[Diggers350] another legal aspect of land concepts

[Lilia Patterson]

Dear Mr Zouk. 
Thanks for the information. 
How can the 'crown' of England belong to the vatican if the whole point of Henry VIII dividing from the vatican was all about creating his own independent 'country/institution'. 
Also - what you stated about 'birth certificates' doesn't make that much sense - so can you clarify what you are talking about?
Also if you are talking about the Vatican owning everything - would you accept that this would go back to the Byzantine Empirical period, when the 'Christian church' was essentially a way of collecting taxes from the Empire, and replaced other pre-existing 'temple' systems - but how the instititutionalisation of 'Eunuch/castrati/ priests who were not allowed to have families' was yet another way to accumulate the wealth of the empire with those that served the church prevented from having families in order to accumulate the wealth within the 'temple/church' establishment in order to continue to provide service for whoever were at the top - i.e. Emperors who would use the financial services of the temple/church establishment for their own benefit but who would not be associated with the temple itself. 

This all goes back to the fact that the 'temple' of the pre-existing Phoenician system (of which the Templars/Masons all feed off for their inspiration) that Solomon and his ancestors copied (the temple of Solomon was constructed by Phoenicians whose land Solomon temporarily occupied - in the same style as other pre-existing Phoenician temples that were spread throughout the Phoenician / Punic territories) - operated 2 systems. One was to operate as a 'court' with judges (historically known as Sanhedrin in Judean times) - i.e. the 'Temple Bar' would come from this system - and the 2nd was for the 'king' to act as a 'son of God' in the same form as the 'Pharaoh' (the system of Solomon also drew from the Egyptian influences since all of the 'Hebrew' prayers and systems were borrowed from the source of the Egyptian AmonRa tradition with the 'pharaoh as the son of god (i.e. beloved of god and intercessor between god and his people), in order to bless his people. This would be seen today in the way in which various 'kings/queens' are meant to intercede on behalf of their people to pray to 'god' as head of the church or state (i.e. this is why the Queen continues to be the head of the church of England). 
Part of the reason that the Romans crucified Jesus and expelled those of his family - was precisely in order to split the 2 roles, since Jesus was said to be of the line of Solomon and David, through his father Joseph which is stated in the geneology of Jesus in the original Aramaic texts. The Romans and Greeks during the Byzantine period instead mythologised Jesus, and attributed non-sexual attributes and transposed their system of using 'Eunuchs/castrated priests servants' onto the 'new temple/church system' instead - in order to essentially 'end' any claims of the 'priesthood' which essentially originally would have been the 'king/son of god' and his aristrocracy who would both 'serve god and the people' within the 'temple' that was originally unified between both 'spiritual and also material concerns'. 
This system was essentially split during the Byzantine period. 
So I would guess that this is why the Vatican would tend to stem from this Byzantine institution that was set up originally to overthrow the pre-existing Judean systems that were essentially rooted in the Phoenician systems. 

Please note that when 'Mohamed' and the 'muslims' took over and threw out the Byzantine colonisers of the region of what is now Palestine - they gave the land back to 'God' and the land titles of the Islamic Waqf of the region under Islamic land laws are for the land to belong to 'God' and to the Palestinian people. 

Please note also that the ancestors of 'Mohamed' and the people of Saudi Arabia, are of Nabatean descent and that the Nabateans were also present in what is now known as 'Palestine/Israel' and that the Nabatean beliefs overlapped with those of the Assyrian and Babylonian empirical structures from where the 'Phoenician' systems originally came. 
It is also likely that the line of Solomon and David (and therefore also 'Jesus') were of foreign Caucasian descent and were descended from nomadic horse-back riders who came from beyond the Syrian Empire who briefly conquered Egypt, until they were expelled and vilified and written out of the history books. Please note that the 'Aryan/Caucasian' people originally came from descendants of the Persian Empires, who had migrated North, and domesticated horses, and therefore were able to spread throughout different regions by the use of horses. etc. There are traces of 'Caucasian/Aryan' blood lines still today in places like Afghanistan. etc.



To: diggers350 at yahoogroups.com; james36armstrong at hotmail.com; alisonbanville at yahoo.co.uk
From: mrzouk8 at yahoo.com
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:59:47 -0800
Subject: Re: [Diggers350] another legal aspect of land concepts


















 



  


    
      
      
       
All true and still current today, a topic i have researched a while back, but then noone was paying attention at the time.
 
whilst i don't acknowledge the legitimacy of any man made laws, what is in that article and the statement below are in fact true, and very hard to get out of, if you don't know what you are doing.
 
 
on Land and the crown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple
In English common law theory, the Crown has radical title or the allodium of all land in England, meaning that it is the ultimate "owner" of all land.

 
however there are a few misconception, today the Monarchy is not the Crown, although the Monarchy is a member of the Crown. And remember Queen of England is simply just a title, (paper, like land titles, and ultimately the Crown holds these titles)
 
 
the Crown also known as the City of London, has it's own Mayor, laws, and flag outside the jurisdiction of the U.K. 
 
The location is where all the banks, Inns of court etc are located. (also known as the square mile)
 
The Inns of court have different functions, one of the inner temples collects Federal tax from the U.S.A. however many people fail to realise this. (and there are many other tax collection operations running from these entities)
 
The Bar ASsociations around the world are franchise operations around the world which overlook legal process, judges, lawyers etc and are simply franchises for the Bar Association in London.
 
