BF2S Forums America owned by the British crown

rocksrhot wrote:

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.

You seem to be confused with the definition of a treaty. It does not require the unconditional surrender of one side.

As for the rest I'll refer you to Article 1.
His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states, that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Here is a copy of the treaty http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/paris.shtml
I would like for you to show me where it says anything about gold,silver, or copper.

rocksrhot wrote:

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?

What papers? Who is writing your replies?

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-17 19:46:23)

What Kmarion said is true. I'm an American expatriate working in the UK for a US government contracting company. Pretty much, if I'm here for more than 7 years, I stop paying Social Security and start paying into the UK system. After which everything I've contributed into Social Security gets transfered into the UK system so there's no loss of benefits, and vice-versa for the Brits. It's part of the SOFA, or "Status of Forces Agreement".

So before you quote some random thing from an "email" whose source is suspect at best, do your own research instead of insulting the intelligence of those that actually know what the fuck is going on.

And always remember: If it's a conspiracy theory, and it's on the internet, then it must be true.

I've got a conspiracy theory for you: China is ruled by zebras. I can easily create a webpage and backdate some random "email" to make it look like it's 15 years old to support my theory. Therefore it's true.

Kmarion wrote:

I have a question while we are at it that you can probably answer. The Queen is not actually the Crown is she? I thought it was actually a bank.(Bank of London maybe)

I honestly don't know

Got a question for you, though. The link that you provided was to the University of Oklahoma. Are you from Oklahoma, or was that page the best Google result you could find?

=Edit=
According to Wiki, the Crown is the current monarch. That's what I originally thought, but I wasn't sure exactly what you were asking.

Last edited by Dizik (2006-12-17 19:53:35)

Dizik wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I have a question while we are at it that you can probably answer. The Queen is not actually the Crown is she? I thought it was actually a bank.(Bank of London maybe)

I honestly don't know.

Got a question for you, though. The link that you provided was to the University of Oklahoma. Are you from Oklahoma, or was that page the best Google result you could find?

It was linked from a search at wikipedia at the bottom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281783%29
I'm a Floridian.

Dizik wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

I have a question while we are at it that you can probably answer. The Queen is not actually the Crown is she? I thought it was actually a bank.(Bank of London maybe)

I honestly don't know

Got a question for you, though. The link that you provided was to the University of Oklahoma. Are you from Oklahoma, or was that page the best Google result you could find?

=Edit=
According to Wiki, the Crown is the current monarch. That's what I originally thought, but I wasn't sure exactly what you were asking.

Well the Monarch I believe is just a front when referring to the Crown. In all honesty we need a Brit to chime in and help us out..lol

Last edited by Kmarion (2006-12-17 19:57:19)

Article 1 of 1783 treaty.   Yes at face value what you say is relevent & true about copper, however the line, "that he treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors".

The king was making a commercial venture when he sent his
subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so.  I
think you would admit the king had a lawful right to receive gain
and prosper from his venture.  In the Virginia Charter he declares
his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9
he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive
if any is found by his subjects.  There could have just as easily
been none, or his subjects could have been killed by the Indians.
This is why this was a valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, "In
right of the crown," Black's forth Ed.), the king expended his
resources with the risk of total loss. 

     If you'll notice in paragraph 9 the king declares that all his
heirs and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold,
silver and copper that he claimed with this Charter.  The gold that
remained in the colonies was also the kings.  He provided the
remainder as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further
use of his capital.  You will see in this paper that not only is
this valid, but it is still in effect today.  If you will read the
rest of the Virginia Charter you will see that the king declared
the right and exercised the power to regulate every aspect of
commerce in his new colony.  A license had to be granted for travel
connected with transfer of goods (commerce) right down to the
furniture they sat on.  A great deal of the king's declared
property was ceded to America in the Treaty of 1783.  I want you to
stay focused on the money and the commerce which was not ceded to
America.

     This brings us to the Declaration of Independence.  Our
freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of
the covenant between king and subject.  The main complaint was
taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early
1606 Charter granted by the king.  It was not a revolt over being
subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and
benefits provided by the king.  Because of the kings refusal to
hear their demands and grant relief, separation from England became
the lesser of two evils.  The cry of freedom and self determination
became the rallying cry for the colonist.  The slogan "Don't Tread
On Me" was the standard borne by the militias. 

