And I was wondering why hunting down Washington, D.C. doings is like chasing the wind – – – – – why more than half the Congressmen in U.S. are millionaires, and they seem to be intent that while their own wealth is NOT from jobs, we must try to get OURs from jobs.
The real reason being, the debt will never get balanced anyhow, not with the interest.
From “Prisonplanet” forum, thread “Empire cities: Three Cities that Rule The World.”
It’s pretty darned important to figure out whether or not any legal basis exists for anything we (civilians) are trying to get done in the courts, wouldn’t it make sense?
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City-stateVatican City (A Sovereign City-State)
Main article: Vatican City
Until 1870, the city of Rome had been controlled by the pope as part of his “papal states”. When King Victor Emmanuel II annexed the city in 1870, Pope Pius IX refused to recognize the newly formed Kingdom of Italy. Because he could not travel through a place that he did not admit existed, Pius IX and his successors each claimed to be a “Prisoner in the Vatican”, unable to leave the 0.44 km² (0.17-square mile) papal enclave once they had ascended the papal thrones.
The impasse was resolved in 1929 by the Lateran Treaties negotiated by the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini between King Victor Emmanuel III and Pope Pius XI. Under this treaty, the Vatican was recognized as an independent state, with the pope as its head. The Vatican City State has its own citizenship, diplomatic corps, flag, and postal system[clarification needed]. With a population of less than 1,000, it is by far the smallest sovereign country in the world, and widely recognized internationally as such. “Macro History site”
Romania and Italy; discontent in Ireland; the Austro-Prussian War; Austria-Hungary and nationalism; Franco-Prussian War and German unification;
the Balkans and path toward Europe’s Great War of 1914; Germany seeks alliances
The Papacy Loses Rome and Latium
With the fall of Napoleon III in September 1870, the Pope lost the protection of French troops for his territory of Rome and Latium. On September 20, 1870, troops sent by Italy entered Rome. Pope Pius IX refused to accept Italy’s occupation of the city, and he withdrew to his palace at the Vatican and declared himself a prisoner. Italy annexed Rome on January 18, 1871, and King Victor Emmanuel saw the unification of Italy complete. Addressing Italy’s parliament he said:
The work to which we consecrated our life is accomplished. After long trials of expiation Italy is restored to herself and to Rome.
On May 13, Italy issued its Law of Guarantees, which left papacy with the Vatican and other palaces. On May 15, Pope Pius IX responded with an encyclical, stating:
When We were defeated by Our enemies in accordance with the mysterious design of God, We observed the severely bitter fortunes of Our City and the downfall of the civil rule of the Apostolic See in the face of military invasion …
We are suffering to be established and to thrive to the ruin of all authority and order. May God unite all rulers in agreement of mind and will. By removing all discord, claiming the disturbance of rebellions, and rejecting the ruinous counsels of the sects, may these rulers join in a common effort to have the rights of the Holy See restored. Then tranquility will once again be restored to civil society. [note]
City of London (A Non-Sovereign City-State)
See also: City of London Corporation
Although the City of London (a geographically small city within Greater London) is not commonly considered a city-state, it does have a unique political status (sui generis), a legacy of its uninterrupted integrity as a corporate city since the Anglo-Saxon period and its singular relationship with the Crown. Historically, its system of government was not unusual, but it was not reformed by the Municipal Reform Act 1835.
It is administered by the City of London Corporation, headed by the Lord Mayor of the City of London (not the same post as the more recent Mayor of London, who presides over Greater London). The City of London is a ceremonial county too, although instead of having its own Lord-Lieutenant, the City of London has a Commission, headed by the Lord Mayor, exercising this function.
(LGH insert here:::)
(hover, to see how many things are situated so close. “B” is the corporation….)
Washington, D.C. (A Non-Sovereign City-State)
Not being part of any U.S. state, Washington, D.C.’s government operates under authority derived from the U.S. federal government. The city (generally referred to as “the District) is run by an elected mayor and a city council. The council is composed of 13 members: one elected from each of the eight wards and five members, including the chairman, elected at large. The council conducts its work through standing committees and special committees established as needed. District schools are administered by a chancellor, who is appointed by the mayor; in addition, a superintendent of education and a board of education are responsible for setting some educational policies. There are 37 elected Advisory Neighborhood Commissioners that provide the most direct access for residents to their local government. The commissioners are elected by small neighborhood districts, and their suggestions are given “great weight” by the city council and city agencies. However, the U.S. Congress has the ultimate plenary power over the District. It has the right to review and overrule laws created locally and has often done so. The Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which grants to states all rights not belonging to the federal government, does not apply to the District. Residents of the District do not have voting representation in the U.S. Congress.
|
|
|
UNBELIEVABLE. People who live in washington, D.C. have NO congressional representatives and do not live in any of the 50 united states…
I keep telling women (and men) to think in terms of corporation & business / sales when they want legal reform. Looks like I should’ve been looking a little higher up myself. What comes to mind is — what kind of people have the time to unearth and post all this stuff? (childless singles without a social life? noncustodial parents? the independently OK, but not actually wealthy?)
Because if I were actually wealthy, I sure would have other things to be doing than posting this and looking it up — like travel! The United States public education system really is an insult to human intelligence. . .. (I’m a product of it, and so can say that….)
check out the boundary map
The City of London provides local government and policing services for the financial and commercial heart of Britain, the ‘Square Mile’. It is committed to supporting and promoting ‘The City’ as the world leader in international finance and business services through the policies it pursues and the high standard of services it provides. Its responsibilities extend far beyond the City boundaries in that it also provides a host of additional facilities for the benefit of the nation. These range from open spaces such as Epping Forest andHampstead Heath to the famous Barbican Arts Centre.
