to America from England were British subjects. So you can better understand what I'm going to tell you, here are the definitions for subject and citizen.


"In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.


"Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government." Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.


I chose to give the definition for subject first, so you could better understand what definition of citizen is really being used in American law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law.


"The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3d century the distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578." Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914.


The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so. I think you would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, "In right of the crown," Black's forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total loss.


If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his heirs and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his capital. You will see in this paper that not only is this valid, but it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods (commerce) right down to the furniture they sat on. A great deal of the king's declared property was ceded to America in the Treaty of 1783. I want you to stay focused on the money and the commerce which was not ceded to America.


This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. Our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief, separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan "Don't Tread On Me" was the standard borne by the militias.


The Revolutionary War was fought and concluded when Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown. As Americans we have been taught that we defeated the king and won our freedom. The next document I will use is the Treaty of 1783, which will totally contradict our having won the Revolutionary War. (footnote 2).


I want you to notice in the first paragraph that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace in a position of strength and victory, but it is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.


An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status, see the below definitions.


"Esquires by virtue of their offices; as justices of the peace, and others who bear any office of trust under the crown....for whosever studieth the laws of the realm, who studieth in the universities, who professeth the liberal sciences, and who can live idly, and without manual labor, and will bear the port, charge, and countenance of a gentleman, he shall be called master, and shall be taken for a gentleman." Blackstone Commentaries p. 561-562


"Esquire - In English Law. A title of dignity next above gentleman, and below knight. Also a title of office given to sheriffs, serjeants, and barristers at law, justices of the peace, and others." Blacks Law Dictionary fourth ed. p. 641


Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..


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


In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. If you will read my other papers on money you will understand that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?


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


When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Article of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown (footnote 3)


Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that "a holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown."...."in less than two hundred years the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire."


All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. If you will read the following quote from Title 26, you will see just one situation where the king is still collecting a tax from those that receive a benefit from him, on property which is purchased with the money the king supplies, at almost the same percentage:

[eternal_spirit]

American and British Intelligence have documented evidence that the House of Rothschild, and other International Bankers, have financed both sides of every war, since the American Revolution. Financier Haym Salomon, who supported the patriots during the American Revolution, then later made loans to James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe, was a Rothschild agent. As explained earlier, during the Napoleonic Wars, one branch of the family funded Napoleon, while another financed Great Britain, Germany, and other nations. Their boldest maneuver came prior to the Civil War.

The Rothschilds operate out of an area in the heart of London, England, the financial district, which is known as 'The City', or the 'Square Mile.' All major British banks have their main offices here, along with branch offices for 385 foreign banks, including 70 from the United States. It is here that you will find the Bank of England, the Stock Exchange, Lloyd's of London, the Baltic Exchange (shipping contracts), Fleet Street (home of publishing and newspaper interests), the London Commodity Exchange (to trade coffee, rubber, sugar and wool), and the London Metal Exchange. It is virtually the financial hub of the world.

Positioned on the north bank of the Thames River, covering an area of 677 acres or one square mile (known as the "wealthiest square mile on earth"), it has enjoyed special rights and privileges that enabled them to achieve a certain level of independence since 1191. In 1215, its citizens received a Charter from King John, granting them the right to annually elect a mayor (known as the Lord Mayor), a tradition that continues today.

Both E. C. Knuth, in his book Empire of the City, and Des Griffin, in his book Descent into Slavery, stated their belief that 'The City' is actually a sovereign state and that since the establishment of the privately owned Bank of England in 1694, 'The City' has actually become the last word in the country's national affairs, with Prime Minister, Cabinet, and Parliament becoming only a front for the real power. According to Knuth, when the queen enters 'The City,' she is subservient to the Lord Mayor (under him, is a committee of 12-14 men, known as 'The Crown'), because this privately-owned corporation is not subject to the Queen, or the Parliament.

There seems to be little doubt that the Rothschilds continue to influence the world economy, and it is known that they are squarely behind the movement to unite all the western European nations into a single political entity, which is just another step towards one-world government.

more here

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=840

[waitew]

I'm going to split hairs here,but a square mile is 640 acres not 677.

[truth finder]

I'm going to split hairs here,but a square mile is 640 acres not 677.


Why?????????????????????????????

[bendoon]

Does Great Britain own America?

No, but i'd say the same people own both.

[truth finder]

No, but i'd say the same people own both.

scarily i think you right......

[tracker]

So the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/ultimate_delusion.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRWmvFTJMWY&feature=related 1min 58

Does Britian own America ?

yep !

has done for years even before it was descovered .

:cool:

[margaretr]

Maybe we (UK) once did, but China owns it now.
The USA has borrowed so heavily from China that China is capable of having USA declared bankrupt - consider how this can affect US foreign policy towards China.

Here in UK we are in hock to the Saudis.

[soothseeker]

We've got look for the reasons behind whats being played out. The US is heavily indebted to China for a good reason (remembering that whoever owns the US, UK also owns China).

The way I see it is every nation is an experiment into the best possible method of enslavement, this experiment has been conducted for a very long time. It would seem (IMO) that China is an almost perfect example / plan of what the elite have in mind for all nations to bring about the NWO.

Bankruptcy of the US is just a necessary step in the chain to total world domination.

[hadabusa]

yes,usa superpower status is the last burden.

uh,if they happen to destroy the usa and implement the china model, were all fucked.

tough,id say they plan to give the ppl something thatll be accepted as ?fine?.

yes, rothschilds run china.
and yes, british royals always secured themselves 50percent of whatever is to be found.
they did that upfront,lol.

did anyone read the mirror extra booklet this week?
about history on money?
they went as far back as medici family, but its disgusting how its clogged with nwo propaganda .
look it up, ppl who read that regularly think theyre kinda smart.