Forgotten Amendment

     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."

     Also, Section 10, clause 1 states, "No State shall enter into
any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque or
Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but Gold
and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of
Attainder, ex post facto of Law impairing the Obligation of
Contracts, or grant any Title of nobility."

     There was however, no measurable penalty for violation of the
above Sections, Congress saw this as a great threat to the freedom
of Americans, and our Republican form of government.  In January
1810 Senator Reed proposed the Thirteenth Amendment, and on April
26, 1810 was passed by the Senate 26 to 1 (1st-2nd session, p. 670)
and by the House 87 to 3 on May 1, 1810 (2nd session, p. 2050) and
submitted to the seventeen states for ratification.  The Amendment
reads as follows:

     "If any citizen of the United States shall Accept, claim,
receive or retain any title of nobility or honor, 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." 

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

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. 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.

So what was agreed & signed, was created between British crown & British subjects as they had noble titles, not 3 men holding to be free Americans. Can you see the seriousness of thequestion arising from this issue?

Regarding the payments we see in article 2 of Jay's treaty 1794 that the crown still has troops on US soil
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyameric … aty/3.html

& in article 6 of the treaty deals with debt and taxation to the British crown & article 12, well it is the British king dictating terms for US citizens, & this after so called independence.  John Jay Esqr. (again the noble title arises which no US citizen was privy too).


Hey I'm still trying to get my head around considering the facts.

Apercentage of taxes that are paid are to enrich the king/queen of England.  For
those that study Title 26 you will recognize IMF, which means
Individual Master File, all tax payers have one.  To read one you
have to be able to break their codes using file 6209, which is
about 467 pages.  On your IMF you will find a blocking series,
which tells you what type of tax you are paying.  You will probably
find a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 says is reserved.  You
then look up the BMF 300-399, which is the Business Master File in
6209.  You would have seen prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax
Claims, non-refile DLN.  Meaning everyone is considered a business
and involved in commerce and you are being held liable for a tax
via a treaty between the U.S. and the U.K., payable to the U.K..
The form that is supposed to be used for this is form 8288, FIRPTA
- Foreign Investment Real Property Tax Account, you won't find many
people using this form, just the 1040 form.  The 8288 form can be
found in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3.  If you
will check the OMB's paper - Office of Management and Budget, in
the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information Collections,

Approved Under Paperwork Reduction Act, you will find this form
under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. withholding tax-return
for dispositions by foreign persons of U.S. real property
interests-statement of withholding on dispositions, by foreign
persons, of U.S. Form #8288 #8288a
     These codes have since been changed to read as follows; IMF
300-309, Barred Assement, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which
is the code for 1040 form.  IMF 310-399 reserved, the BMF 300-309
reads the same as IMF 300-309.  BMF 390-399 reads U.S./U.K. Tax
Treaty Claims.  The long and short of it is nothing changed, the
government just made it plainer, the 1040 is the payment of a
foreign tax to the king/queen of England.  We have been in
financial servitude since the Treaty of 1783.


http://www.apfn.org/apfn/reserve.htm

Last edited by rocksrhot (2006-12-17 21:16:07)

(T)eflon(S)hadow wrote:

rocksrhot wrote:

Go back to the 17 hundreds buddy & look at legislation.

Its THE INTERNET! Not the TRUTH on US HISTORY!!!

I really want to laugh out loud, but it's just sad waht some people fall for.

Have you read copies of the original articles in the treaties to back up your view?

rocksrhot wrote:

Have you read copies of the original articles in the treaties to back up your view?

Have you? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Last edited by Dizik (2006-12-18 02:13:05)

rocksrhot wrote:

Dizik wrote:

rocksrhot wrote:

Have you read copies of the original articles in the treaties to back up your view?

Have you? No? Then shut the fuck up.

Actually yes I have, from what I can get to read, so no I wont $hut the fuck up. Your simply another fucked up gullible yank who doesn't give a toss about much bar your opinion, which is your right, It just tarnishes the perceived mentality of outsiders to Americans. Another abusive rant without substance.

You don't even understand what you posted.  You proved that when you reposted the bit about the Queen of England controlling US social security without even understanding what the law was in regard to. 

