View Full Version : The united states is still a british colony

Bear Eagle
09-26-11, 07:54 AM
Very interesting read. Dont know where else to put it. Seems that the end of America started in the beginning.


Bear Eagle
09-26-11, 08:34 AM
What happened in 1776?

"Whoever owns the soil, owns all the way to the heavens and to the depths of the earth." - Old Latin maxim and Roman expression.

1776 is the year that will truly live in infamy for all Americans. It is the year that the Crown Colonies became legal Crown States. The Declaration of Independence was a legal, not lawful, document. It was signed on both sides by representatives of the Crown Temple. Legally, it announced the status quo of the Crown Colonies to that of the new legal name called “States” as direct possessive estates of the Crown (see the definitions above to understand the legal trickery that was done).

The American people were hoodwinked into thinking they were declaring lawful independence from the Crown. Proof that the Colonies are still in Crown possession is the use of the word “State” to signify a “legal estate of possession.” Had this been a document of and by the people, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution would have been written using the word “states”. By the use of “State,” the significance of a government of estate possession was legally established. All of the North American States are Crown Templar possessions through their legal document, signed by their representation of both parties to the contract, known as the Constitution of the United States of America.

All “Constitutional Rights” in America are simply those dictated by the Crown Temple and enforced by the Middle Inn Templars (Bar Attorners) through their franchise and corporate government entity, the federal United States Government. When a “State Citizen” attempts to invoke his “constitutional”, natural, or common law “rights” in Chancery (equity courts), he is told they don’t apply. Why? Simply because a State citizen has no rights outside of the Rule and Codes of Crown “law”. Only a state citizen has natural and common law rights by the paramount authority of God’s Law.

The people who comprise the citizenry of a state are recognized only within natural and common law as is already established by God’s Law. Only a State Citizen can be a party to an action within a State Court. A common state citizen cannot be recognized in that court because he doesn’t legally exist in Crown Chancery Courts. In order to be recognized in their State Courts, the common man must be converted to that of a corporate or legal entity (a legal fiction).

Now you know why they create such an entity using all capital letters within Birth Certificates issued by the State. They convert the common lawful man of God into a fictional legal entity subject to Administration by State Rules, Orders and Codes (there is no “law” within any Rule or Code). Of course, Rules, Codes, etc. do not apply to the lawful common man of the Lord of lords, so the man with inherent Godly law and rights must be converted into a legal “Person” of fictional “status” (another legal term) in order for their legal - but completely unlawful – State Judiciary (Chancery Courts) to have authority over him. Chancery Courts are tribunal courts where the decisions of “justice” are decided by 3 “judges”. This is a direct result of the Crown Temple having invoked their Rule and Code over all judicial courts.

“It is held to be a settled Rule, that our courts can not take notice of any title to land not derived from the State or Colonial government, and duly verified by patent.” -4 Johns. Rep. 163. Jackson v. Waters, 12 Johns. Rep. 365. S.P.

The Crown Temple was granted Letters Patent (see definition above) and Charters (definition below) for all the land (Colonies) of New England by the King of England, a sworn member of the Middle Temple (as the Queen is now). Since the people were giving the patent/charter corporations and Colonial Governours such a hard time, especially concerning Crown taxation, a scheme was devised to allow the Americans to believe they were being granted “independence.” Remember, the Crown Templars represented both parties to the 1776 Declaration of Independence; and, as we are about to see, the latter 1787 U.S. Constitution.

To have this “Declaration” recognized by international treaty law, and in order to establish the new legal Crown entity of the incorporated United States, Middle Templar King George III agreed to the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, “between the Crown of Great Britain and the said United States”. The Crown of Great Britain legally was, then and now, the Crown Temple. This formally gave international recognition to the corporate “United States”, the new Crown Temple States (Colonies). Most important is to know who the actual signatories to the Treaty of Paris were. Take particular note to the abbreviation “Esqr.” following their names (see above definition for ESQUIRE) as this legally signifies “Officers of the King’s Courts”, which we now know were Templar Courts or Crown Courts. This is the same Crown Templar Title given to Alexander Hamilton (see above).

