|
THE BEGINNING OF THE LIE
by The Informer
Once upon a time before the year 1066 the people of England held Allodial title
to their land. Not even the king could take the land for not paying a tithe.
William the Conquer came in 1066 and stole the Kings Title and took the land of
the people. From William I, 1066, to King John, 1199, England was in dire
straits. It was bankrupt. The King invoked the Law of Mortmain, the dead
man's hand, so people couldn't pass their land on to the church or anyone else
without the King's permission, (modern day probate?). Without Mortmain the King
would lose the land he controlled. The Vatican didn't like that because the King
owed a lot of pounds to the Vatican.(WHY?)(1). King John refused to accept The
Vatican's representative, Stephen Langton, whom Pope Innocent III installed to
rule England(religious or in fact?)(2) In 1208 England was placed under Papal
interdict(?). Interdict means a prohibition.)
King John was excommunicated and in trying to regain his stature he groveled
before the Pope and returned the title to his kingdoms of England and Ireland to
the Pope as vassals, and swore submission and loyalty to him. King John accepted
Langton as Archbishop of Canterbury, and offered the Pope a vassal's bond of
fealty and homage. Two months later, in July of 1213, King John was absolved of
excommunication, at Winchester, by the returned Archbishop of Canterbury,
Langton. On October 3, 1213, by treaty, King John ratified his surrender of his
kingdoms to the Pope, as Vicar of Christ who claimed ownership of everything and
everyone on earth as tradition. Question 1. Where in the
Bible did Jesus give any man this kind of power over all men and land? He
didn't. He did not create a religion nor did he create the office of Pope.
Question 2. Can you have a third party break a contract
between you and another person under duress..? Don't those of you who are forced
into a contract reserve all your rights under modern UCC 1-207 and claim UCC
1-103? The contract (treaty of 1213) was between two
parties. Now the Barons of England would not put up with being slaves anymore so
they took to the sword and made King John sign the Magna Charta. So doesn't this
act of the Barons violate the principle of natural law, when they created the
Magna Charta, as having no force and effect upon a contract between two parties?
Well Pope Innocent III, the other contracting party thought so, for he declared
the Magna Charta to be: ". . .unlawful and unjust as it is base and shameful. .
. whereby the Apostolic See is brought into contempt, the Royal Prerogative
diminished, the English outraged, and the whole enterprise of the Crusade
greatly imperiled." Quoted from G.R.C. Davis: Magna Charta. Trustee of the
British Museum. London. 1965. The Pope, in order to
introduce strife in England and Ireland that would help him, used Jesus
teachings to his advantage that is verified in the Gospels by two of His
Apostles. So St. Levy (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27), alias Matthew, cites Jesus at
Matthew 10::34-36 and Luke 12:49, 51-3. Nothing reveals the antithesis of
government and religion more clearly than these facts.
Question 3. What did the contract of 1213 A.D. create? A TRUST or CONTRACT. Only
the two parties, the King's heirs and the Pope, can break the contract. For the
Trust /Contract cannot be broken as long as there are heirs to both sides of the
contract. At this time in history we now know who
controlled the Kings of England and the land of the world. For Now we have the
Pope claiming the whole Western Hemisphere besides Europe. The Holy See of
Antioch ruled all the easterly side and the Holy See of Alexandria ruled the
western side, so there was a conflict. (3)
So, on with the story. The King's explorers had come to America to claim
dominion over land by deceiving and murdering the natives, the American Indians.
The King operated under the treaty of 1213 and everything was going along okay
until the 1770's when the bunch of rogues called the "Founding Fathers" decided
they wanted the benefits but not pay the taxes to the King. They, being lawyers,
and professional educated men, didn't know they were still under the Pope's
control? Their lies and fraud now would affect the American colonies and the
people who lived on the land.
Those common people who fought in the American Revolution were unaware that
the 1213 treaty still ruled despite the fact they THOUGHT the Magna Charta was a
viable piece of work.(4) The Declaration of Rights in 1689 declared the Rights
of the British subjects in England. At the end of the English Declaration it
stated at Section III " ...that should any of the Rights just mentioned be in
violation of the HOLY ALLIANCE (1213 Treaty), ...it is as if this Declaration
was never written".
