http://www.eurweb.com/2016/05/black-hawaii-south-pacific-secrets-forbidden-history/

 

https://web.facebook.com/TheYoungTurks/videos/10155049254569205/

The Clean Cut All American Guy lmaoooooo

The Hidden Contract America is still under the Crown

Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles July 16, 1782.

17 de abril de 2011 a las 11:11

Contract Between the King and the Thirteen United States of North America, signed at Versailles

July 16, 1782.

The King having been pleased to attend to the requests made to him in the name and on behalf of the united provinces of North America for assistance in the war and invasion under which they had for several years groaned; and His Majesty, after entering into a Treaty of Amity and Commerce with the said confederated provinces on the 6th of February, 1778, having had the goodness to support them, not only with his forces by land and sea, but also with advances of money, as abundant as they were effectual in the critical situation to which their affairs were reduced; it has been judged proper and necessary to state exactly the amount of those advances the conditions on which the King made them, the periods at which the Congress of the United States have engaged to repay them to His Majesty’s royal treasury, and, in fine, to state this matter in such a way as for the future to prevent all difficulties capable of interrupting the good harmony which His Majesty is resolved to maintain and pre- serve between him and the said United States. For executing so laudable a purpose, and with a view to strengthen the bands of amity and commerce which subsist between His Majesty and the said United States, we, Charles Gravier de Vergennes, etc., Counselor of the King in all his Councils, Commander of his Orders, Minister and Secretary of State, and of his Commands and Finances, vested with full powers of His Majesty to us given for this purpose-

And we, Benjamin Franklin, Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of North America, in like manner vested with full powers of the Congress of the said States for the present purpose, after duly communicating our respective powers, have agreed to the following articles:

ARTICLE 1

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

 

By which receipts the said Minister has promised, in the name of Congress and in behalf of the thirteen United States, to cause to be paid and reimbursed to the royal treasury of His Majesty, on the 1st of January, 1788, at the house of his Grand Banker at Paris, the said sum of eighteen millions, money of France, with interest at five per cent per annum.

ARTICLE 2.

Considering that the payment of so large a capital at the one stipulated period, the 1st of January, 1788, may greatly injure the finances of the Congress of the United States, and it may perhaps be even impracticable on that footing, His Majesty has been pleased for that reason to recede in that respect from the tenor of the receipts which the Minister of Congress has given for the eighteen million livres tournois mentioned in the foregoing article, and has consented that the payment of the capital in ready money at the royal treasury be in twelve equal payments of 1,500,000 livres each, and in twelve years only, to commence from the third year after a peace.

ARTICLE 3.

Although the receipts of the Minister of the Congress of the United States specify that the eighteen million of livres above mentioned are to be paid at the royal treasury, with interest at five per cent per annum, His Majesty, being willing to give the said United States a new proof of his affection and friendship, has been pleased to make a present of, and to forgive the whole arrears of interest to this day, and from thence to the date of the treaty of peace; a favor which the Minister of the Congress of the United States acknowledges to flow from the pure bounty of the King, and which he accepts in the name of the said United States with profound and lively acknowledgments.

ARTICLE 4.

The payment of the said eighteen millions of livres tournois shall be in ready money at the royal treasury of His Majesty at Paris, in twelve equal parts and at the terms stipulated in the above second article. The interest of the said sum, at five percent per annum, shall commence with the date of the treaty of peace, and shall be paid at every period of the partial payments of the capital, and shall diminish in proportion with the payments; the Congress of the said United States being left, however, at liberty to free themselves sooner from this obligation by anticipated payments in case the state of their finances will admit.

ARTICLE 5.

Although the loan of five millions of florins of Holland, agreed to by the States General of the United Provinces of the Netherlands on the terms of the obligation passed on the 5th of November, 1781, between His Majesty and the said States General, has been made in His Majesty’s name and guaranteed by him; it is never the less acknowledged by these presents that the said loan was made in reality on account and for the service of the United States of North America, and that the capital, amounting at a moderate valuation to the sum of ten millions livres tournois, has been paid to the said United States, agreeably to a receipt for the payment of the said sum, given by the undersigned Minister of Congress the seventh day of June last.