The Crown was represented in signature by “David Hartley, Esqr.”, a Middle Templar of the King’s Court. Representing the United States (a Crown franchise) by signature was “John Adams, Esqr”, “Benjamin Franklin, Esqr.” and “John Jay, Esqr.” The signatories for the “United States” were also Middle Templars of the King’s Court through Bar Association membership. What is plainly written in history proves, once again, that the Crown Temple was representing both parties to the agreement. What a perfect and elaborate scam the people of North America had pulled on them!

It becomes even more obvious when you read Article 5, which states in part,

“to provide for the Restitution of all Estates, Rights, and Properties which have been confiscated, belonging to real British Subjects.”

The Crown Colonies were granted to “persons” and corporations of the Crown Temple through Letters Patent and Charters, and the North American Colonial land was owned by the Crown.

Now, here’s a real catch-all in Article 4:

“It is agreed that creditors on either side shall meet with no lawful impediment to the recovery of the full value in sterling money of all bona fide debts heretofore contracted.”

Since the Crown and its Templars represented both the United States, as the debtors, and the Crown, as the creditors, then they became the creditor of the American people by owning all debts of the former Colonies, now called the legal Crown States. This sounds too good to be true, but these are the facts. The words SCAM and HOODWINKED can’t begin to describe what had taken place.

So then, what debts were owed to the Crown Temple and their banks as of 1883? In the Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782, Article I states,

“It is agreed and certified that the sums advanced by His Majesty to the Congress of the United States under the title of a loan, in the years 1778, 1779, 1780, 1781, and the present 1782, amount to the sum of eighteen million of livres, money of France, according to the following twenty-one receipts of the above-mentioned underwritten Minister of Congress, given in virtue of his full powers, to wit…”

That amount equals about $18 million dollars, plus interest, that Hamilton’s U.S. Central Bank owed the Crown through Crown Bank loans in France. This was signed, on behalf of the United States, by an already familiar Middle Templar, Benjamin Franklin, Esquire.

An additional $6 million dollars (six million livres) was loaned to the United States at 5% interest by the same parties in a similar Contract signed on February 25, 1783. The Crown Bankers in the Netherlands and France were calling in their debts for payment by future generations of Americans.

Bear Eagle
09-26-11, 08:34 AM
The Fiscal Agents of Mystery Babylon

Since its beginnings, the Temple Church at the City of London has been a Knight Templar secret society. It was built and established by the same Temple Knights who were given their Rule and Order by the Roman Pope. It’s very important to know how the British Royal Crown was placed into the hands of the Knights Templars, and how the Crown Templars became the fiscal and military agents for the Pope of the Roman Church.

This all becomes very clear through the Concession Of England To The Pope on May 15, 1213.charter was sworn in fealty by England’s King John to Pope Innocent and the Roman Church. It was witnessed before the Crown Templars, as King John stated upon sealing the same,

“I myself bearing witness in the house of the Knights Templars.”

Pay particular attention to the words being used that we have defined below, especially charter, fealty, demur, and concession:

We wish it to be known to all of you, through this our charter, furnished with our seal… not induced by force or compelled by fear, but of our own good and spontaneous will and by the common counsel of our barons, do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances… we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catholic successors and the Roman church… binding our successors and our heirs by our wife forever, in similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur. As a sign… we will and establish perpetual obligation and concession… from the proper and especial revenues of our aforesaid kingdoms… the Roman church shall receive yearly a thousand marks sterling… saving to us and to our heirs our rights, liberties and regalia; all of which things, as they have been described above, we wish to have perpetually valid and firm; and we bind ourselves and our successors not to act counter to them. And if we or any one of our successors shall presume to attempt this, whoever he be, unless being duly warned he come to his kingdom, and this senses, be shall lose his right to the kingdom, and this charter of our obligation and concession shall always remain firm.

Most who have commented on this charter only emphasize the payments due the Pope and the Roman Church. What should be emphasized is the fact that King John broke the terms of this charter by signing the Magna Carta on June 15, 1215. Remember; the penalty for breaking the 1213 agreement was the loss of the Crown (right to the kingdom) to the Pope and his Roman Church. It says so quite plainly. To formally and lawfully take the Crown from the royal monarchs of England by an act of declaration, on August 24, 1215, Pope Innocent III annulled the Magna Carta; later in the year, he placed an Interdict (prohibition) on the entire British empire. From that time until today, the English monarchy and the entire British Crown belonged to the Pope.