So we know that the English Declaration didn't fly, so what makes you think
the 1774 Declaration of Rights in this British Colony would work. Weren't these
people doing the same thing as the Barons did in 1215 A.D. to King John? A
contract is a contract. Look at Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the U.S.
Constitution. Can anyone obligate a contract? Were the "founding fathers" trying
to obligate a contract between two parties that still have heirs living today?
Question 4. How important is the "ultimate benefactor",
the Pope, The HOLY SEE, in the scheme of things? Move through history till
modern times and pull Public Law 88-244, which follows Public Law 88-243 - the
institution of the law- merchants Uniform Commercial Code. Are you shocked that
the Pope is listed in this Public Law?
Doesn't the United States have an ambassador in the
Vatican? Why? Is it a government like all other nations such as France, Japan,
Spain or Brazil? The Vatican runs the world, it controls the British Crown. Is
it any wonder they separate man's Church and government? They don't talk about
the Lord Almighty's Church (government) do they.(5) "Organized churches" are
given special tax privileges because the Vatican dictates to the sixty United
States trustees through the trust document, the U.S. Constitution created by the
1783 treaty between the King, frontman for the Vatican, and Adams, Hartly,
Laurens, & Franklin who were operating for the King and not the people of
America. Look at Article VI of the Constitution for the United States for your
answer as stated in the "New History of America".(6)
You see we are still under the Pope who rules over all nations as he declared
he did back in 1213. The 1783 Treaty did say in the opening statement quoted
exactly as it appears in olde English; "It having pleafed the Divine Providence
to difpofe the hearts of the Moft Serene and Moft Porent Prince, George the
Third, by the grace of God, King of the Great Britain, France and Ireland,
Defender, of the Faith , Duke of Brunfwick and Laurenberg, Arch-Treafurer and
PRINCE ELECTOR OF THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE, & C. AND OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA, . . .." (Emphasis added in caps).
Did you catch the last few words? This is from a King (man) who can
supposedly make no claim over the United States of America because he was
defeated? The King claims God gave him the almighty power to say that no man can
ever own property because it, "goes against the tenets of his church, the
Vatican/Holy Roman Empire, because the King is the "Elector of the Holy Roman
Empire’"
What about the secret Treaty of Verona, made the 22nd of November, 1822,
which shows the power of the Pope and the Vatican's interest in the US Republic.
Here is part of The Secret Treaty of Verona. "The undersigned specially
authorized to make some additions to the treaty of the Holy Alliance, after
having exchanged their respective credentials, have agreed as follows:
ARTICLE I. The high contracting powers being convinced that the system of
representative government is equally as incompatible with the monarchial
principles as the maxim of the sovereignty of the people with the divine right,
engage mutually, in the most solemn manner to use all their efforts to put an
end to the system of representative governments, in what ever country it may
exist in Europe, and to prevent its being introduced in those countries where it
is not yet known. ARTICLE 2. As it cannot be doubted that the liberty of the
press is the most powerful means used by the pretended supporters of the rights
of nations to the detriment of those of princes, the high contracting parties
promise reciprocally to adopt all proper measures to suppress it, not only in
their own state but also in the rest of Europe. ARTICLE 3. Convinced that
the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the
state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting
parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states,
those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their own
interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the
princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope
for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in
their views of submitting the nations."
Do we have a false God before us and worship him and his church instead of
the real Lord, Jesus and his government. The divine right of kings exists in
Clinton and every Governor of the states in corporate Union. Well let me go on
record and say that the Lord gave me the same right as the Pope claims was given
to him. Am I not a Steward upon the land of the Lord as a mere sojourner, the
same as the Pope? Are not you also a Steward?
Did the Lord make a covenant with Adam and Eve to subdue the earth and reign
over the animals and to populate the earth? Doesn't that contract still exist?
And doesn't it exist with you also? And we, the true believers in that contract,
can we take all the nations (mans) laws in the world and dump them in the ocean
to regain our rightful place on this earth under the Lord's Natural Law to
thwart the contract between King John and the Pope that appears to defeat the
original contract the Lord made with man?
Yes, let us go back to the original contract and destroy the Vatican's
control over everybody. Before 1066 the Pope did not claim all the land as the
people claimed the land and didn't pay taxes on it to anybody. Didn't the Lord
say to the people after coming out of Egypt, "why do you want a king when you
have me and my contract?" Which Lord do you want to live under, a Pope, a King,
President, Governors, Senators, Representatives, or a real Lord called Jesus
Christ. "Christians," are ridiculed and put down because they read the Word of
the Lord correctly and could defeat even the best the Pope has to throw at them.
The King James version of the Bible is just that. A version concocted by the
King under the guidance of the Pope so as to hide the real truth. I was taught
by the church I went to, which is government controlled as it has to be by the
treaty of 1213 and reiterated in the 1783 Treaty between The Pope's Elector,
King John and the First President of the United States, Sam Huntington and
Charles Thompson, Secretary. I read the passage, when Jesus was on the cross,
from a very old manuscript that said, "Forgive them NOT, for they know what they
do." This is different than what most people believe he said, "Forgive them for
they know not what they do." Bottom line is that when men write, transcribe,
translate, update, and copy over thousands of years they always alter the
interpretation, words and insert their own meanings. You can see this in just
the 200 years that our country became separated from England, but still remains
a colony under different compact and use of clever wording. But that is another
whole subject that you do not know about.
Eminent domain and Allodial title: Why and where did "eminent domain"
rear its ugly head? Right after the King's government was formed here in
America. Eminent domain replaced the Law of Mortmain of England and when
government wanted your land they claimed eminent domain thereby destroying that
to what people think they have allodial title. Allodial title only existed in
America when the King granted the use of the land to the likes of William Penn,
.........
But it could be taken at any time. Are you or were your great, great, great
grandfathers ever free to hold land that could never be taken away? Ask some of
today's farmers and see how many lost their farms to the government that
belonged to their past family and I'll bet none of the land goes back to the
1789 era. Well it's a wonderful world to live in the end times, isn't it. Read
Revelations to see where the false preachers come from. Who is the "Harlot" in
Revelations?
Does the Vatican come close with a mortal calling himself the "vicar" of
Christ?
Here is the definition of vicar in Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the
English Language. Vicar: "In a general sense, a person deputed or authorized
to perform the functions of another; a substitute in office."
The Pope PRETENDS to be vicar of Jesus Christ on earth.
Pretend; To hold out as a false appearance; to offer something feigned
instead of that which is real; To exhibit as a cover for something hidden."
You bet your life the Pope has something to hide. He is no more powerful than
You. The King is no more powerful than You. The American President and
Governor's are no more powerful than You. You allow THEM run your lives ...WHY.?
Thinkers, you cannot fight the Pope or the King on their contract even though
you are affected by the contract. You must go elsewhere for relief. Remember the
first contract in history, God with Adam and Eve? You had better because you
were a part of it as an heir and it is your saving grace. Why do you think the
"courts of common law" are despised and Government and States are taking action
to stop them? See where the power lies when this happens? Clinton, the
Governors, and Congress of the United States and the Legislatures of the several
states are only following orders and delegate to the 60 U.S. Trustees, who
always show up in bankruptcy generated mostly by IRS actions. Isn't that a
starting point?
What do Trustees administer? A trust? The Constitution is a trust, correct?
It was created by the 1783 Treaty, correct? It is not the private man's trust
contract, correct? Only those entering into the contract are UNDER the
constitution and are bound by it, correct? Look up the definition of "under" in
words and phrases and a good dictionary such as Webster's 1828 at Vol. II, 101.
I, my dear readers, am not "under" some damn corporate trust (constitution)
drafted in secrecy by the King and corporate lawyer esquires (you call them the
"Founding Fathers") whom were controlled by the Treaty of 1213, wherein the
Vatican still ruled over all. It was never "my constitution" and never will be.
The Constitution does not apply to me nor will it ever.
