| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Owenbrittont |
Posted - 18 Dec 2005 : 18:39:22
It's been along time since I was in a courtroom.
When they passed the bill to change the court seal in 1998 they weren't kidding !!! In 1998 former State Governor Ridge changed all State court seals to fall under State Supreme Court Seal of 1976. In 1976 the Supreme Court of PA changed it's seal to 1722 "King's Bench Exchequor Court" to replace 1776 "Because of the glorious Revolution" 1998 all courts and court seals would follow that of the State Supreme Court.
It's hard to believe what happened. Because the defendants were not represented they basically were not able to speak much outside of the boundaries set by the prosecuting attorney. The defendants were specifically told that the State would provide an attorney for the next hearing whether they wanted one or not !!! And that to be permitted to leave they must sign the papers.
Amerika the land of the enslaved ! |
| 3 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Lewish |
Posted - 17 Feb 2006 : 14:04:56
Greetings Greg and Readers,
The "Treaty of Paris" was preceded by another treaty which was signed by the King of England in 1783. The "Treaty of Paris" was just formal recognition of what had already been agreed to by the King. It is interesting to note King's signature on that first treaty. He signed it:
George
Prince of the Holy Roman Empire
King of England
Now, that should speak volumes as to who is really in control.
On another note, conquest of land does not automatically convey title. This is per Roman Law. So, in the case of the college, just because the colonies broke from England, the colonies could not claim title to land that had been "granted" by the King. Also, if you go back and look at Roman Law, title to the land comes thru occupation AND improvement. This is how the colonists gained title to the lands they were on. Now, obviously if you ignore the grant from the King, you still have the problem of the College occupying and improving the land that the college stood on, thus giving the college alloidal title under Roman Law.
Peace to you all,
Lewis Vincent |
| Greg |
Posted - 16 Feb 2006 : 19:07:33
Greetings and blessings to all. I ran across something today (actualy was researching allodial rights and more like stumbled upon this) that I just had to share regarding rather or not the British Crown ever really left. I'll look forward to the groups take on this, and if it belongs somewhere else please feel free to move it. It's from wikipedia...
"Dartmouth College’s charter was granted by King George III of the Kingdom of Great Britain on December 13, 1769. In 1815, over thirty years after the conclusion of the American Revolution, the legislature of New Hampshire attempted to invalidate Dartmouth's charter in order to convert the school from a private to a public institution. The trustees of the College objected, and thus sought to have the attempted actions of the legislature declared unconstitutional...
...Apart from land that was formally owned at the time of the Revolutionary War, most American landholders can trace their title back to grants by the federal or state governments of land obtained by purchase (Louisiana Purchase, Florida, Alaska), treaty (the Ohio Valley, New Mexico, Arizona, and California), or annexation (Texas, Hawaii). However, in reality, previous grants prior to those territories becoming U.S. possessions were recognized. In fact, in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, the United States Supreme Court ruled a New Hampshire law that attempted to revoke the land grant to Dartmouth College from King George III was unconstitutional."
Now the "Treaty of Paris" was supposedly where we (America) got our independence recognized right? Here are a couple interesting things about that treaty...
"The treaty document was signed by David Hartley (a member of the British Parliament representing the British Monarch, King George III), John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay (representing the United States).
The American Continental Congress ratified the treaty on January 14, 1784. Britain ratification occurred on 9 April 1784 and ratifications exchanged on 12 May 1784. Although Britain's ratification and the exchange were not within the six-month deadline specified by the treaty, this had no effect on the honoring of the treaty. The delay was partly caused by transportation difficulties."
So the King never signed it, and instead of changing the deadlines they just signed it anyway because with all the ratifications going on who has time to worry about a deadline right. Here's why I point out the King didn't sign it...
In particular, in the nations recognising Elizabeth II as sovereign, land is said to be "held of the Crown." In common legal use, allodial title is used to distinguish absolute ownership of land by individuals from feudal ownership, where property ownership is dependent on relationship to a lord or the sovereign. In England, there is no allodial land, all land being held of the king."
All land is held of the King, not parliament. So can parliament sign away the Kings possesions? I don't know, you guys tell me. There is an operation of law I believe called Ratification Doctrine this may have operated under which could validate what parliament did but I'm not sure. I look forward to everyones insight, and please forgive the lengthiness of this post.
I am Greg
Note to admn: if you move this will you please let me know that I may follow it, Thanks.
|
| RevokeTheTrust |
Posted - 21 Dec 2005 : 22:37:03
Those are verry telling words, friend; to have the English common-law abridged by the entrapment of a foreign feudal society that has slowly grown its presence since 1792. I've come across them; a little hint: a car that runs across a wicked snake will only break a few ribs and the snake will live on, whereas to kill the snake would be to lock the Brake and skid across the vile creature. That was somthing I leared as a cattle-hand.
I recently rose to a heated discussion with a beligerant corporator over the distinctions between debt currency and credit. Thereby to divide the form from lawful consideration to good consideration, the Federal Reserve Notes were purposes to saturate society with money as to slowly dilute the reservation of mineral rights and related value held in common-law, often to further one element of the harp per probable chance; treeson by treeson. I suppose that currency would be to good consideration, substance that has value or demand and its physique measurable in space; thereby approach to the nearest recycling center institution can be used to surreptitiously challenge a greater surreptitious currency injected by evil men.
The grace comes by bringing about a value the agent would think good, thereby to expressly credit the creature of the state to their indebtedness to perform; choice of aluminum, plastic, or glass, to their questionably equivalent appraisal of USD 20. I chose for this instance the most respectful medium of value to credit such kind: the equivalent of USD 20 in surveyed/salvaged glass bottles within the wilderness area. Thereby at barter, an incomplete note is presented for completion; English common-law is injected, the ignorant agent sneezes green-mucous on the note in affirmation, the note is then taken to a nearby bank and restrictively endorsed to credit a UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE never-ussurous Savings and Chequing account that comes with a free pre-drawn cheque to completely drain the account. With the appraisal in good order, I walk in the wilderness of lions with a hung Lamb or hung Puppy, then the ball rolls when the first owl shows its beak in the trees under the Light of the moon; the old/dying growth, suffocating the living, not knowing that the value in controversey is at English common-law.
When the dishonor keeps the living-stone stumbling, you'll extract some Gold from their Lead in a radioactive pile of waste matter; formerly their corpse, and now exposed for the noise that is cracking the shell of Moloch to return the salt to that creature of the deep world among moluska.
With love,
Gregory-Thomas
This general post must accept any THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE, including interference that may cause undesired results in the affects and effects of propoganda.
begin THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE...
"I Conditionally Agree to Accept For Face Value Your Offer; but upon Proof of Claim:
/s/ Without Prejudice"
...end THIRD-PARTY INTERFERENCE. |
|
|