The funny thing is that essentially I agree with the principle that the citizens of the United States have been burdened with an unpayable debt, the interest on which causes a higher taxation.  But the people who are responsible for this are a little closer to home than you seem to be prepared to look.  Being held to inflation and deflation and running the risk of bankruptcy are all risks you take when you operate on credit from banks.  Even when the US went bankrupt last century they didn't learn to minimise debt and keep enough "real" money around to pay it back when they borrow.  The print their funny credit-voucher money and when they have real debts to pay they need to borrow from people with real money.  Which is why many European, Asian, Middle-eastern and even a few American banks own a share of America's debt.  They lent the American government money, and the American government willingly borrowed it.  America could renege on these deals (which are not exclusively with the Bank of England), but then it wouldn't be able to borrow any more money, and it wouldn't be able to pay it's real (i.e. non-fake federal funny money) debts, and it would be bankrupt.  And the lenders would come looking to repossess, just like they would for any private citizen. 

Basically, I'm not surprised many people in America don't understand the concept, as shown by the level of personal debt in America and lack of responsibility.  You want to keep the economy you have, you pay back the people who lent you the cash to build it.  Simple as.  This isn't a concept unique to America, it often makes sense for governments to borrow from private lenders to build up an economy which will allow the repayment of the lump sum over time.  But this technique shouldn't be used recklessly, or you'll end up nearly a trillion in the hole with no easy way to even manage the interest payments.

Major.League.Infidel wrote:

Attn: rocksrhot

What do you hope to accomplish here?  Get the entirety of the United States to bow down to British rule?  Or maybe just the Americans on the forum here?  What's your motive behind this whole thing?

My motive is to ask the questions raised in the articles?

Could it be true that the US was not truly made independent?
Do US Citizens still pay a tax to the British crown, & if so how & where is it hidden?
How come no US citizen was allowed a noble title, yet those who treatied independence were of the noble title, (Esquire)? Were they actually working for the British?


The U.S. flies the United States flag with a yellow
fringe on three sides.  According to the United States Code, Title
4, Sec. 1, the U.S. flag does not have a fringe on it. Because the military flag which does have a gold fringe mean US Citizens are in a military occupation and are governed by the Commander-in-Chief in his
executive capacity, not under any Constitutional authority.
Military Occupation.

Why do the courts of law in the US fly flags with the military gold fringe?



***The following are excerpts from the Senate Report, 93rd
Congress, November 19, 1973, Special Committee On The Termination
Of The National Emergency United States Senate.***

     Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of
declared national emergency....Under the powers delegated by these
statutes, the President may: seize property; organize and control
the means of production; seize commodities; assign military forces
abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation
and communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise;
restrict travel; and, in a plethora of particular ways, control the
lives of all American citizens.

For 40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in
varying degrees, been abridged by laws brought into force by states
of national emergency....from, at least, the Civil War in important
ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of national
emergency. 

Do these questions never arise in schools or collages? Why not?

I am about asking questions as to what is possibly going on in todays world?

Last edited by rocksrhot (2006-12-18 11:38:38)

rocksrhot wrote:

My motive is to ask the questions raised in the articles?  That's a question?

Could it be true that the US was not truly made independent?  Could be that no nation is truly independent?
Do US Citizens still pay a tax to the British crown, & if so how & where is it hidden?  Have you checked behind the fridge?
How come no US citizen was allowed a noble title, yet those who treatied independence were of the noble title, (Esquire)? Were they actually working for the British?  Because in America any fucker can call themselves Esquire, perhaps?  Could it have been a jab at the British?  edit: Could it be that Esquire isn't even a noble title?

Last edited by UON (2006-12-18 13:17:24)

Bertster7 wrote:

Commie Killer wrote:

Rocksrhot, I highly recommend you go kill yourself. You just got both the liberals and the conservatives to agree on something unanimously. Your a fucking retard. Im sorry, but thats the nicest way I can put it.

I agree.

See what I mean?

k30dxedle wrote:

Remember kids, if it's an unsourced spam e-mail from the Intarwebs, it has to be true.

Edit: Title of the e-mail ("THE ULTIMATE DELUSION") = double entendre.

Lmfao, this keeps getting better, this is a cross between something you would see on Mad TV and....the internet. Haha.