See our pages on our work to support and promote the City for more information.
The City of London combines its ancient traditions and ceremonial functions with the role of a modern and efficient local authority, looking after the needs of its residents, businesses and over 320,000 people who come to work in the ‘Square Mile’ every day. Among local authorities the City of London is unique; not only is it the oldest in the country but it operates on a non-party political basis through its Lord Mayor, Aldermen and members of the Court of Common Council. The Lord Mayor in particular plays an important diplomatic role with his overseas visits and functions at the historic Guildhall and Mansion House for visiting heads of State.
In addition to the usual services provided by a local authority such as housing, refuse collection, education, social services, environmental health and town planning, the City of London performs a number of very special functions. It runs its own police force and the nation’s Central Criminal Court, the Old Bailey. It provides five Thames bridges, runs thequarantine station at Heathrow Airport and is the Port Health Authority for the whole of the Thames tidal estuary. Three premier wholesale food markets ( Billingsgate, Spitalfields andSmithfield) which supply London and the South East with fresh produce also belong to the City of London. Many of these services are funded from the City of London’s own investments at no cost to the public.
The City of London is committed to an extensive programme of activities designed to assist its neighbours to combat social deprivation so that they can benefit from the wealth the ‘Square Mile’ generates. Staff and members of the City of London have, through centuries of careful stewardship, ensured that the ‘Square Mile’ has continued to thrive. Today’s City of London, through its philosophy of sustainable development, aims to share these benefits with future generations of residents, businesses and workers.
The City of London: a unique authority.
AND
The Lord Mayor of the City of London Alderman David Wootton
The City of London is one of the world’s leading international finance centres. As head of the City of London Corporation, which provides business and local government services to the City, the Lord Mayor of London’s principal role today is as ambassador for all UK-based financial and professional services.
The Lord Mayor’s role is separate from but complementary to that of the Mayor of (Greater) London.
Promoting UK-based financial and professional services
The Lord Mayor is elected on an annual basis for a one-year term in office. The position is unpaid and apolitical. The Lord Mayor spends some 90 days promoting the City abroad and also makes a number of business-focused visits to different parts of the UK. He addresses in the region of 10,000 people each month, making around 700 speeches a year. Read more about the Lord Mayor’s international business role and his overseas visit programme.
Miscellaneous other “abridged” documents:
From “An abridged history of Rome”
In 1869 Pope Pius IX called an ecumenical Council to obtain formal endorsement on a new dogma which proclaimed the Papal Infallibility (limited to theological matters): it was more than 300 years since the last council; notwithstanding the reservations of many participants the dogma was endorsed on July 18, 1870, but shortly afterwards the sessions of the council were interrupted, because on the day following the approval of the dogma Emperor Napoleon III declared war on Prussia; his army was soon defeated at Sedan and he was captured; on September 4, the Third Republic of France was declared. At this point Italy felt free to act and on September 20, Italian troops entered Rome through a breach in the walls near Porta Pia.
Drawings showing ceremonies in the last years of the Papal State.
Pope Pius IX emphasized the spectacular aspects of the ceremonies he attended, as if this compensated for the loss of a great part of his state: in June 1861 he attended the celebrations for St. Philip Neri by arriving in a new luxury carriage preceded by a cross bearer on a white mule in an almost medieval attire; the pope’s appearances at the lodge of S. Pietro were also grandiose; they were marked by a use of flabelli (feather fans) which other popes before him had regarded as outdated.
A statue was commissioned to celebrate the victory at Mentana and also arestoration of S. Paolo alle Tre Fontane was dedicated to that event; the pope commissioned a gigantic statue of St. Peter to be unveiled at the closure of the Council (it ended in the Vatican Gardens) ; many other churches were restored during his pontificate, …
INTERESTING: Look at this segment (scroll down below the photos of UN, etc. and analysis of symbolism in the Phoenix painting….). I am thinking about the timing: 1870 — Pope Pius IX becomes a prisoner in the Vatican palace, 1871 as Italy is Unified (but this palace, excepted), Washingon, D.C. is chartered. Pope doesn’t acknowledge Italy’s right to exist.
timing; Creation of Washington, D.C. is 1871:
The flag in Washington’s District of Columbia has 3 red stars, each symbolizing a city state within the three city empire. The three city empire consists of Washington D.C., London, and Vatican City. London is the corporate center of the three city states and controls the world economically. Washington’sDistrict of Columbia city state is in charge of the military, and theVatican offers spiritual guidance. The constitution of the district of Columbia operates under a tyrannical roman law known as lex fori, which in no way resembles the U.S. constitution.
When congress passed the act of 1871, it created a separate corporate government for the District of Columbia. This allowed the District of Columbia to operate as a corporation outside the constitution.
More, quick summaries. I’m interested in the 13th Amendment, the ‘TONA” (Titles of Nobility Amendment) which apparently was ratified and passed properly, and intended to prevent bribery and graft (according to one source I read, “Barefoot’s world, “Educate Yo’self” — see my other blog), but according to this account is somehow justifiying that America is still a crown colony, hence no titles of nobility. This was circa 1813. 100 years later . . . well, we know that story:
If you take a moment to study some signed treaties and charters between the United States and Britain, you will find that the United States has always been a British crowned Colony. In 1606, King James (yes, the King James who revised the bible) signed the charter of Virginia. The charter granted Americas British forefathers a license to settle and colonize America. The charter also guaranteed future kings and queens of England would have sovereign authority over all citizens and colonized land in America.