The Inns of Court which are part of the Crown never have their accounts audited pay tax nor is anything within this domain made public. (how corrupt is that?)
 
Now the worst part of the scenario, is that where does all the tax go to?
 
they are beginning to sound like the Knights Templar? Freemasons?
 
Well people would be shocked to know it goes all the way to the Vatican,
 
shocking but once you've done your research you will realise that this is all true.
 
Topics I recomend people research are:
 
cannon law of 1983
 
cqv act, and cqv trust
(I'll give you a clue when this was brought into effect, 1666, fire of london, convenient or just another conspiracy? you decide...)
 which defines most at law presumed to be: lost, (at sea to be more obvious or abandoned) minor or incompetent

 
birth certificate is a promissory note  (find to which entity and how?)

BTW, (an example of the deception is) birth Certificates are Crown copyright, they own the names we assume are us, but those names are not us. Once people start getting their heads around this then they'll be able to begin seeing clearer.
Have a look at a Birth Certificate, one of the parents (unknowingly i must stress)  stated that they were an INFORMANT to whoever else signed the document.
 
there is more to it, but it might be a bit too much to go into atm.
 
Hence the name which is a token for the use of commerce is not owned by us, but by the Crown, and if anyone claims to be the NAME, title etc. they are automatically found guilty because the name is Crown Copyright how could you be something thats owned by someone else? It also means as full copyright owners of the name they can decide what to do with you as you claimed to be a name / title / piece of paper.
 
 
Ultimately Title whether to land or name is only paper, The Crown owns titles,names etc. and administers it for the Vatican.
 
Land cannot be owned, the Vatican knows this, it also claims to own the whole world, (check the papal bulls also) and the Crown collects the tax for use of these titiles / names / estates bits of paper which then passes the tax on to the Vatican.
 
 
not sure if anyone remembers the recent Lord Blackheath, he briefly mentioned the Vatican, but he wasn't allowed to elaborate too much on this and was quickly interrupted?
 
Why did Queen Elizabeth make the state pay for the Popes visit? did she have a choice?
Is this of any significance in the true nature of the relationship between the 2?
 
 
Lets see if the comments I have made here are allowed in this group today?
 
 


--- On Mon, 11/29/10, james armstrong <james36armstrong at hotmail.com> wrote:


From: james armstrong <james36armstrong at hotmail.com>
Subject: [Diggers350] another legal aspect of land concepts
To: "diggers" <diggers350 at yahoogroups.com>
Date: Monday, November 29, 2010, 4:32 AM


  


 
A legal conundrum, the closure`of the Charterhouse priory in 1535   

(Charterhouse priory  is located at the foot of Goswell Road EC1 and can be visited by arrangement)
 From Dom David Knowles "The Religious Orders in England"  

"The Charterhouse together with all other subjects of the king were required in the spring  of 1534, to swear  to the first Act of Succession, and by doing so were forced to acquiesce  in the annulling of Henry’s (Vlll) first marriage in the legitimization of Anne Boleyn’s offspring. John Houghton, the prior had taken a degree in law at Cambridge, but had studied for the priesthood.  His life was abstemious beyond  the requirements of the Rule.     …. The picture that emerges is of a man capable not only  of inspiring devoted attachment ,  but of forming in others a calm judgment and a heroic constancy equal  to his own.  The monks whom Houghton guided were as a body worthy  of their prior.
It was only at the third visit (of the dissolution commissioners ) at the prior’s instant wish and surrounded by men at arms, that all took the oath.   …they would not be long left in peace…. The Treason Act was passed.    to include treason by word and speech as might  deprive the king of any of his dignities or titles. 
Under this Act which came into force  1st February 1535,  A charge of high treason  could be brought  against anyone who denied or even refused to acknowledge,  that the king was Supreme Head on  earth of the Church in England.  No oath was attached to the  Act, but commissioners were appointed to require admission of the king’s headship. , usually obtained by an oath. (Houghton and companions refused)  They were tried in Westminster Hall  ..condemned.   to Tyburn …watched by More…. Each at the foot of the gallows were offered pardon , on their  refusal  the barbourous sentence was carried out with every circumstance of cruelty …he bore the agony of burchery… aggravated by his hair
 shirt..
Above the gateway the severed arm of their late prior  provided a text for visitors."
 
Comment 
Put not your trust in kings, nor in the law of England.
It would seem that the title to all the land in England is in the possession of the Crown.
(Cahill)  If so,  denying that title is,  according to the Treason Act of 1535  treasonable..
Once the Crown's title is acknowledged the same lawyers who legitimized the dissolution of the monasteries and seized the vast church lands for the Crown – (which the monarchy  proceeded to sell it off ) could if necessary  legitimize the seizure to-day of all the land of England under penalty of the Treason law. 
    
 If you query the  legitimacy of the 1535 Act, you de-legitimise the succession of Elizabeth 1 ( and the  present monarchy).
If you acknowledge the 1535 Act you acknowledge  the will of the present monarch acting through parliament , and you acknowledge any  Acts  devised to require the  surrender of titles of land. 
If  you acknowledge to-day the legitimacy of the  present monarchy, you must acknowledge the legitimacy of the crown seizure of one third the land of England in 1536 when the monasteries and chantries were dissolved and their lands seized by the Crown then. 

Thus setting a precedent for  seizure of land to-day.
 
Law develops to  adapt to the circumstances of the age.    Comments please.
James

 


      

    
     

    
    






   		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20101201/467b5630/attachment.html>