- Delivering Truth Around the World
Custom Search

'HELLO, CENTRAL!' 'SUBJECTS' OF THE QUEEN ? (Updated Oct. 22, 2009)

Patrick H. Bellringer

Smaller Font Larger Font RSS 2.0

From: SM
To: <>
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2009 1:21 PM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Fourwinds10


Casper is fooling you big time - have you not heard of backy-forthy?

 The idea that the Queen would refer to Americans, who have been independent for 230+ years, as her "subjects" is so ludicrous as to be childish.

 Does not his constant bashing of Obama ring alarm bells with you?


FROM:  Patrick H. Bellringer
     TO:  SM
DATE:  Oct. 8, 2009
Dear SM:
    You are being played for the fool, if you think the Queen of England does not consider us her "subjects".
    Both the Federal Reserve Bank and the Internal Revenue Service were established in 1913, as twin corporations under The Crown of England.  Through the IRS the Queen, for the past 96 years has collected taxes from her U.S. "subjects".  For the past 96 years the Queen has been paid interest money collected by the FRB.  She has also been paid money by the 13 families that are the FRB stockholders.
    What have you been reading all your life?  Casper is bashing no one, my friend.  You would be wise to read Eustace Mullins books on the Federal Reserve, "Secrets of the Federal Reserve" Volumes 1 and 2.
    Creator God Aton of Light has said "He who has his head stuck in the sand is known as 'Butt-in-skies' ".
                            In Love and Light,
                            Patrick H. Bellringer
#1  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From:  D
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 5:32 PM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Fourwinds10

 For those who have their heads where the sun does not shine:

 Statutory Instrument 1997 No. 1778

 This is where the Queen raised the Social Security taxes of her "subjects", U.S. citizens, in 1997.

#2  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: R
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 5:49 PM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Fourwinds10

 Reading some of the crazy msgs you have to put up with here is a thought but you have likely heard it before.....



 Have a Great Day and Thanks again.........


#3  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: N
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 5:21 PM
Subject:  I Am Not A Subject of the Queen

 I and my family will never and have never been a subject of the queen(lizard)or any other animal of her species. every time this comes up I have to respond I and every person (real human) are already royalty we don\'t need a monarch to pay taxes to or act as though we need to bow. we are victims of lies and deceit of 1913 and jeckyle island  no taxes should have been paid by us as terifs paid the bills we as victims should be paid back. I and my family are royals of this country for our great 8 generations grandmother Nikita Hughes was powhattans sister in law so no matter what anyone thinks this country is still ours for We are pocahontas\' (REAL)COUSINS. the queen needs to take her ass-sets and go home. This is our country and always will be for the women of merica (real name) of america was owned by the women and we never sold any of our property so who ever said they paid for this country lied for women would never sell their birthright we were killed drunked given small pox and any genecided by england the dutch the portuguese and again I can't Stress this enough white people were cursed for doing what they did to us this is why this country will never become as great as it would have been. if it were left alone to become what it was supposed to be naturally this countrys spirit would have evolved into what god really wanted. We were hyjacked just as people of 1913 were hyjacked and the guides you put in place have to be monetered continuously instead of being left to their own volition to pretend to run a system without stealin the people blind such as the queen and he ilk for it is sickening to watch these ones bush bush clinton clinton obama do their best to steal fraud misprison us to death literally, and have a military that we pay to protect, have a doj that put its subjects in jail for the fun of it. As alex collier says "This is the only planet in the solar that has to pay to live on its\' surface.\" this is just so draconian no pun intended. I also knew that obama was nothing but a bush bot so I  didn't vote because there was no one qualified to run our country except maybe ron paul less government I thought we were supposed to tell them what we needed THEM to do but bush paid all of them off with our money and look how long it has taken for something to happen. Yes we were terrorized by the very people put in charge. My brother is still waiting for his CMKX payment from stock bought 8-9 years ago. just think of the interest SEC is still draging its feet people have died waiting.does anyone care that 40 to 50 thousand people are involved they have the money and no payment. with this new Oct. 7th change maybe the settlements will come through I hope so my teeth and my eyes are both going bad. Sorry for the Irate attitude but I am 58 people have been waiting long enough my brother was 68 yesterday I think he deserves his money.  