In 1783, the Paris peace treaty was signed. This treaty identifies the King of England as the prince of the United States contradicting the belief that America won the war of independence. And although King George III of England gave up most claims over his American colonies, he kept his right to continue receiving payments for his business ventures of colonizing America. If America won the war of independence, why would the agree to pay reparations to the king.
When the 13th amendment to the constitution was passed, the U.S. president was made subservient to the King of England. The 13th Amendment (the title of nobility amendment) forbids U.S. officials from using royal titles like king, or prince. For some strange reason though, the 13th amendment which was ratified in 1810 no longer appears in current copies of the U.S. constitution.
The war of independence against the British bankrupted America and turned its citizens into debt slaves of the king. In 1812, the British torched and burned the white house and all U.S. government buildings to the ground, destroying many ratification records of the U.S. constitution.
Then, nearly a century later, a corrupt U.S. congress committed the biggest theft in world history. They passed Paul Warburgs federal reserve act of 1913, handing over Americas gold and silver reserves (and total control of Americas economy) to the federal reserve bank. Most Americans still believe the FED is owned by the government, but it is not. The FED is a privately owned banking system whose majority class A shareholders include the Rothschild’s, Warburgs, J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller’s and the Lehman brothers.
Most U.S. citizens believe the United States is a country and the president is its leader, but the U.S. is not a country, it is a corporation, and the president is not our leader, he is the president of the corporation of the U.S. The president, along his elected officials work for the corporation, not for the American People.
So, who owns the giant U.S. corporation? Like Canada and Australia, whose leaders are prime ministers of the queen, and whose land is called crowned land, the U.S. is just another crowned colony. Crowned colonies are controlled by the empire of the three city states. Thus, the U.S. is controlled by the three city states.
RE: AFCC — I have always found it very interesting that the AFCC organization maintained such an interest in AUSTRALIA. Canada, I could understand, but Australia is halfway across the world — yet they are intrinsically so interesting in maintaining practices and ties with them. This answers that question.
I saw a recent article (or saw an article recently, it may have been back to 2006) where Alan Greenspan had been granted a Knighthood: Sir Alan. One can see why…
Just to be upfront, this is a religious site, “Extreme lifeChanger.”
I believe most information around has a religious basis anyhow. There’s not much neutral ground. That’s another deceit. “Ya’ gotta serve someone…”
In 1929 (AFTER Federal Reserve and income tax), Mussolini negotiates a truce between King Victor Emmanuel III (the II had conquered Rome) and Pius XI (IX had been trapped inside the palace) by recognizing the Vatican as a sovereign state, the smallest in the world.
What are the three city states and do they rule the world? In this article, I will try to answer some of these questions using history and symbolism. Let’s begin.
The flag in Washington’sDistrict of Columbia has 3 red stars, each symbolizing a city state within the three city empire. The three city empire consists of Washington D.C., London, and Vatican City. London is the corporate center of the three city states and controls the world economically. Washington’sDistrict of Columbia city state is in charge of the military, and theVatican offers spiritual guidance. The constitution of the district of Columbia operates under a tyrannical roman law known as lex fori, which in no way resembles the U.S. constitution.
When congress passed the act of 1871, it created a separate corporate government for the District of Columbia. This allowed the District of Columbiato operate as a corporation outside the constitution.
If you take a moment to study some signed treaties and charters between the United States and Britain, you will find that the United States has always been a British crowned Colony. In 1606, King James (yes, the King James who revised the bible) signed the charter of Virginia. The charter granted Americas British forefathers a license to settle and colonize America. The charter also guaranteed future kings and queens of England would have sovereign authority over all citizens and colonized land in America.
In 1783, the Paris peace treaty was signed. This treaty identifies the King of England as the prince of the United States contradicting the belief that America won the war of independence. And although King George III of England gave up most claims over his American colonies, he kept his right to continue receiving payments for his business ventures of colonizing America. If America won the war of independence, why would the agree to pay reparations to the king.
When the 13th amendment to the constitution was passed, the U.S. president was made subservient to the King of England. The 13th Amendment (the title of nobility amendment) forbids U.S. officials from using royal titles like king, or prince. For some strange reason though, the 13th amendment which was ratified in 1810 no longer appears in current copies of the U.S. constitution.
The war of independence against the British bankrupted America and turned its citizens into debt slaves of the king. In 1812, the British torched and burned the white house and all U.S. government buildings to the ground, destroying many ratification records of the U.S. constitution.
Then, nearly a century later, a corrupt U.S. congress committed the biggest theft in world history. They passed Paul Warburgs federal reserve act of 1913, handing over Americas gold and silver reserves (and total control of Americas economy) to the federal reserve bank. Most Americans still believe the FED is owned by the government, but it is not. The FED is a privately owned banking system whose majority class A shareholders include the Rothschild’s, Warburgs, J.P. Morgan, the Rockefeller’s and the Lehman brothers.
Most U.S. citizens believe the United States is a country and the president is its leader, but the U.S. is not a country, it is a corporation, and the president is not our leader, he is the president of the corporation of the U.S. The president, along his elected officials work for the corporation, not for the American People.
So, who owns the giant U.S. corporation? Like Canada and Australia, whose leaders are prime ministers of the queen, and whose land is called crowned land, the U.S. is just another crowned colony. Crowned colonies are controlled by the empire of the three city states. Thus, the U.S. is controlled by the three city states.
This making sense to me, here is some of the 1783 Paris Peace Treaty. I’m sure I”m not the only reader of this blog who is less than historically savvy:
Finally, in February of 1783 George III issued his Proclamation of Cessation of Hostilities, culminating in the Peace Treaty of 1783. Signed in Paris on September 3, 1783, the agreement — also known as the Paris Peace Treaty — formally ended the United States War for Independence.
Representing the United States were John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and John Jay, all of whom signed the treaty.
In addition to giving formal recognition to the U.S., the nine articles that embodied the treaty: established U.S. boundaries, specified certain fishing rights, allowed creditors of each country to be paid by citizens of the other, restored the rights and property of Loyalists, opened up the Mississippi River to citizens of both nations and provided for evacuation of all British forces.
From “earlyamerica.com”
Note this part of the text:
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.
Article 5:
It is agreed that Congress shall earnestly recommend it to the legislatures of the respective states to provide for the restitution of all estates, rights, and properties, which have been confiscated belonging to real British subjects; and also of the estates, rights, and properties of persons resident in districts in the possession on his Majesty’s arms and who have not borne arms against the said United States.
All prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Brittanic Majesty shall with all convenient speed, and without causing any destruction, or carrying away any Negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, withdraw all his armies, garrisons, and fleets from the said United States, and from every post, place, and harbor within the same; leaving in all fortifications, the American artilery that may be therein; and shall also order and cause all archives, records, deeds, and papers belonging to any of the said states, or their citizens, which in the course of the war may have fallen into the hands of his officers, to be forthwith restored and delivered to the proper states and persons to whom they belong.
Article 8:
The navigation of the river Mississippi, from its source to the ocean, shall forever remain free and open to the subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States. . . .
Done at Paris, this third day of September in the year of our Lord, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-three.
D. HARTLEY (SEAL) JOHN ADAMS (SEAL) B. FRANKLIN (SEAL) JOHN JAY (SEAL)
At theUniv. of Oklahoma College of Law, the opening paragraphs read:
The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783
In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
Interesting. Notably NOT “in the name of Jesus Christ.” So, how much power & pull does that name hold, nowadays? Hate to be a reluctant messenger, but . . . . Perhaps this (paganism) may explain why so much of America and our current government is based on forced domination based on a closed-committee (triangular) leadership elite. . . . ???
It having pleased the Divine Providence {{not the defeat of the British at Yorktown}} to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America, to forget all past misunderstandings and differences that have unhappily interrupted the good correspondence and friendship which they mutually wish to restore, and to establish such a beneficial and satisfactory intercourse , between the two countries upon the ground of reciprocal advantages and mutual convenience as may promote and secure to both perpetual peace and harmony; and having for this desirable end already laid the foundation of peace and reconciliation by the Provisional Articles signed at Paris on the 30th of November 1782
They do seem restored at this point:
2012, USA, UK, (probably re: Afghanistan)
U.S. President Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron reaffirmed the “special relationship” between their countries with a glittering state dinner Wednesday night at the White House.
More than 300 guests looked on as the two leaders praised their personal and diplomatic relationship in a separate toasts. Mr. Obama, quoting the late Winston Churchill, spoke of the “great purpose and design of our alliance,” while the British leader saluted the American president as “an ally, a partner and a friend.”
“It was December 1941, the attack on Pearl Harbor had finally thrust America into war, alongside our British friends. These were the words Sir Winston spoke to his new American partners — I will say that he must indeed have a blind soul who cannot see that some great purpose and design is being worked out here below of which we have the honor to be the faithful servants. So I’d like to propose a toast: to Her Majesty the Queen on her Diamond Jubilee, to our dear friends David and Samantha, to the great purpose and design of our alliance, may we remain, now and always, His faithful servants. Cheers everyone.” ((HIS meaning whose — God’s?))
“Barack, it is an honor to call you an ally, a partner and a friend. You don’t get to choose the circumstances you have to deal with as a president or a prime minister. And, you don’t get to choose the leaders that you have to work with, but all I can say is that it is a pleasure to work with someone with moral strength, with clear reason and with fundamental decency in this task of renewing our great national alliance for today and for generations to come. And, with that, I propose a toast, to the president, to the first lady, and to the people of the United States of America…cheers!”
Although one British reporter seems less sure (Timothy Stanley, special to CNN, today):
Perhaps the “special relationship” between the United States and Britain could only last as long as Britain was a military power worth allying with and America had a president who was a big fan of the queen. But in a more complex, cash-strapped world we are destined to drift apart. Increasingly, the only thing we have in common is a mutual distrust of the French.
Washington, D.C. flag; history below:
(http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blbushpope.htm, above right)
David Cameron, the Prime Minsiter and his wife were the guests of honour at the biggest party ever hosted by President Obama and his wife at the White House in Washington.Picture: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
THE FLAG OF WASHINGTON D.C.:
(Encyclopedia Brittanica article)
U.S. federal district flag consisting of a white field with two horizontal red stripes and three red stars above the stripes. The flag’s width-to-length ratio is 1 to 2.
Following World War I (1914–18), a number of designs were advanced for a flag for the
District of Columbia. Among those submitted in February 1924 to the Evening Star newspaper was a white flag bearing two red horizontal stripes and three blue five-pointed stars. The designer, Charles Dunn, based his design on the personal coat of arms of George Washington, which was similar but had red rowels (sharp-pointed disks at the ends of spurs) instead of blue stars. The Washington family arms date to 16th-century Sulgrave, England, but the intended symbolism of the design and colours is unknown.
A special flag commission was established by act of the U.S. Congress in 1938. It considered a version of the Dunn flag (with red stars instead of blue) and another flag with a more complex design submitted by the Daughters of the American Revolution, before choosing the “Washington arms” flag. First flown on October 23, 1938, its usage did not become widespread for another 20 years. It has been suggested that the stars symbolize the three commissioners who once ran the District, or that the Washington family arms were the inspiration for the original U.S. Stars and Stripes; neither assertion has any historical substantiation.