However, some of the states' representatives in 1776 realized that the
Constitution was a commercial contract among the Founding Fathers to protect
their financial interests in the Americas and in Europe. The Articles of the
Bill of Rights is designed to keep those United States citizens whom are bound
by the Constitution (contract) from encroaching upon my natural Law Rights,
(With this hint in mind you may discover where the IRS gets its purported power
that makes you liable, because you claim to be UNDER the constitution, but they
will never admit it because only a few know the real reason and they are not
about to tell their agents. The same goes for any license issued to you by the
corporate States). I hope you have read the Supreme Court cases of State and
United States cited in my previous books that prove beyond any shadow of a doubt
I am correct in my previous two sentences. Yet you always fall back into the
trap by claiming citizenship of the United States AND THE STATES.
No! You are not a citizen of the corporate or organic State if you want to be
free. You cannot claim it is your constitution and remain free. You cannot claim
representatives in the legislatures and remain free. How about your estate?
State and Estate come from the same contract.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary defines it;
"ESTA'TE, n. 1. In a general sense, fixedness; a condition; now generally
written and pronounced state. (6) The general interest of business or
government; hence a political body; a commonwealth; a republic.
But in this sense, we now use State." Get the picture? We are the ryots
tenure holding the "estate" of the King called your estate. Belong to a body
politic and you are a slave. In my previous books I told the people a "republic"
is a fraud, for then you belong to the estate of the King which makes you a
law-merchant holding as a trustee the King's land that he is holding in trust
for the Vatican. The States are the "estate " of the Vatican/King cabal with the
money changers along for the ride are a full blown consortium which includes the
Congress/President/ Governors et al. I don't want to drive you crazy, since you
might not comprehend all that is here. Once you know the truth and let go of all
you were taught by the government and the preachers you don't become the
drowning man grasping at the lies to stay afloat. Have you ever wondered why you
were sinking while pleading case law and their constitution to protect you?
Bye till next time, The Informer
(1)(WHY?). Because the Pope claimed all lands as the vicar of
Christ and the king owed money from the Vatican that was to be collected by the
Church of England. The church reduced their parishioners to mere serfdom. When
they died the church got the property and the King, in order to preserve what
property he had instituted the law of Mortmain. This prevented the people from
willing the land to the Pope. When the pope got wind of this he excommunicated
the King. That's the explanation for the Why?
(2) This is a fact that is documented in the English
documents of History at the Leeds Library.
(3)The conflict between each of the Holy Sees, one controlling
the western front (America) and the other controlling the China side with the
dividing line somewhere in Spain and France through Germany. The Pope is the
figurehead, remember and the best way to explain it is Congress is Alexandria
and the Senate is Antioch.
(4) (Why doesn't the Magna Charta hold more force and effect
than a later contract between the king and the Pope? Because the Pope decreed it
null and void as it would break the contract he had initiated with the King. The
Magna Charta was a contract breaker by third parties and that was a no-no in any
law. Besides the Pope owned England and how could the Barons take the land that
the King pledged let alone all the surfs that the Pope still controlled through
the church of England? He can't and so the Magna Charta was declared Void. Now
the Pope, through the front man, The King, could create the other contracts
called treaties and no one is the wiser. Remember, the Pope was being controlled
by the creditor, The Rothschilds to whom the Pope was indebted.
(5) Why? It is clear as a bell. The "church" of GOD is
'Government of GOD and man created all these religions and made churches for
them. They, man, cannot allow the Government of the Lord "Church upon this rock"
to get in the way of the government of men, now can they?
(6) "New History of America", by The Informer
People you can read this for yourself in American Council of
Christian Laymen: "How Red Is The Federal Council of Churches", Madison,
Wisconsin, 1949. Now you may better understand James Montgomery's latest as to
why all the declarations, Magna Charta, etc. have no effect. Read on to see
why.
See: James Montgomery's - "British Colony III" on the Internet.
To further prove what I say that the declared rights were also at the mercy of
any previous charters or grants from the king of England you must read section
25 of the 1776 North Carolina Constitution, Declaration of Rights which
states;09"And provided further, that nothing herein contained shall affect the
titles or possessions of individuals holding or claiming under the laws
heretofore in force, or grants heretofore made by the late King George II, or
his predecessors, or the late lords proprietors, or any of
them."
{c 1998 all rights reserved - reprinted by permission}

|