The following definitions are all taken from Webster’s 1828 Dictionary since the meanings have not been perverted for nearly 200 years:

FEALTY, n. [L. fidelis.] Fidelity to a lord; faithful adherence of a tenant or vassal to the superior of whom he holds his lands; loyalty. Under the feudal system of tenures, every vassal or tenant was bound to be true and faithful to his lord, and to defend him against all his enemies. This obligation was called his fidelity or fealty, and an oath of fealty was required to be taken by all tenants to their landlords. The tenant was called a liege man; the land, a liege fee; and the superior, liege lord.

FEE, n. [In English, is loan. This word, fee, inland, or an estate in trust, originated among the descendants of the northern conquerors of Italy, but it originated in the south of Europe. See Feud.] Primarily, a loan of land, an estate in trust, granted by a prince or lord, to be held by the grantee on condition of personal service, or other condition; and if the grantee or tenant failed to perform the conditions, the land reverted to the lord or donor, called the landlord, or lend-lord, the lord of the loan. A fee then is any land or tenement held of a superior on certain conditions. It is synonymous with fief and feud. In the United States, an estate in fee or fee simple is what is called in English law an allodial estate, an estate held by a person in his own right, and descendible to the heirs in general.

FEUD, n. [L. fides; Eng. loan.] A fief; a fee; a right to lands or hereditaments held in trust, or on the terms of performing certain conditions; the right which a vassal or tenant has to the lands or other immovable thing of his lord, to use the same and take the profits thereof hereditarily, rendering to his superior such duties and services as belong to military tenure, &c., the property of the soil always remaining in the lord or superior.

By swearing to the 1213 Charter in fealty, King John declared that the British-English Crown and its possessions at that time, including all future possessions, estates, trusts, charters, letters patent, and land, were forever bound to the Pope and the Roman Church, the landlord. Some five hundred years later, the New England Colonies in America became a part of the Crown as a possession and trust named the “United States.”

ATTORNING, ppr. Acknowledging a new lord, or transferring homage and fealty to the purchaser of an estate.

Bar Attorneys have been attorning ever since they were founded at the Temple Church, by acknowledging that the Crown and he who holds the Crown is the new lord of the land.

CHARTER, n. 1. A written instrument, executed with usual forms, given as evidence of a grant, contract, or whatever is done between man and man. In its more usual sense, it is the instrument of a grant conferring powers, rights and privileges, either from a king or other sovereign power, or from a private person, as a charter of exemption, that no person shall be empanelled on a jury, a charter of pardon, &c. The charters under which most of the colonies in America were settled, were given by the king of England, and incorporated certain persons, with powers to hold the lands granted, to establish a government, and make laws for their own regulation. These were called charter-governments.

By agreeing to the Magna Carta, King John had broken the agreement terms of his fealty with Rome and the Pope.

The Pope and his Roman Church control the Crown Temple because his Knights established it under his Orders. He who controls the gold controls the world.

The Crown Temple Today

The workings of the Crown Temple in this day and age is moreso obvious, yet somewhat hidden. The Crown Templars have many names and many symbols to signify their private and unholy Temple. Take a close look at the (alleged) one dollar $1 private Federal Reserve System (a Crown banking franchise) Debt Note.

Notice in the base of the pyramid the Roman date MDCCLXXVI which is written in Roman numerals for the year 1776. The words ANNUIT COEPTIS NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM are Roman Latin for ANNOUNCING THE BIRTH OF THE NEW ORDER OF THE WORLD. Go back to the definitions above and pay particular attention to the words CAPITOL, CROWN and TEMPLE. 1776 signifies the birth of the New World Order under the Crown Temple. That’s when their American Crown Colonies became the chartered government called the United States, thanks to the Declaration of Independence. Since that date, the United Nations (another legal Crown Temple by charter) rose up and refers to every nation as a State member.

09-26-11, 11:36 AM
I miss Against the Grain Press ='(

Bear Eagle
09-26-11, 04:37 PM
I miss Against the Grain Press ='(

Is this where it came from? I received both the link and body in an email. Maybe another press needs to rise again.

09-26-11, 05:15 PM
Is this where it came from? I received both the link and body in an email. Maybe another press needs to rise again.