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=6
The American War for Independence (1775-83) was actually a world conflict, involving not only the United States and Great Britain but also France, Spain, and the Netherlands. The peace process brought a vaguely formed, newly born United States into the arena of international diplomacy, playing against the largest, most sophisticated, and most established powers on earth.
The three American negotiators, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay, proved themselves to be masters of the game, outmaneuvering their counterparts and clinging fiercely to the points of national interest that guaranteed a future for the United States. Two crucial provisions of the treaty were British recognition of U.S. independence and the delineation of boundaries that would allow for American western expansion.
The treaty is named for the city in which it was negotiated and signed. The last page bears the signatures of David Hartley, who represented Great Britain, and the three American negotiators, who signed their names in alphabetical order.
In case you wonder why all these “gleanings” recently (more, below), even potentially embarrassing ones:
Perhaps I’ve just lived long enough to see accelerating degeneration of government (specifically) and of increasing networks what I can only call “evil,” including apathy to the disasters of others. Calling evil / wrong / immoral etc. something different than what its fruit is (destruction to others, sometimes the individual perpetrating it too) simply makes no sense. Is it catching, from the environment, unless one has an internal (spiritual, if you will) different ethos?
I have dealt over 20 years with significant hardships that simply didn’t need to exist, except for this mania to control others manipulatively, and the ability to charm or accumulate people of similar mentality who are great “haters.” Heading towards the home stretch, one wants to make a good run of it, with focus.
If we are simply deluding ourselves about even the LEGAL rights (i.e., what the US Constitution does and doesn’t signify to us) — and if, as these 3 cities are saying — the district that rules our country is one of them, making everyone in here (citizens, residents working here), simply a debtor to some “crown” — then that’s simply how it is, and has to be dealt with. I’d like to know now, because this is getting tiresome! Raging about rights, then, makes no sense.
We KNOW US history began with slavery and genocides, and categorizing XYZ personnel as sub-human, extracting labor from them, and so forth. That’s who really built America. I did not grow up “enslaved” in any sense I was aware of, and didn’t know anything about “enslavement” and being financially pimped til I married, at which point it became pretty obvious.
I have increasingly felt (past few years of research, looking up those corporations that cheated my family out of justice, for profit to them), that the problem the US didn’t solve yet was how to have a viable constitution, but an economy without slavery and exploitation. I’m not the only person wondering about this (see Susan George: How the other half dies”)
Notice the death’s of non Masonic presidents or those who lost favor, and the shuffling of the vice presidents to get them in the position of takeover before the presidents were killed or removed. Note also the number of presidential running mates who lost the race for presidency were Masons also. A win win situation regardless of the outcome of the election. The Mason’s have controlled this country from the beginning. Another interesting fact to consider is that of the 37 Presidents of the United States before Jimmy Carter, at least 18 or 21 (depending on which source you believe) were close relatives. That comes to somewhere between 48.6 percent and 56.7 percent-far to much to be coincidence, as any conspiritologist (or mathematician) would tell you. Of the 224 ancestors in the family tree of 21 Presidents, we find 13 Roosevelt’s, 16 Coolidge’s, and 14 Tyler’s. Another source manages to relate 60 percent of the Presidents and link most of them to the super-rich Astor family. This data does not include genealogies of the five most recent President. Psychologist G. William Domhoff claims that a large part of America’s Ruling elite, just like that of Europe, are related by marriage. (Everything is Under Control. Conspiracies, Cults, and Cover-Ups by Robert Anton Wilson pg 39-40)
(I ran across, probably posted, before):
(note: doesn’t buy “conspiracy theories” takes sociological point of view).
The (other) writer goes on to list Masons, etc.
The United States is still a British Colony
http://www.civil-liberties.com/books/colony2.html
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.. . .
Further on down:
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.”
This document (in several parts) was compiled, it says, August 17, 1996, reviewing documents and charters. I need to thank whoever did it. HOw apt that 1996 marked the beginning of an even larger systems of grants, and favoritism, extorted from the US population and granted to cronies, not including that which has been laundered — and we have gotten USED to this by degrees. Commonly called “TANF” “Block grants to the states.”
GRANTS? where did the money come from, then? Because the office distributing it is located in Washington, D.C., one of those 3 cities.
That’s right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. I say had, because our status is far worse now than then. I’ll explain.
Early on in our history the king was satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government, in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you never asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
You know when I learned about that 13th Amendment? After a few college degrees and several decades of professional work, raising children, and going through these AWFUL courts — make that LAST WEEK. There comes a point one wants honest, logical answers, and keeps going until they turn up.
And “barefoot’s world” documents (and all posted up there to see) were an embarrassment to me, I had not read this much. Who does? We get our high school diploma, or GED, and then go to work “for the man” (profit or nonprofit, not much difference). NO one talks too much about doing a different plan — but look at who’s running this place. Just about ONLY people who do a completely different plan (talking about income).
That 13th amendment was intended to prevent graft, bribery, fraud and treason.
A “TO THE CONTRARY” site I found:
1) What is this “Missing Thirteenth Amendment” I’ve heard about on the ‘net?
Nothing you should be concerned about. It’s one of the most ludicrous ideas extremists have ever put forward, probably hoping that no one would actually research the subject and expose their lies. But to understand what follows, you should probably take a look for yourself at David Dodge’s essay The Missing Thirteenth Amendment. Another source for this document is via the so-called Rule of Law Committee. Other sites may be out there; check via a search engine such as Yahoo.
2) Was there actually a Thirteenth Amendment that did not become part of the Constitution?
Yes. In January 1810, Republican (the ancestors of the modern Democrats) Senator Philip Reed introduced an amendment that, after twice being considered by a committee, was approved by the Senate by a vote of 19 to 5 on April 26, 1810. The House then on May 1, 1810 approved the amendment by a vote of 87 to 3. (See Conklin at 123) As approved, the text was as follows:
If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall, without the consent of Congress accept and retain any present, pension, office or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them.
3) Why was it proposed?
. . .There is not a shread of evidence to support the extremist theory that the amendment was part of an international banking/legal conspiracy, as claimed by extremists. . . .
5) Why do a handful of extremists claim that it became part of the Constitution?
Because they think that, as part of the Constitution, the amendment would prohibit lawyers from holding public office. They’re wrong (see below).
Their argument is based upon the “discovery” that Virginia ratified the amendment because it was included as part of the Constitution in a book of state laws published as of March 12, 1819, as well as that various other state and federal publications over the following fifty or so years included the amendment as part of the Constitution. This claim is specious for several reasons.
a) Confusion about whether amendments had become part of the Constitution
In the late 18th and 19th century there was frequent confusion about whether amendments had become part of the Constitution. “At that time no legal procedure existed to control the communication of action by States to the Federal Government…. Uncertainty as to the status of this proposal continued for eight years.” The problems presented by this amendment led to a law enacted on April 20, 1818, specifying a process for ascertaining ratifications, today codified as 1 U.S.C. sec 106b. (See Virginia Commission at 65-66)
Indeed, this amendment was not the only one of its era about which there was ratification confusion. The Eleventh Amendment became effective on February 7, 1795, but was not officially acknowledged as being in effect until January 8, 1798. (See Virginia Commission) There are further examples of confusion, such as about the two amendments submitted with the Bill of Rights that were not ratified (at that time). (SeeKammen)
The “daily beast” (7/27/2010) clocks in on why there’s a move to restore this amendment now, and (this part) perhaps why it was passed…
Jerome Bonaparte, the younger brother of Napoleon, had recently spent several years in the United States, where he married Elizabeth Patterson, the beautiful, ambitious daughter of a wealthy Baltimore merchant. In 1810, Jerome was on the throne of Westphalia, while Elizabeth was in America with their son, Jerome Napoleon. (The couple would never see each other again.) According to historian Michael Vorenberg of Brown University, having a nephew of the emperor of France growing up on American soil might have made the pro-British Federalists uneasy, or, just as likely, suggested to them a way to tie the Republicans to the French Legion of Honor, the Trilateral Commission of its day. Desiring to get out in front of the issue—or possibly seeking to score points against the Federalists, who had their own embarrassing ties to the British aristocracy—Republican Sen. Philip Reed of Maryland introduced an amendment meant to strengthen the existing “emoluments clause” in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution.
Reed’s bill passed both houses easily, and as of Dec. 9, 1812, had been ratified by 12 states and seemed headed for adoption, at which point war intervened. Here, histories diverge. . .The mainstream view is that the “Titles of Nobility Amendment” (TONA) never achieved the necessary 13 ratifications—three quarters of the 17 states as of 1810—and fell further behind as more states joined the union. That ought to have been the end of it, says Jol A. Silversmith, a lawyer in private practice who has written the definitive account of the “missing amendment.” And so it was until the 1980s, when a conspiracy-minded researcher named David Dodge came across an 1825 copy of the Constitution including this provision. Further research led Dodge to concludethat TONA had been ratified by Virginia no later than 1819 and was an accepted, if largely unnoted, part of the Constitution from then until its mysterious disappearance around the time of the Civil War.
And, from “house.gov” (no mention of this Article XIII), but about proposed, not-ratified amendments. Note: the last one (1978) was to make washington, D.C. a State:
During the course of our history, in addition to the 27 amendments that have been ratified by the required three-fourths of the States, six other amendments have been submitted to the States but have not been ratified by them.
Beginning with the proposed Eighteenth Amendment, Congress has customarily included a provision requiring ratification within seven years from the time of the submission to the States. The Supreme Court in Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939), declared that the question of the reasonableness of the time within which a sufficient number of States must act is a political question to be determined by the Congress.
In 1789, twelve proposed articles of amendment were submitted to the States. Of these, Articles III through XII were ratified and became the first ten amendments to the Constitution, popularly known as the Bill of Rights. In 1992, proposed Article II was ratified and became the 27th amendment to the Constitution
AND, from “Barefoot’s World” (where I first heard of it)
Really, the whole page should be read for more context. Again, he notes the war intervened:
Here is the beginning of theories for the conspiracy-minded. As Senator Byrd writes, the War did not settle the issues that led directly to the fighting:
So, it is evident that this Amendment was born during a period of great controversy: Thomas Jefferson was continually frustrated with John Marshall and the Supreme Court. Then, his loyalist Senator Giles was agitating for war with Britain, and confounding Madison. Despite the turmoil of these times, the measure was only short by one State at the end of 1812, and by mid-1814 the count was 12 for and 3 against. That is a fairly rapid course of ratification votes, considering the slower communications of the era.
It is extremely important to note that the British Army took great pains, after defeating the American forces at Bladensburg, to burn the key federal buildings. The Library of Congress was torched — having no military value — and the incomplete buildings of the House were burnt, resulting in the loss of all its records. The British regulars paid special attention the Supreme Court, which proved difficult to fire and required additional stacks of wood and papers. The records of the Senate, however, were mostly saved.