#4  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: "V.V.V.
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 6:23 PM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Fourwinds10

 Seventy-five years ago your Butt-in-skies joke circulated among us kids as a Confucius-say joke.  I am astonished and disenchanted that you attribute it to God Aton of Light.  I\'ve been moved by reading the \"Truth\" again,since your re-posting and after having read it about a year ago.  And I flat-out will NOT believe that God tells dirty jokes.  And very seriously, I have never believed that God actually speaks to humans.  For example, I believe that Moses himself wrote the Ten Commandments and then said they came from God, to give them weight.  Can you affirm that God Aton does indeed talk to people?  Thank you, V.V.V.

FROM:  Patrick H. Bellringer
      TO:  V.V. V.
DATE:  Oct. 10. 2009
Dear V.V. V.:
    Your question is "Can you affirm that God Aton does indeed talk to people"  Yes, I can!  The question is "can you?"  Is it unreasonable to think that Creator God Aton would actually communicate with His Creation?  It's all in the Phoenix Journals, joke and all.  Read the Truth, my friend, read!
                            In Love and Light,
                            Patrick H. Bellringer
#5  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: SM
Sent: Friday, October 09, 2009 11:55 AM
Subject: Reply to your reply
Dear Patrick,

Thanks for the interesting reply. I totally agree with you and many others about the inequities of the FRB etc. And I agree that deep within the British monarchy there are some nasty geomasonic types no doubt in cahoots with the 13 families you refer to, but the Queen herself is a bulwark against the corruption and I am sure does not consider Americans her subjects...We are too aware in Britain that our country has been going backwards in influence on the last 50 years thanks to the incompetence of our political leaders, but the Queen has managed to maintain some of our standing in the world.

I get v.suspicious when commentators such as Casper attack the wrong targets.

Thanks for the book suggestion, I will check it out.

Good joke by the way!



#6  (Reply)

----- Original Message -----
From: EW
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2009 2:11 PM
Subject: RE: THE ULTIMATE DELUSION - [ Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security ]--

Finally!  An American who understands the predaciment America is in as a Province

of the Pontiff of Rome's Holy Roman Empire, and what the American people mean

to the CEO of that fascist corporate body, the secular Holy Roman Empire:

Papal Bull UNAM SANCTAM 1302, a Papal Bull that was re-confirmed by Cardinal Ratzinger,

now Pope:

   "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary

    for salvation that every human creature be SUBJECT TO the Roman Pontiff."


#7   (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 4:07 PM
Subject: (No subject)
Dear Patrick:
For your consideration:
From a legal historical review Stephen Ames appears to be in error.   

Anyway, I went through systematically below and corrected the first 50% of his contentions for your review.  I  am convinced that nothing further in his discourse will have anymore accuracy and credibility than the first half, so I have no incentive to put further time into this(although I am open to correction) . If the findings are in error please have the source of the information provide legal precedent(Supreme Court), and/or reference from the Federal Reports or Register, etc.


Anyway for your consideration. . .see below. 