It is :).

ATGPress was awesome.
My two favorite authors on there were "The Informer" and James Montgomery.

James Montgomery is the original author of the US is still a British Colony.

You can probably find pieces of it on the WayBackMachine online.

"The Informer" was absolutely kung-fu :).

09-26-11, 08:20 PM
There is a court case that mentions that the United States (corp.) existed prior to the revolution of 1776. There was a reference to such online....but....*shrugs*

09-26-11, 09:26 PM
more of the informer:



Bear Eagle
09-26-11, 09:35 PM
more of the informer:



Thanks! :)

09-27-11, 01:21 AM
Note 1775 vs 1776. :)


Note 12 stars and 9 stripes visible.

09-27-11, 05:00 AM
I miss Against the Grain Press ='(
Me too.
That was one of my favorite websites while it lasted.

09-27-11, 02:43 PM
There is a court case that mentions that the United States (corp.) existed prior to the revolution of 1776. There was a reference to such online....but....*shrugs*

Respublica v. Sweers (http://supreme.justia.com/us/1/41/case.html) (1779)

US government being the body corporate, "We the People" is the body politic as well as an association.

09-27-11, 09:08 PM
That's the one. I have it on one of my archival harddrives waiting for a new home.

Your council have taken several exceptions to the form and substance of these indictments, upon a motion in arrest of judgment. The first exception was, 'that, at the time of the offence charged, the United States were not a body corporate known in law.' But the Court are of a different opinion. From the moment of their association, the United States necessarily became a body corporate; for, there was no superior from whom that character could otherwise be derived. In England, the king, lords, and commons, are certainly a body corporate; and yet there never was any charter or statute, by which they were expressly so created. (Respublica v. Sweers (1779))

Can you say "de facto corporation"--the thirteenth colony perhaps? The Articles of Association of 1774 would likely be the association being referred to.

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen states expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union. [Inaugural address of Abraham Lincoln, on taking Oath of Office as President of the United Statees, March 4, 1861. per Appletons' annual cyclopaedia and register of important events, Volume 1 (1864)]

There are other perspectives:

The essence of this argument is that the colonies formed a new nation in 1774 and any statement of their independence or the subsequent constitutions they entered into simply “matured” this new nation. The facts however do not support Lincoln’s fable. The Union, as it existed in Lincoln’s time, as well as today for that matter, began with the ratification of our current Constitution—not before.

While it is true the Articles of Association brought together twelve of the thirteen colonies (Georgia did not participate) for a common purpose, it did not form a new government, national or otherwise. This Association was nothing more than an agreement among the colonies, each acting on their own, to participate in a trade boycott against the British Empire.

Lincoln’s claim that the Articles of Association formed a Union is demonstrably false, since all one needs to do is refer to the language of the Articles themselves to see that this was not the case at all. To begin with, throughout this document, the colonies remained true to their allegiance to the British Crown, where for example, the preamble proclaims, “We, his majesty’s most loyal subjects.” It is also noteworthy that the frequently stated purpose of these Articles defined them as a, “…non-importation agreement….”

Even more significantly, consider what was missing from these Articles. For one, there was no expressed intent or specific language establishing a union or compact among the colonies with powers to perform any functions of a government. Furthermore, these colonies never delegated or surrender any power or authority to any other entity, governmental or otherwise.

Therefore, as far as the Articles of Association was concerned—the very foundation of Lincoln’s argument—there was nothing whatsoever supporting the idea that the colonies established any new central authority. Despite the premise of Lincoln’s argument being at odds with the facts, there are other ingredients of Lincoln’s so-called nation creating argument deserving further examination.(Source (http://secessionu.wordpress.com/2010/03/03/did-we-begin-as-one-nation-indivisible-in-1774/))

09-28-11, 01:39 PM
It helps to do some research on the treatment of corporations in Roman Civil, English Common, and American Law in addition to researching the terms body politic and body corporate.

Blackstone's Commentaries treatment of corporations is very informative.

The Law of Associations is the root of it all followed by Companies Law and finally, Corporate Law.

09-28-11, 01:46 PM
Let us also recall that colonies were private holdings of either the Crown or Parliament.

Colonies were established for purposes of commerce amongst other reasons.

09-29-11, 01:19 AM
Let us also recall that colonies were private holdings of either the Crown or Parliament.

Colonies were established for purposes of commerce amongst other reasons.

Not necessarily so. The charters might have been PRIVATE between the Crown and the other side of the coin, but they were not necessarily private holdings of the Crown exclusively. The Mayflower Compact, for example, the folks getting on the boat were taking the primary risk and the deal was AFAIK cut for them to have control with the Crown getting a kickback.

Might seem unrelated, Star Trek is rather telling. The ship is called "The Enterprise"... NCC stands for "Naval Construction Contract". Easy to get the gist.

http://www.freecomputerdesktopwallpaper.com/new_wallpaper/Star_Trek_USS_Enterprise_NCC_1701E_freecomputerdes ktopwallpaper_1280.jpg

Ya just gotta get it that there isn't much different between sending a spaceship halfway across a galaxy and sending a boat across an ocean jurisprudentially speaking. You get a construction contract, bid/performance/payment bonds, obligor, obligee, insurance/bottomory type issues might still apply.


Can you say "surety"? There is a reason vessels (even merchant marines) are militarized => oath of allegiance (i.e. contract) enforceable in ADMIRALTY. Do you just put $50 BN or whatever worth of machinery in someone's hands without some kind of guaranty or bond? Ah that is what admiralty is for. Admiralty is the only primary 'venue' for enforcing contracts across oceans. The Colonial Charters..Mayflower Compact or the like might conceivably ride on the original ship charters or agreements (ala East India Company).

09-29-11, 01:45 AM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Flag_of_the_British_East_India_Company_(1801).svg/800px-Flag_of_the_British_East_India_Company_(1801).svg. png
Flag of the East India Company.

III. Saving, that they having chosen a governor in chief, and prepared instructions for him, they shall be approved, and a commission given by us, And that further, such governor in chief, as well as other deputy governors, commanders, and officers, shall be held to take an oath of allegiance to us and also to the Company.

IV. And if the aforesaid Company in and of the aforesaid places shall be cheated under the appearance of friendship, or badly treated, or shall suffer loss in trusting their money or Goods, without having restitution, or receiving payment for them, they may use the best methods in their power, according to the situation of their affairs, to obtain satisfaction.

V. And if it should be necessary for the establishment, security and defence of this trade, to take any troops with them, we will, according to the constitution of this country, and the situation of affairs furnish the said Company with such troops, provided they be paid and supported by the Company.

VI. Which troops, besides the oath already taken to us and to his excellency, shall swear to obey the commands of the said Company, and to endeavour to promote their interest to the utmost of their ability.

Clearly was (and perhaps still is) a military organization.


http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51EJ5BWPMOL._SS500_.jpg (http://www.amazon.com/Military-Inc-Inside-Pakistans-Economy/dp/0745325459)

Military brand olive oil (http://thesocietypages.org/sociologylens/2011/02/21/military-brand-olive-oil-the-politics-behind-military-enterprise/), anyone? Keep in mind the British connection with Pakistan.

After relative stability emerged in the 1970s, and after the 1979 peace treaty with Israel, the military found themselves with many more young men in their ranks than they could keep occupied. So, they developed businesses to employ the former soldiers. The military gave private developers access to the land that served as coastal bases in exchange for shares in the resorts they built there. This was part of a deliberate strategy, developed under Nasser, to have a self-sufficient military. Some estimates put the military’s contribution to the Egyptian economy at 30-40 percent (other estimates claim a more modest 10 percent). A leaked diplomatic cable explained that Egyptian military-owned companies are “particularly active in the water, olive oil, cement, construction, hotel and gasoline industries.”

What are we gonna do with this military zone that is huge and in the most desirable part of the country and has extremely beautiful beaches, and some of the greatest … coral reefs in the world and was absolutely crying out for touristic development?

The answer: The military gave private developers access to the land, and the developers made military officers shareholders in big tourist developments.(Source (http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/02/10/133501837/why-egypts-military-cares-about-home-appliances))

Do you really figure that its all that different for the USA? Can you say ... Halliburton?

10-01-11, 12:48 AM
Rare downloads of "the Informer"!!!!


Get it while its hawt :).

10-01-11, 01:02 AM
More from the Informer !!!