“The War of 1812 ended with great irony. The Treaty of Ghent, concluding the war, was signed on Christmas Eve of 1814. The peace treaty made no reference to the issues of impressment of American seamen, naval blockades, or the disputed boundary with Canada, which had caused the war in the first place. It merely restored conditions to the way they had been before the war broke out.”
“Within a few years, the Federalist party would be but a memory, and all members of Congress would identify themselves as Republicans. But these Republicans had been sobered by the difficult war …. They now turned to passing nationalist legislation dealing with a national bank, protective tariffs, direct taxation, and internal improvements. All of these measures were far more Hamiltonian than Jeffersonian in nature.”
“To take one of these as a case study: That the Republican majority would charter the Second Bank of the United States during the administration of James Madison is quite amazing when one considers that the Jeffersonian Republicans had bitterly fought against Hamilton’s original bank in the 1790’s, and that Madison himself had led the fight against the bank while a member of the House. The charter for the first bank had expired in 1811. At that time, Senator William H. Crawford had led the administration forces in an effort to renew the charter, while William Branch Giles led the ‘Old Republicans’ determined to defeat the bank. Giles and others saw in the bank the last vestiges of federalism, as well as an unconstitutional institution.”
“Again in his message to the Fourteenth Congress in December 1815, Madison revived the issue of a national bank. In the House, the measure was supported by three remarkable young men, Henry Clay, John C. Calhoun and Daniel Webster, who … would shape American political life over the next thirty years“.
BACK TO OUR OTHER AUTHOR (USA is a CROWN COLONY, ETC.) . . .
The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of nobility or honor.
The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815.
From Barefoot’s world (again):
As David Dodge, one of the principal researchers working on this issue has written:
“Their survival at stake, the monarchies sought to destroy or subvert the American system of government. Knowing they couldn’t destroy us militarily, they resorted to more covert methods of political subversion, employing spies and secret agents skilled in bribery and legal deception — it was, perhaps, the first ‘cold war’. Since governments run on money, politicians run for money, and money is the usual enticement to commit treason, much of the monarchy’s counter-revolutionary efforts emanated from English banks.”
And what has seldom been discussed, in the Twentieth Century, is the long association of profitability in banking, with the Asiatic opium trade. That is not the specific subject of this essay, but it can never be far from the gist of the matter: Britain, India and opium means profits, and conflicts with China. In this era, the new markets opening to the shipping interests of the United States were in China and Asia.
Finally, re: Inns of Court (from Tulanelink.com)
The Inns and Outs of Court
Receptions, Retreats, and Exclusive Meetings Provide Opportunities for Privileged Attorneys to Discuss the Business of Litigation with Judges
. . . The special case above is indicative of an even more pervasive mechanism that lawyers from the wealthiest law firms employ to influence judges. The process entails meetings that are designed to bring lawyers and judges together under “social” conditions and conducted under the guise of collegial exchanges. Such gatherings include, but are not limited to, private receptions for judges and the Inns of Court, from which many independent attorneys (the “Outs”) and the public are ordinarily excluded.
Wealthy individuals and institutions are more likely to be represented by large law firms that are costly to retain. It is no secret that such well-heeled organizations are also able to create access to judges by holding social and semi-social events where they can become better acquainted and share information in an atmosphere of cozy informality.
American Inns of Court
National and regional bar associations, and numerous other organizations that represent legal subspecialties, conduct activities for their members that include conventions, educational seminars, open forums, and semi-private retreats. Less well-known, and more exclusive, are groups such as the Inns of Court, whose objectives are more narrowly focused. Judges are integrated into the activities of all these organizations.
There are 14 American Inns of Court in Louisiana (twice the national average), and three in New Orleans [2] . . .ccording to published descriptions [2], each Inn of Court has an exclusive membership limited to 80. Attendance is by invitation only, and membership is by nomination. Information about the activities of the New Orleans Bar Association’s Inn of Court appears to be privileged as details on its Web site about its operation is protected by secret password [3]. Information about the Tulane and Loyola Inns of Court is somewhat more available because of the willingness of their program officers to discuss them.
The Inns of Court organization describes itself as an “amalgam” of judges, lawyers, law professors, and students who meet monthly to “break bread” and have “conversations about the practice of law.” [2] Small “teams” are encouraged to meet informally outside of monthly meetings. Its high priests, known as “Masters of the Bench,” are comprised of judges, senior lawyers, and law professors. Other members, in decreasing order of rank, are known as “Barristers, Associates, and Pupils,” respectively, following the British tradition.
The Inns of Court are primarily supported by the dues of its professional members. Student attendees are selected by the deans of the respective law schools. . . . Its motto, “Reclaiming a Noble Profession,” is not clarified with respect to from what or whom the “noble profession” is to be reclaimed. However, the subtext of the organization’s promotional materials suggests a dissatisfaction with liberal judges and zealous plaintiff’s attorneys and a desire for a more orderly system of jurisprudence, perhaps controlled by an elite consortium of judges and lawyers who hammer out amongst themselves what would comprise justice in each case.
The exclusionary fee structure of its dues helps define the economic status of Inn members and contributes to the establishment of a legal aristocracy in which the meeting of minds between judges and attorneys can have a profound effect on the outcome of any proceeding, to the prejudice of an opposing side. This impact of political influence on judicial outcome is not lost on savvy lawyers whose purchase into the system is part of the cost of winning their cases. The fact that this practice goes against the grain of democratic fairness and would change the ending of the Pledge of Allegiance to “…with liberty and justice for some,” illustrates the contempt of these Lords of the Law for the very ideals they hide behind.