ARTICLE 6.

By the convention of the said 5th of November, 1781, the King has been pleased to promise and engage to furnish and pay at the general counter of the States General of the Netherlands, the capital of the said loan, with the interest at four per cent per annum, without any charge or deduction whatever to the lenders; so that the said capital shall be wholly repaid after the space of five years, the payments to be made in ten equal periods, the first of which to commence the sixth year from the date of the loan, and afterwards from year to year to the final payment of the said sum; but it is in like manner acknowledged by this act that this engagement was entered into by the King at the request of the undersigned Minister of the United States, and on the promise by him made in the name of Congress and on behalf of the thirteen United States, to cause to be reimbursed and paid at the royal treasury of His Majesty at Paris, the capital, interest, and cost of the said loan, according to the conditions and terms fixed by the said convention of the 5th of November, 1781.

ARTICLE 7.

It is accordingly agreed and settled that the sum of ten million livres tournois, being by a moderate computation the principal of the loan of five millions of Holland florins above mentioned, shall be reimbursed and paid in ready money at the royal treasury of His Majesty at Paris, with the interest at four per cent per annum, in ten equal payments of one million each, and in ten terms, the first of which shall be on the 5th of November, 1787, the second the 5th of November, 1788, and so from year to year till the final payment of the said sum of ten millions, the interest lessening in proportion with the partial payments of the capital. But in consequence of the King’s affection for the United States, His Majesty has been pleased to charge himself with the expense of commissions and bank for the said loan, of which expenses His Majesty has made a present to the United States, and this their undersigned Minister accepts, with thanks, in the name of Congress, as a new proof of His Majesty’s generosity and friendship for the said United States.

ARTICLE 8.

With regard to the interest of the said loan during the five years preceding the first term of payment of the capital, as the fling has engaged to pay it at the general counter of the States General of the Netherlands, at the rate of four per cent yearly, and every year, counting from the 5th of November, 1781, according to the convention of that day, the Minister of Congress acknowledges that the repayment of that is due to His Majesty by the United States, and he engages in the name of the said United States to cause payment thereof to be made, at the same time and I at the same rate, at the royal treasury of His Majesty; the first year’s interest to be paid the 5th of November next, and so yearly during the five years preceding the first term for the payment of the capital, fixed as above on the 5th of November, 5 1787.

The high contracting parties reciprocally bind themselves to the faithful observance of this contract, the ratifications of which shall be exchanged in the space of nine months from this day, or sooner if possible. In testimony whereof we, the said Plenipotentiaries of His Most Christian Majesty and of the thirteen United States of North America, in virtue of our respective powers, have signed these presents and it hereunto fixed the seal of our arms.

Done at Versailles the sixteenth day of July, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-two.

 

GRAVIER DE VERGENNES

[Seal]

 

B FRANKLIN

[Seal]

America still under the British Crown?

America is still a British Colony under the Roman Empire

Posted on March 5, 2015 by David Robinson

What are the three city states and do they rule the world?

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’s District of Columbia city state is in charge of the military, and the Vatican 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.

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 they 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.

 

 

 

Income Tax a Fraudulent Collection

https://organiclaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Petition-for-Writ.pdf

 

Louisiana Purchase a Fraud US Supreme Court Case

http://www.nationoftexas.com/case_exhibits/exhibit_170.pdf

 

The USA isnt a Country

Dear Friends,

 

 

 

For an entity to become a corporation under federal law,

 

there must be an Act of Congress creating that corporation.

 

 

 

There are no Acts of Congress expressly incorporating

 

either the “United States” or the “United States of America”.

 

 

 

In 1871 Congress did expressly incorporate the District

 

of Columbia, but D.C. and the “United States” are not

 

one and the same. In that Act of 1871, Congress also

 

expressly extended the U.S. Constitution into D.C.:

 

 

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/gilberts/intentm3.filed.htm#1871

 

 

 

In United States v. Cooper Corporation, 312 U.S. 600 (1941),

 

the Supreme Court wrote:

 

 

 

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/312/600.html

 

 

 

We may say in passing that the argument that the

 

United States may be treated as a corporation

 

organized under its own laws, that is, under the

 

Constitution as the fundamental law, seems so strained

 

as not to merit serious consideration .”