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 17:40:27 EDT
From: Nicole Terry -
To the people,
I found this paper while going through Stephen Ames' files. I am hoping that you will put it out on your E-mail and fax networks. This paper explains and documents very much. It is absolutely mind blowing !!!!!!
If you place this paper on your E-mail and fax networks I will be more than happy to respond to people's questions. I have all of the documents cited in this paper and they are available. This paper will shock even those who think that they know what has happened and what is now taking place. The deception is incredible. If the people do not respond to this information we can then truly say that it is over and that we will never be free. This paper is not opinion, but it is fact and is all documented.
Now, what people have to realize is there are remedies for the problems that not just America faces, but the World. There are people all over the World that know what is going on and they are doing something about it. People all over America are emerging victorious over the images in their minds. Let us not forget the absolute astonishing amount of debt discharges that have taken place over the last few months. What is happening in America is unbelievable. People are coming out of the delusions, they have figured and realized that the United States is a fiction and that it only exists in our minds. Tens of thousands of people now know that the "United States" does not exist and that it never has. There is no such thing as the National debt or a loan from the bank. Has any one ever seen "current credit money ?" The entire governmental system only exists in your mind.
Nicole Terry -
The Ultimate Delusion
By: Stephen Kimbol Ames
Queen Elizabeth controls and has amended U.S. Social Security, as follows:
S.I. 1997 NO.1778 The Social Security ( United States of America) Order 1997 Made 22nd of July1997 coming into force 1st September 1997. At the Court at Buckingham Palace the 22nd day of July 1997. Now, therefore Her Majesty an pursuance of section 179 (1) (a) and (2) of the Social Security Administration Act of 1992 and all other powers enabling Her in that behalf, is pleased, by and with advise of Her privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered as follows:
"This Order may be cited as the Social Security (United States of America) Order 1997 and shall come into force on 1st September 1997."
Untrue.  This is an amendment to an Agreement made in 1984.  Very similiar to Agreements with other countries that have a system equivalent to our Social Security.  It is in place between countries for people who have entitlement under both systems due to dual citizenship or any other reason they may qualify because of working within a particular country for a period that qualifies for disability or retirement benefits under that system that they paid into.  Ultimately, it allows for an offset by the Governement(s) so that each system (individual) is not stressed unnecessarily.  Read the 1984 Act and the whole Agreement Amendment above, and other similiar agreements with other countries (I did).  The above assertion is simply untrue...PERIOD.  
Does this give a new meaning to Federal Judge William Wayne Justice stating in court that he takes his orders from England? This order goes on to redefine words in the Social Security Act and makes some changes in United States Law.
Mr. Ames is the only individual ever cited to with regard to this quote.  No case is ever presented.  Unpublished does not equal unavailable.  No one whoever cites this over the past tens years has any other source to come back to for reference except for Mr. Ames.  Given the misconstruction above I will hardly rely on his word alone, particularly when citing this case in various articles without  proper federal reference number.
Remember, King George was the "Arch-Treasurer and Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire and c, and of the United States of America." See: Treaty of Peace (1738) 8 U.S. Statutes at Large. Great Britain which is the agent for the Pope, is in charge of the USA 'plantation.'
First part is a so what as it is not relevant to now and second part is historically untenable.
What people do not know is that the so called Founding Fathers and King George were workinghand-n-hand to bring the people of America to there knees, to install a Central Government over them and to bind them to a debt that could not be paid. First off you have to understand that the UNITED STATES is a corporation and that it existed before the Revolutionary war. See Respublica v. Sweers 1 Dallas 43. 28 U.
See below, it will take care of the foregoing miscontruction.
S.C. 3002 (15)
Now, you also have to realize that King George was not just the King of England. He was also the King of France. Treaty of Peace * U.S. 8 Statutes at Large 80.
Find the above referenced section and form your own opinion on the accuracy and relevancy.
On January 22, 1783 Congress ratified a contract for the repayment of 21 loans that the UNITED STATES had already received dating from February 28, 1778 to July 5, 1782. Now the UNITED STATES Inc. owes the King money which is due January 1, 1788 from King George via France. Is this not incredible? The King funded both sides of the War. There was more work that needed to be done. Now the Articles of Confederation which was declared in force March 1, 1781 States in Article 12 " All bills of credit emitted, monies borrowed, and debts contracted by, or under the authority of Congress, before the assembling of the United States, in pursuance of the present confederation, shall be deemed and considered a charge against the United States, for payment and satisfaction whereof the said United States, and the public faith are hereby solemnly pledged."
Well, now that you presumably understand what the United States is, I am very happy that the Article was written as it was, it made the United States responsible for those items listed therein. . .not the states or its citizens.
Now, after losing the Revolutionary War, even though the War was nothing more than a move to turn the people into debtors for the King, they were not done yet.
Now, the loans were coming due and so a meeting was convened in Annapolis, Maryland, to discuss the economic instability of the country under the Articles of Confederation. Only five States came to the meeting, but there was a call for another meeting to take place in Philadelphia the following year with the express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation
On February 21, 1787 Congress gave approval of the meeting to take place in Philadelphia on May 14, 1787, to revise the Articles of confederation. Something had to be done about the mounting debt. Little did the people know that the so called founding fathers were acutely going to reorganize the United States, because it was Bankrupt.
Unsubstantiated rhetoric.  Again, see above anyway.
On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve the Constitution. The States became Constitutors. Constitutor: In the civil law, one who, by simple agreement, becomes responsible for the payment of another's debt. Blacks Law Dictionary 6th Ed.
The States were now liable for the debt owed to the King, but the people of America were not, because they were not a party to the Constitution, because it was never put to them for a vote. On August 4th, 1790 an Act was passed which was titled: An Act Making Provision for the Payment of the Debt of the United States. This can be found at 1 U.S. Statutes at Large pages 138-178.