We have become accustomed to think of the word “court” as something associated with justice, and where we go to get a fair hearing, even knowing that this doesn’t happen. The origins of the word “court” are from two places, that I can see:
COURT, as in royalty. Hence “courtiers,” or (seems related!) “courtesans.” (highly qualified prostitutes….respected for their trade)
and/or (maybe not so familiar in our more casual country):
COURT, as in approach to a place of worship. Enter into his gates with thanksgiving and into his courts with praise. The “courts” of the temple were divided, obviously, based on who you were. The “chambers” of the judge, cf. inner sanctum of the temple, etc. . . . . .
Whatever view those approaching the bench have, we can see where the tradition comes from.
Take some time, if possible (hey — it’s your life, not mine!) to consider the point raised in that Treaty of 1783 negotiated by 3 Americans with the title “Esq.” meaning, essentially, they were nonlaborers by designation (even though we know what they labored at) in the eyes of the King. Consider, then the war of 1812 and the targeting of certain houses (Supreme Court) which were torched, around the time of this 13th amendment forbidding titles of nobility.
Yes, Alan Greenspan (after retiring from teh Federal Reserve) did indeed get a knighthood and is now advising the crown.
Knighthood for Fed’s Greenspan
September 26, 2002
U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has received an honorary knighthood from Britain’s Queen Elizabeth II.
The honour, recommended by the UK Foreign Office and approved by the Queen in August, is in recognition of Greenspan’s “contribution to global economic stability.”
Greenspan, 76, has been dubbed the second most powerful man in America and has steered the country’s economy through four presidencies.
This was in 2002 (during Bush, Jr. presidency):
Wednesday, 7 August, 2002, 06:57 GMT 07:57 UK (BBC news, under “business”
Alan Greenspan to be knighted
Mr Greenspan can now use KBE after his name [Knight of the British Empire, presumably]
The UK is to award Alan Greenspan, chairman of the US Federal Reserve, an honorary knighthood.The honour, which was approved by the Queen, is to recognise Mr Greenspan’s “contribution to global economic stability”, the UK Treasury said. Mr Greenspan, who makes crucial decisions about raising or cutting US interest rates, will receive the award when he next visits the UK, possibly in the early autumn.
IF the 13th Amendment had been passed (an Article of the Constitution forbids Congress to grant title of nobility), he’d automatically lose US citizenship. This wouldn’t have troubled him too much, I imagine, but it would’ve been a good message to the rest of us:
Greenspan, the Queen and the Fed Blundered
“It is an honour shared by former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, former U.S. President George Bush, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, entertainer Bob Hope and U.S. Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf.”
The reTorying of the United States has occured without any serious discussion by the media, with the singular serious challenge appearing in the British Broadcasting Corporation article on Tuesday, 12 March, 2002, 18:26 GMT.
There had been some chatter in the US media about the legality of knighting Rudolph Giuliani.The BBC article proved that it was a legal action, per the US Constitution.
The true value of this article was not apparent until September 26, 2002. This article clearly defined the conditions a US citizen must meet to be knighted!
The knighting of Giuliani was legitimate, but the knighting of Alan Greenspan was a different kettle of fish.
This is not mere hairsplitting, because we are discussing the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System of the USA. Then there is all that disinformation, and intrigue, that surrounds the Federal Reserve. The act of knighting Alan Greenspan forces the issue into scrutiny.
The mainstream media, and many internet journalists, continue to assert that the Federal Reserve is a government agency. Their position is untenable since the knighting of Greenspan!
The Constitution of the USA is very clear on the issue of ctizens receive foreign titles, gifts, and renumeration!
“The Articles of Confederation, Article VI states: “nor shall the united States in Congress assembled, or any of them, grant any Title of nobility.”
The Constitution for the united States, in Article, I Section 9, clause 8 states: “No Title of nobility shall be granted by the united States; and no Person holding any Office or Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”“
The reason for this absolute prohibition is expounded upon by Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 84, 575–81
“Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility. This may truly be denominated the corner stone of republican government; for so long as they are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.”
The American intolerance of foreign titles is best espressed by the THE “MISSING THIRTEENTH AMENDMENT” (etc.)
A UK site started an Epetition to strip him of the knighthood, saying he was responsible for 2008 global meltdown. it was closed down for technical reasons. At top of the page it reads “HM Government…”
Here’s a lively (2012) discussion of why Greenspan — as well as the former President of the Royal Bank of Scotland, and for similar reasons — should be stripped of his knighthood.
AND another:
Sam Ro|February 09, 2012|
Last month, we learned that RBS CEO Fred Goodwin would be stripped of his knighthood, something that usually happens to spies and dictators.
Goodwin, who earned his knighthood for his banking accomplishments, has led a bank that has been forced to take huge bailouts from the government, much to the public’s disliking.
Outspoken SocGen strategist Albert Edwards is wondering why the UK should stop there. He notes that there are plenty of folks who earned their knighthoods for theirfinancial accomplishments who subsequently led countries and institutions right into the financial crisis. From Edwards’ latest Global Strategy note (h/t FT Alphaville):
WELL, enough — right? Except this minor blurb from Philadelphia // American Inns of Court. INteresting topic and participants in the debate, eh?
http://www.innsofcourt.org/
The Temple American Inn of Court of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in conjunction with members of The Honourable Society of Gray’s Inn of London, England, recently presented a debate on “This House Believes the Declaration of Independence was an Illegal Document” at the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia as part of the Temple Inn’s 20th Anniversary celebration. The summary below was provided by the BBC.
Click here to see a summary of the event.
I’ll post it separately….
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