 

 

 

 

 

Some of the confusion rampant on this subject may have

 

originated in the definition of “UNITED STATES OF

 

AMERICA” in Bouvier’s Law Dictionary here:

 

 

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/ref/dict/bldu1.htm#union

 

 

 

See Paragraph 5 quoted here:

 

 

 

“5. The United States of America are a corporation

 

endowed with the capacity to sue and be sued, to convey

 

and receive property. 1 Marsh. Dec. 177, 181.

 

But it is proper to observe that no suit can be brought

 

against the United States without authority of law.”

 

 

 

Note that the plural verb “are” was used, providing further

 

evidence that the “United States of America” are plural,

 

as implied by the plural term “States”. Also, the author

 

of that definition switches to “United States” in the second

 

sentence. This only adds to the confusion, because the

 

term “United States” has three (3) different legal meanings:

 

 

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/hooven/hooven.htm#united.states

 

 

 

However, the decision cited above is Justice Marshall issuing dictum,

 

and it is NOT an Act of Congress. Here, again,

 

be very wary of courts attempting to “legislate” in the absence

 

of a proper Act of Congress. See 1 U.S.C. 101 for the

 

statute defining the required enacting clause:

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1/101.html

 

 

 

And, pay attention to what was said in that definition here:

 

“no suit can be brought against the United States

 

without authority of law”. That statement is not only

 

correct; it also provides another important clue:

 

Congress has conferred legal standing on the “United States”

 

to sue and be sued at 28 U.S.C. 1345 and 1346, respectively:

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1345.html

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1346.html

 

 

 

Congress has NOT conferred comparable legal standing

 

upon the “United States of America” to sue, or be sued,

 

as such.

 

 

 

Furthermore, under the Articles of Confederation, the term

 

“United States of America” is the “stile” or phrase that was used

 

to describe the Union formed legally by those Articles:

 

 

 

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States

 

of New Hampshire, Massachusetts bay, Rhode Island and Providence

 

Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania,

 

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and

 

Georgia.

 

 

 

Article I. The Stile of this Confederacy shall be

 

The United States of America.”

 

 

 

Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom,

 

and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right,

 

which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated

 

to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

 

 

 

[end excerpt]

 

 

 

 

 

When they came together the first time to form

 

a Union of several (plural) States, they decided

 

to call themselves the “United States of America”.

 

 

 

Note also that those Articles clearly distinguished

 

“United States of America” from “United States”

 

in Congress assembled. The States formally

 

delegated certain powers to the federal government,

 

which is clearly identified in those Articles as the

 

“United States”.

 

 

 

Therefore, the “United States of America” now refer to

 

the 50 States of the Union, and the term “United States”

 

refers to the federal government.

 

 

 

The term “United States” is the term that is used consistently now

 

throughout Title 28 to refer to the federal government domiciled

 

in D.C. There is only ONE PLACE in all of Title 28 where the

 

term “United States of America” is used, and there it is used

 

in correct contradistinction to “United States”:

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1746.html

 

 

 

Because Title 28 contains statutes which govern all federal courts,

 

the consistent use of “United States” to refer to the federal

 

government carries enormous weight. Title 28 is the latest word

 

on this subject, as revised, codified and enacted into positive law

 

on June 25, 1948. Moreover, the Supremacy Clause elevates

 

Title 28 to the status of supreme Law of the Land.

 

 

 

To make matters worse and to propagate more confusion,

 

the entity “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”

 

incorporated twice in the State of Delaware:

 

 

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.inc

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/cc/usa.corp

 

 

 

 

 

The main problem that arises from these questions is that

 

United States Attorneys are now filing lawsuits and

 

prosecuting criminal INDICTMENTS in the name of the

 

“UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” [sic]

 

but without any powers of attorney to do so. Compare

 

28 U.S.C. 547 (which confers powers of attorney to represent

 

the “United States” and its agencies in federal courts):

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/547.html

 

 

 

They are NOT “United States of America Attorneys”, OK?