Constitution and Constitutor are not synonyms.  Nice leap in logic.  In any event, from a strict contractual perspective, even if you took constitution to equal a debt contract, that is fine as all contracts are debt contracts.  Consideration makes a contract legally binding.
This Act for all intents and purposes abolished the States and Created the Districts. If you don't believe it, look it up. The Act set up Federal Districts. Here in Pennsylvania, we got two Federal Districts. In this Act each District was assigned a portion of the debt. The next step was for the states to reorganize their governments, which most did in 1790. This had to be done, because the States needed to legally bind the people to the debt. The original State Constitutions were never submitted to the people for a vote. So, the governments wrote new constitutions and submitted them to people for a vote, thereby binding the people to the debts owed to Great Britain. The people became citizens of the State where they resided, and ipso facto a citizen of the United States. A citizen is a member of a fictional entity, and it is synonymous with subject.
At this point, put some thought into the prior points, he already has lost this argument before he gets to it.
What you think is a state is, in reality, a corporation, in other words, a Person.
"Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is Person." 9 F. Supp 272
Word "person" does not include state. 12 Op Atty Gen 176.
There are no states, just corporations. Every body politic on this planet is a corporation. A corporation is an artificial entity, a fiction at law. They only exist in your mind. They are images in your mind, that speak to you. We labor, pledge our property and give our children to a fiction.
Misquote at 9 F. Supp 272.  In any case, the case law above dealt with a State as sovereign as opposed to placing itself in acts of commerce that under the IRC included with the definition of person, private citizen, partnership, association, corporation, etc.  Anyway, when taking into the various legislation as a whole, the federal judge concluded that when a state put itself in the place of a private business entity with regard to commerce (i.e. liquor sales), in that context, it could not claim itself as an independent sovereign from the IRC, but was instead making itself subject thereto (under definition of "Person") by virtue of its activity. 
Now, before we go any further let us examine a few things in the Constitution.
Article six section one keeps the loans from the King valid. It states: "All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation."
Another interesting tidbit can be found at Article One Section Eight clause Two which states that Congress has the power to borrow money on the credit of the United States. This was needed so the United States (Which went into Bankruptcy on January 1, 1788) could borrow money and then, because the States were a party to the Constitution, they would also be liable for it.
See above.
The next underhanded move was the creation of The United States Bank in 1791. This was a private Bank which issued 25,000 shares of which 18,000 were held by those in England. The Bank loaned the United States money in exchange for Securities of the United States.
The creditors of the United States, which included the King, wanted to be paid the interest on the loans that were given to the United States. So, Alexander Hamilton came up with the great idea of taxing alcohol. The people resisted, so, George Washington sent out the militia to collect the tax, which they did. This has become known as the Whiskey rebellion. It is the Militia's duty to collect taxes. How did the United States collect taxes from the people, if the people were not a party to the Constitution? I'll tell you how. The people are slaves! The United States belongs to the founding fathers and their posterity and Great Britain. America is nothing more than a Plantation. It always has been. How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution, and then the Judge tells him he can't. It is because you are not a party to it. We are SLAVES! If you don't believe this, read Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah. 14 Georgia 438 520 which states " But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true, is a compact but he is not a party to it."
Now, back to the Militia. Read Article One Section Eight clause (15) which states that it is the militia's job to execute the laws of the Union. Read Clause (16) which states that Congress has the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such part of them, as may be employed in the service of the United States. The Militia is not there to protect you and me. It is their duty to collect our substance.
As you can plainly see, all that the Constitution did was to set up a Military Government to guard the King's commerce and make us slaves.
If one goes to 8 U.S. statutes at large 116-132, you will find "The Treaty of Amity, Commerce and Navigation. This Treaty was signed on November 19th, 1794, which was twelve years after the Revolutionary War. Article 2 of the Treaty states that the King's Troops were still occupying the United States. Being the nice King that he was , he decided that the troops would return to England by June 1st, 1796. The troops were still on American soil because, quite frankly, the King wanted them here.
Here is the key to where this started:
Many people tend to blame the Jews for our problems. Jewish Law governs the entire world, as found in Jewish Law by MENACHEM ELON, DEPUTY PRESIDENT SUPREME COURT OF ISRAEL, to wit:
"Everything in the Babylonian Talmud is binding on all Israel. Every town and country must follow all customs, give effect to the decrees, and carry out the enactment's of the Talmudic sages, because the entire Jewish people accepted everything contained in Talmud. The sages who adopted the enactment's and decrees, instituted the practices, rendered the decisions, and derived the laws, constituted all or most of the Sages of Israel. It is they who received the tradition of the fundamentals of the entire Torah in unbroken succession going back to Moses, our teacher."
We are living under what the Bible calls Mammon. As written in the subject Index, Mammon is defined as ("Civil law and procedure").
Now turn to the "The Shetars Effect on English Law" -- A Law of the Jews becomes the Law of the Land, found in "The George Town Law Journal, Vol 71: pages 1179-1200." It is clearly stated in the Law Review that the Jews are the property of the Norman and Anglo-Saxon Kings. It also explains that the Talmud is the law of the land. It explains how the Babylonian Talmud became the law of the land, which is now known as the Uniform Commercial Code. The written credit agreement, the Jewish shetar, is a lien on all property (realty), and today it's called the mortgage! The treatise also explains that the Jews are owned by Great Britain, and the Jews are in charge of the Baking system.
We are living under the Babylonian Talmud. It is from which all of our problems come. It was brought into England in 1066, and has been enforced by the Pope, Kings and the Christian churches ever since. It is total and relentless mind control. People are taught to believe in things that do not exist.
Before you scream that the UCC is unconstitutional, I'm sorry people, you are not a party to any constitution. Read the case cite below.
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it." Padelford, Fay & Co., vs. Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah 14 Ga. 438, 520
You have to understand that Great Britain,(Article six Section one) the United States and the States are the parties to the Constitution, not you. Let me try to explain.
If I buy an automobile from a man, and that automobile has a warranty, and the engine blows up the first day I have it, then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me, and he says "no". So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says "case dismissed". Why, because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution), that you are not a party to. You hadsbetter accept the fact that you are a slave. When you try to use the Constitution, you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why ? It is because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse, you are a debt slave, who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user of your Master's property! Here are just a couple of examples:
"The primary control and custody of an infant is with the government" Tillman V. Roberts. 108 So. 62
" Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties-the husband, the wife and the state." Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.
"The ultimate ownership of all property is in the State: individual so-called "ownership" is only by virtue of Government, i.e. law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State. Senate Document No. 43 73rd Congress 1st Session. (Brown v. Welch supra) You own no property, because you are a slave. Really, you are worse off than a slave, because you are also a debtor.
"The right of traffic or the transmission of property, as an absolute inalienable right, is one which has never existed since governments were instituted, and never can exist under government." Wynehamer v. The People. 13 N.Y. Rep.378, 481
Great Britain to this day collects taxes from the American people. The IRS is not an Agency of the United States Government. All taxpayers have an Individual Master File which is in code. By using IRS Publication 6209, which is over 400 pages, there is a blocking series which shows the taxpayer the type of tax that is being paid. Most taxpayers fall under a 300-399 blocking series, which 6209 states is reserved, but by going to BMF 300-399 which is the Business Master File in 6209 prior to 1991, this was U.S.-U.K. Tax Claims, meaning taxpayers are considered a business and involved in commerce and are held liable for taxes 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. The 8288 form is in the Law Enforcement Manual of the IRS, chapter 3. The OMB's-paper-Office of Management and Budget, in the Department of Treasury, List of Active Information collections, Approvd Under Paperwork Reduction Act is where form 8288 is found under OMB number 1545-0902, which says U.S. with holding tax return for dispositions by foreign persons, of U.S. Form #8288, #8288a.
These codes have since been changed to read as follows: IMF 300-309, Barred Assessment, CP 55 generated valid for MFT-30, which is the code for the 1040 form. IMF 310-399 reads the same as IMF 300-309, BMF 390-399 reads U.S.-U.K. Tax Treaty Claims. Isn't it Incredible that a 1040 form is a payment of a tax to the U.K. Everybody is always looking to 26 U.S.C. for the law that makes one liable for the so called Income Tax, but it is not in there, because it is not a Tax. It is debt collection through a private contract called the Constitution of the United States, Article Six, Section One. and various agreements.
Is a cow paying an income tax when the machine gets connected to its udder? The answer is "no". I have never known a cow that owns property or has been compensated for its labor. You own nothing that your labor has ever produced. You don't even own your labor or yourself. Your labor is measured in current credit money. You are allowed to retain a small portion of your labor, so that you can have food, clothing, shelter and most of all, breed more slaves. Did you ever notice how many of the other slaves get upset, if you try to retain your labor? You are called an extremist, terrorist, and sometimes, even a freeman. They say that you are anti-government, when the truth of the matter is you just don't want to be a slave, but, you do not have the right to force others to be free, if they want to be a slave. That is entirely up to them.
If they want bow down and worship corporations, let them. The United States, Great Britain and the Pope are not the problem. It is the other slaves who are the problem. We would be free, if the want-to-be-slaves were gone. The United States, Great Britain and the Pope would not even exist, because no one would acknowledge them. I, for a matter of fact, think that those, who are in power, are also tired of the slaves. All the slaves do is stand around and moo, for free healthcare, free education, free housing, and they beg those, who are in power to disarm them. I do agree that a slave should not have access to a firearm. How can you disagree with the government passing out birth control ? I hope the breeding of slaves stops, or at the very least, slows down.
You see, we are cows. The IRS is the company, who milks the cows, and the United States Inc. is the veterinarian, who takes care of the herd. Great Britain is the Owner of the farm in fee simple. The farm is held in allodium by the Pope.
Now to Rome.
"Convinced that the principles of religion contribute most powerfully to keep nations in the state of passive obedience which they owe to their princes, the high contracting parties declare it to be their intention to sustain in their respective states, those measures which the clergy may adopt with the aim of ameliorating their interests, so intimately connected with the preservation of the authority of the princes; and the contracting powers join in offering their thanks to the Pope for what he has already done for them, and solicit his constant cooperation in their views of submitting the nations." Article (3) Treaty of Varona (1822)
If the Sovereign Pontiff should, nevertheless, insist on his law being observed, he must be obeyed. Bened.XIV., De Syn. Dioec, lib, ix., c. vii., n. 4. Prati, 1844. Pontifical laws, moreover, become obligatory without being accepted or confirmed by secular rulers. Syllabus, prop. 28, 29, 44. Hence the jus nationale,(Federal Law) or the exceptional ecclesiastical laws prevalent in the United States, may be abolished at any time by the Sovereign Pontiff. Elements of Ecclesiastical Law. Vol. I 53-54. So could this be shown that the Pope rules the world?
The Pope is the ultimate owner of everything in the World. See Treaty of 1213, Papal Bull of 1455 and 1492.
I could go on and on. This is just the tip of the iceberg. Don't let this information scare you, because without it you cannot be free. You have to understand that all slavery and freedom originates in the mind. When your mind allows you to accept and understand that the United States, Great Britain and the Vatican are corporations, which are nothing but fictional entities, which have been placed into your mind, you will understand that your slavery exists because you believed a lie.
For more information: Nicole Terry
630K, Willow Street
Highspire, Pennsylvania 17034
#8  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: DZ
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 1:05 PM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Fourwinds10

 These are the site I used in referrance to the ss STATEMENTS ON YOUR SITE.. Not saying you are incorrect in the statements that the Queen has or has not controls of our country but these sites explained the Social Secutiry agreements between countries..

 I like to see both sides of the stories.. Might come from being married for over 37 years everyone has their views and takes on everything..

#9  (Reply)

----- Original Message -----
From: EW
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:07 PM

The #7 response to this article appears to be a 'damage control goon'  for the Vatican.

The denial commentary is without proof or substantative commentary.

The King George III in the preamble to the Peace of Paris 1783 stating that he was 'prince elector and treasurer of the Holy Roman Empire' is totally significant to the conclusions made by Mr. Ames regarding Papal control over the former British colonies in America.

I have seen this same 'damage control' babble posted many times by  a fellow who used to be with the State of Kentucky Education Dept., and who uses an Israeli computer program called Megaphone to be alerted to 'the Vatican's Veil' damaging commentary or information that is posted on the internet.

The 'judge' whom the posting party referred to also acted as a dis-information  agent (ignorantly or with purpose) to divert attention away from the  Vatican, and to the English Monarchy. The Treaty of 1213 between King John  and Pope Innocent III, where king John pledged England FOREVER, as a vassal State of the Holy Roman Empire set the stage for the Pope of AD 1297 and King Edward I to incorporate a body politic to govern England, rather than a reliance on the Monarch directly. That was the 'Crown' of England, and later, Great Britain. It was a sub-corporation of the body politic of the City  of London, which was/is also called 'The Crown'.  Thus, the judge saying that 'he takes his orders from England' really means the City of London,  an independent city/state within England that is wholly wned by the super corporation, the Holy Roman Empire, whose CEO is the Pontiff of Rome.


#10  (Reply)

----- Original Message -----
From: A&S
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 3:03 PM
Subject: Casper's update 12 oktober 2009
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Bellringer,


P.P.S. GUESSWORK FOLLOWS: Somehow the Queen, WE hear, is related to the Rothschild's (as is Barbara Bush) AND, going back to the early 30's, the "CHURCH" (and therefore the QUEEN??) was sympathetic to the NAZI'S, which also involved the MONARCHY. WE also hear the VATICAN had somehow obtained control of the MONARCHY hundreds of years prior. This stuff is above OUR heads and is mentioned here as a "tip" to those such as "S" and/or STORY and/or WHISTLEBLOWER who may or may not wish to comment and/or educate us ignorant "subjects".

May we in the first place thank you for your tremendous efforts to bring the world to a better understanding of the truth.

The sentence in Casper's last update "WE also hear the VATICAN had somehow obtained control of the MONARCHY hundreds of years prior" may be easily

explained by a short story of Dutch history, which you - nor Casper - may not know, but which we are glad to share with you.

At about 1685 - 1687 there was a certain balance between the powers of France (the catholic King Louis XIV), England (the catholic King James II from

the House of Stuart), and the Seven United Provinces, better known as The Dutch Republic. The Dutch Republic was ruled by The States General and the

army's and fleet's leader at that time was the prince William III of Orange, such with the title of Stadholder. Something of the same as the lord Denethor of Gondor,

such in the absence of a king. However, the real power of the prince of Orange was a little less, as the Dutch people did not like to have an usurper.

Prince William III, far from catholic, was an ambitious man, who had married the princess Mary, daughter of King James II of England.

In 1688 the political balance was changed, and war was about to begin, and in autumn a large fleet of 500 vessels sailed to the South coast of England.

Aboard was a fully equipped invasion army of at about 21.000 seasoned troops. After the landing, the absolute power of James II was easily broken and

he fled to France. In February 1689 the Stadholder William became joint sovereign of England together with his wife. William ruled England till 1702.

Now, the point was that the enormous costs of this operation were not paid by the Dutch States General, nor by the rich Dutch regents and merchants,

but... in the deepest of deepest secrecy by the Pope of Rome, Innocentius Xl. This fact was even by Dutch historians not largely known till some years ago.

This loan (partly a gift) was paid by the powerful Odescalchi Family to which this Pope belonged. It is not without reasoning to think that the Pope will have had

"his price" to the English monarchy.

With best regards,

In love & light,


The Netherlands

Our meditations and prayers are with you both.

Keep up the good work!

#11  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: AB
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 5:14 PM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Fourwinds10

Elizabeth Windsor's oaths of allegiance; a glimpse into the retarding frictions of lite criminality

Alcuin Bramerton

Casper is accurate in his view that historical oaths are presenting a retarding friction in getting Elizabeth Windsor (Queen Elizabeth II of England) to unblock her opposition to the delivery of the prosperity fund trigger packs.

The Queen regards herself as a sworn guardian of the historical treasure of the Knights Templar. The Knights Templar are now better known as the Jesuits. The treasure of the Templars is not a particular stash of gold or sequestered riches. The treasure of the Knights Templar is the total financial control of the planet.

In the 1950s, as a young women, and recently enthroned as Queen, Elizabeth Windsor, was compelled by her mother, Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon, to take the Jesuit Blood Oath. This is sometimes referred to as the Jesuit Extreme Oath and Induction. The text of this Satanic rite was placed on the US Congressional record on the 15th February 1913. The page was torn out by a vandal at a later date. The full text of the Jesuit Blood Oath can be read here:

When the Queen, as quoted by Casper, talks about burning \"them\" she was probably talking (or thinking) about burning her own entrails with sulphur should she betray the Jesuit Blood Oath and allow financial control of the planet to slip away to an uncontrollable Other.

Elizabeth Windsor took the Jesuit Blood Oath in secret, one August, at Balmoral Castle in Scotland. A related curio, perhaps relevant to that remote location in Aberdeenshire, is that the Jesuits wrote the first 25 degrees of the Scottish Rite Freemasonry in 1754. More background about this can be found here:

And Benjamin Fulford has commented on the Satanic goings-on which are conducted under the radar at Balmoral here:

Elizabeth Windsor, as the English Monarch, is officially the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. This is a sensational blind. The English Reformation Church is an heretical construct in the Roman Catholic and Jesuit worldview. To have a sworn Jesuit in charge of the Church of England for the purposes of covert subversion is very Illuminati and very Jesuit. The Illuminati modus operandi has always been to say one thing in public and to prosecute the exact opposite in private. And Ignatius Loyola, the founder and first Superior General of the Jesuits, in the Thirteenth Rule (365) in his Spiritual Exercises says: \"To be right in everything, we ought always to hold that the white which I see, is black, if the Hierarchical Church so decides it ...."

In the early 1990s, for genuine spiritual reasons connected with the influence of one of her (Anglican) chaplains, Elizabeth Windsor began to get jumpy about her Jesuit connection. Foolishly, she confided her worries to her mother. Shortly afterwards, on the orders of the then Superior General of the Jesuits, Peter Hans Kolvenbach, she was terminated and cloned. The details of this unremarked regicide may shortly emerge.

But Casper is also right to stress the Nazi nature of the oaths which Elizabeth Windsor feels she is constrained by. The House of Windsor has impeccable Nazi roots, as does the US Bush family.

It is said that one of the Pandora\'s suitcase documents involving the Queen has to do with the manner in which her family was actively in touch with leading Nazis throughout the Second World War.

The Duke of Windsor, for example, had been in close collaboration with the Nazis in Spain and Portugal to foment a revolution in wartime Britain, which would topple the Churchill government, depose his brother King George VI, and allow him to regain the throne, with Queen Wallis (Simpson, the American divorcée, for whom he abdicated the throne) at his side. Explicit correspondence germane to this plot was lodged at Kronberg Castle.

In June 1945, King George VI, dispatched the former MI5 officer turned "Surveyor of the King's Pictures", Anthony Blunt, to gather up the incriminating correspondence. These papers are now thought to be held at Stonyhurst College in Lancashire, the Jesuit\'s English HQ.

Later on in 1978 and 1979, when the UK Thatcher government was fitting up Anthony Blunt as the \"fourth man\" in the Cambridge spy ring, Queen Elizabeth II insisted that there should be no interrogation of Blunt about his secret trip to Kronberg Castle.

More here:

#12  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
From: DE
To: "Bellringer" <>
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2009 8:25 PM

The "Holy Roman Empire" to which EW refers is alternately known as the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation": it's not actually Roman! (Nor is it "Holy".)

King George III, against whose forces the American revolutionaries fought in the late-1700s, held a title of "Prince Elector of the Holy Roman Empire".  "British" royalty has for several centuries been essentially German (Saxe-Coburg and Gotha; rebranded "Windsor" in 1917 to sound more English).  Queen Anne was the last monarch of the (Scottish) House of Stuart; when she died in 1714, the throne she had occupied in London passed to George I of the House of Hanover (HolyRoman Empire/modern-day Germany).

Germany, you will note, is also the birthplace of the Rothschild dynasty -- more specifically Frankfurt, Germany whose coat of arms is here (notice the red shield):

And what nationality is the current pope again?

"British Freemasonry's Control of the Roman Catholic Church":

 #13  (Reply)
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 2:28 PM
Subject: Siterun Contact Request from Fourwinds10

In the recent post of "Casper" issues were discussed that may be paramount to the future of us all.

There are many of "us" that can exercise Real Authority over insurgent situations. It is True, all corporations are under British Law and Rule. The Living Man, however, is NOT.

Treaties are the Supreme Law of the Land; however, non-treaty Category 4 American Natives that are still under the white "truce" flag, not a flag of surrender or "their" flag called "Old Glory" and we are the ONLY PEOPLE THAT HAVE RIGHT OF SOIL - PERIOD.

We are the only True Judges of the land. The corporate \"judges\" have no jurisdiction over non-corporate entities. We are available.

Copied below is from 1968 Encyclopedia Britannica:

Cherokee Nation is of the Iroquoian lineage, originally located in eastern Tennessee and western North and South Carolina [and Georgia]; had approximately 200 towns, or villages, and in 1650, their population was about 22,000. Cherokee had a confederacy of red and white towns, otherwise known as war and peace towns; peace towns were comparable to "sanctuary" of Biblical standards. The chiefs were appropriately named supreme chief of war or supreme chief of peace.

The Cherokee first came to notice in 1730 when Sir Alexander Cuming, an emissary of King George II, conferred the title of emperor on Chief Moytoy at Tellico, Tenn. [Does "first in time, first in line" ring a bell? And, does not "emperor" have plenary power?]

With that in mind, only the Cherokee obtained "title of office" over "British" lands in North America. The "office" is still manned and maintained through the Cherokee Nation. And, with that in mind, has not the Cherokee readily acknowledged our Creator, the Eternal Heavenly Father, as "King" forever? Does that not transfer the title of Emperor to our Father, Yahweh? Is not this the "portal/door" (along with proper Sabbatical (Passover) obedience) to the Kingdom of Heaven?"  I could say MUCH more, but...