 

 

 

First of all, they do NOT have any powers of attorney

 

to represent Delaware corporations in federal courts;

 

Congress never appropriated funds for them to do so

 

and Congress never conferred any powers of attorney

 

on them to do so either.

 

 

 

Secondly, the 50 States are already adequately represented

 

by their respective State Attorneys General; therefore,

 

U.S. Attorneys have no powers of attorney to represent

 

any of the 50 States of the Union, or any of their agencies,

 

either.

 

 

 

They are “U.S. Attorneys” NOT “U.S.A. Attorneys”, OK?

 

 

 

Accordingly, it is willful misrepresentation for any U.S. Attorney

 

to attempt to appear in any State or federal court on behalf

 

of the “UNITED STATES OF AMERICA” [sic]. And,

 

such misrepresentation is actionable under the McDade Act

 

at 28 U.S.C. 530B:

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/530B.html

 

 

 

 

 

There are quite a few “activists” running around the Internet

 

claiming that the “United States” and the “United States of

 

America” are both corporations. These claims are not correct,

 

for the reasons already stated above.

 

 

 

A similar error occurs when these so-called “activists” cite

 

the federal statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 as their only “proof”

 

that the “United States” was incorporated by Congress.

 

Here’s the pertinent text of that statute:

 

 

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/3002.html

 

 

 

As used in this chapter:

 

 

(15) “United States” means —

 

(A) a Federal corporation;

 

(B) an agency, department, commission, board, or

 

other entity of the United States; or

 

(C) an instrumentality of the United States.

 

 

 

[end excerpt]

 

 

 

 

 

First of all, note well that the stated scope of this definition

 

is limited to “this chapter” i.e. CHAPTER 176 of Title 28

 

Federal Debt Collection Procedures. Overlooking the

 

limited scope of such definitions is a very common error

 

among many, if not all self-styled experts. At best, this section

 

cannot be used as evidence that the federal government

 

should be treated as a valid corporation for all other intents

 

and purposes. It takes a LOT more text than this one limited

 

definition to create any federal corporation! Compare the

 

original Statutes at Large that created the Union Pacific

 

Railroad Company, for example.

 

 

 

Secondly, from the evidence above it should already

 

be clear that the “United States” (federal government)

 

is not now, and never has been, a federal corporation.

 

The statute at 28 U.S.C. 3002 merely defines the

 

term “United States” to embrace all existing federal

 

corporations. Because the United States was not

 

an existing corporation when Congress enacted

 

section 3002, that statute did not create and could

 

not have created the United States as a federal

 

corporation in the first instance.

 

 

 

Thirdly, in Eisner v. Macomber the U.S. Supreme Court

 

told Congress that it was barred from re-defining

 

any terms that are used in the federal Constitution.

 

“United States” occurs in several places, because it is central

 

to the entire purpose of that Constitution. Therefore,

 

the legislative attempt to re-define “United States” at

 

section 3002 is necessarily unconstitutional, because

 

it violates the Eisner Prohibition.

 

 

 

Fourthly, section 3002 also exhibits 2 subtle tautologies,

 

which render it null and void for vagueness. Here they are,

 

in case you missed them:

 

 

 

United States” means … an agency, department, commission,

 

board, or other entity of the United States;

 

or

 

United States” means … an instrumentality of the United States.

 

 

 

It is a fundamental violation of proper English grammar to use

 

the term being defined in any definition of that term, and such a

 

violation has clearly happened here. If you don’t yet recognize

 

the tautologies, then change one part of this definition to read:

 

 

 

The term “United States” here also embraces any instrumentality

 

of the federal government.

 

 

 

At the very least, this minor change eliminates the tautology and

 

removes the vagueness. Nevertheless, such an attempt to re-define

 

the term “United States” still violates the Eisner Prohibition.

 

 

 

For a newspaper-level Press Release which further explores some

 

of the many legal ramifications of these widespread errors, please

 

see this Internet URL:

 

 

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/press/rels/cracking.title.28.htm

 

 

 

 

 

Sincerely yours,

 

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

 

Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and

 

Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 151213, 1964(a)

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm

 

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

 

 

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice