THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW.
Protect LIFE and PROPERTY Uphold the LAW.
THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE IS THE HIGHEST LAW !
WE,
THE PEOPLE OF THE MANY AND VARIOUS SOVEREIGN DEMOCRATIC NATIONS OF THE
PLANET EARTH, UNITED IN OUR DIVERSITY, HEREBY ACCUSE OUR RESPECTIVE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS OF COMMITTING SERIOUS CRIMES AGAINST US, AMOUNTING
TO SEDITION AND TREASON BY ALLOWING AND CONTINUING TO ALLOW THE
CRIMINALLY FRAUDULENT INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY (A 'FOREIGN POWER')
TO UNLAWFULLY USURP UNLAWFUL FINANCIAL SOVEREIGNTY OVER US.
WE
ASSERT THAT THIS SITUATION IS REPUGNANT TO US, IT IS AGAINST COMMON
RIGHT AND REASON, AND IT IS CERTAINLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PERFORMED BY
VIRTUE OF THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE INTEREST UPON THE FRAUDULENTLY CREATED LOANS
(BY MEANS OF WHICH THE CRIMINAL INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY HAS
UNLAWFULLY USURPED OUR VARIOUS NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTIES) IS DEMONSTRABLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PAID.
WE
ARE THEREFORE IN LAWFUL REBELLION AGAINST THIS UNTENNABLE STATE OF
AFFAIRS AS REQUIRED OF US ACCORDING TO UNIVERSAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND
EQUITY.
NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW!
WE
HEREBY DEMAND ACCORDING TO UNIVERSAL LAW AND EQUITY, THAT OUR VARIOUS
NATIONAL LEGAL CONSTITUTIONS BE IMMEDIATELY RESTORED TO THEIR PROPER
LAWFUL & SOVEREIGN POSITION ABOVE OUR GOVERNMENTS AND ABOVE THE CRIMINAL INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY - THEREBY EXPEDITING AN IMMEDIATE
END TO CRIMINALLY USURIOUS MULTINATIONAL BANKING PRACTICES &
COMMENSURATE CRIMINAL CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION;
WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY INITIATING A HEALTH-GIVING GLOBAL REVOLUTION FOR
OUR VARIOUS PEOPLES AND OUR ONE PLANET WITHOUT UNDUE FINANCIAL
CONSTRAINT.
FREEDOM IS UNDER THE LAW !
- pass it on !
COPYLEFT by EcoTort Theatre
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
WE ACCUSE OUR GOVERNMENT . . . .
Noblesse Oblige!
WE
THE BRITISH PEOPLE HEREBY ACCUSE OUR BRITISH GOVERNMENT OF COMMITTING
SERIOUS CRIMES AMOUNTING TO SEDITION AND HIGH TREASON AT COMMON LAW
AGAINST US, BY ALLOWING AND CONTINUING TO ALLOW THE INTERNATIONAL
BANKING INDUSTRY (A 'FOREIGN POWER') TO UNLAWFULLY GAIN UNLAWFUL
FINANCIAL SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE BRITISH PEOPLE.
WE
HEREBY ASSERT THAT THIS SITUATION IS REPUGNANT TO US, IT IS AGAINST
COMMON RIGHT AND REASON, AND IT IS CERTAINLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE PERFORMED
BY VIRTUE OF THE SIMPLE FACT THAT THE INTEREST UPON THE FRAUDULENTLY
CREATED LOANS BY MEANS OF WHICH THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING INDUSTRY HAS
UNLAWFULLY USURPED BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS DEMONSTRABLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE
PAID.
WE
ARE THEREFORE IN LAWFUL REBELLION AGAINST THIS UNTENNABLE STATE OF
AFFAIRS AS REQUIRED OF US IN LAW BY THE MAGNA CARTA, AN IRREVOCABLE
TREATY BETWEEN US THE BRITISH PEOPLE, OUR GOVERNMENT, AND OUR SOVEREIGN
LADY THE QUEEN.
NO PERSON IS ABOVE THE LAW!
WE
LAWFULLY DEMAND THAT THE ENGLISH LEGAL CONSTITUTION BE RESTORED TO ITS
LAWFUL POSITION ABOVE OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE INTERNATIONAL BANKING
INDUSTRY ACCORDING TO THE MAGNA CARTA, COMMON LAW, AND EQUITY - THEREBY
EXPEDITING A SWIFT END TO USURIOUS GLOBAL BANKING PRACTICES, AND
INITIATING A WORLD REVOLUTION FOR THE ENVIRONMENT WITHOUT UNDUE
FINANCIAL CONSTRAINT.
pass it on ! !
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
EcoTort's POSTS IN "THE GUARDIAN" re the protest at St Paul's Cathedral
27 October 2011 12:27AM
PRESENT DAY SLAVERY
It would seem that:-
1.
by means of extensive criminal malpractice, the world's major banks
have assumed financial control over nearly all of the world's
governments.
2.
they have assumed near infinite financial wealth by charging untold
interest on loans of virtual money which was created through the
stupendous criminal fraud known as "fractional reserve banking".
3.
the banks are financing heinous "agravated criminal damage and
destruction of the environment" we all share " by means of criminal
industrial piracy.
4.
furthermore they are guilty of criminal economic exclusion of lawful
organic & sustainable permaculture theory and practice, the general
'excuse' being that it is not financially viable. The financial
arguments used are based upon fraudulently created virtual money and
lawfully unenforceable contracts to commit "agravated criminal damage
and destruction of the environment".
5.
When combined, points 1 to 4 above clearly constitute "criminal global
economic slavery" by the bankers, in other words: "we are in criminal
bondage to destroy our planet!"
As in North Dakota, USA, bankers must be public servants, not agents of unlawful free-market enterprise including salvery.
7.
The only necessary criteria for a public servant's finances, is that
all those finances be open to public scrutiny. Any concealment may
constitute a criminal offence punishable in law.
Noblesse Oblige.
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/slaveryen.pdf
27 October 2011 1:04AM
Definition
of an " Occupier ". rude, obnoxious, insensitive, unaware of reality
and history,pretentious, uneducated, chav( in thinking ),
intolerant,stupid, self centered,incomplete, pseudo-labour, lazy
thinkers, non thinkers, unemployed, rude,rude, rude.
Capitalism has always had its faults but it has helped to make Britain put bread on everyones table. ( and cake ).
Perhaps they should have lived in Russia after the revolution.
Peace be with you.
27 October 2011 11:49AM
"@Nedlly:
not being anti semetic myself, (zionists are NOT of the semetic tribe,
whereas Palestinians ARE semetic, which makes zionists anti-semetic!),
this is quoted from English translation of German MP Martin Hohmann's
'antisemic speech' of October 3 2003:
How many Jews were actually represented in the (Russian) revolutionary assemblies?
4 Jews were part of the 7 men Politibureau. Leo Trotsky, Leo Kamenjew, Gregory Sinowjew and Gregory Sokolnikow.
The none-Jews were Lenin, Stalin and Bubnow (1).
Among the 21 members of the Revolutionary Central Committee in Russia in 1917, 6 had the Jewish nationality, which is 28.6 %.
This overrepresentation of Jews amongst the creators of the Communist Movement was in no way limited to the Soviet Union.
Also Ferdinand LaSalle was Jewish, as were Eduard Bernstein and Rosa Luxemburg.
In Germany in 1924 4 out of 6 leaders of the Communist Party were Jewish, and thereby made up one third.
In Germany in 1924 4 out of 6 leaders of the Communist Party were Jewish, and thereby made up one third.
In Vienna out of 137 leading Austro-Marxists there were 81 Jews, which comprises 60%.
Among the 48 Folk Commissionaires, there were 30 Jews.
Among the 48 Folk Commissionaires, there were 30 Jews.
But
also among the Soviet revolutionary secret police the Jewish quota was
exceptionally large. While the Jewish quota of the total Russian
population in 1939 was about 2 %, the Jewish Cheka (Tcheka) leaders made
up no less than 39 %.
"Jewish", to make things clear, was recognized as a separate nationality in the Soviet Union.
The Jewish quota of the Cheka was by 36% higher than the Russian.
In the Ukraine even 75 % of the Cheka were Jews
In the Ukraine even 75 % of the Cheka were Jews
These
facts lead onward to a chapter that at that time caused an enormous
outrage. The murder of the Russian Tsar family had been planned by the
Jew Jacob Swerdlov, and Tsar Nicholas II was murdered by the Jew
Chaimowits Jurowski in person.
Furthermore,
there is the question if the Jews in the Communist movement were merely
followers, or if they had a leading function. The latter was the case.
Leo Trotsky in the UUSR, and Bela Kun in Hungary.
According
to a statistical study by a professor who was presented by Churchill in
1930, 28 orthodox Bishops, 1.219 orthodox priests, 6.000 professors and
teachers, 9.000 doctors, 12.950 landowners, 54.000 officers, 70.000
policemen, 193.000 workers, 260.000 soldiers, 355.000 intellectuals and
merchants and 815.000 farmers had fallen as victims of the Soviets until
1924.
An
especially revolting chapter was the annihilation of any resistance
against the forced collectivization in the Ukraine. Under the
examplatory participation of Jewish Chekists far more than 10 million
people found their death here.
The
outspoken anti-church and anti-Christian objectives of the Bolshevist
Revolution shall not be played down, as is the case in most schoolbooks.
It is a fact, that Bolshevism, with their militant atheism has carried
out the greatest persecutions of Christians, and religion as such.
According
to statistics worked out by the Russian authorities, 96,000 orthodox
Christians, among them priests, deaconesses, monks, nuns, and other
church workers were shot after having been arrested.
Quoted from English translation of German MP Martin Hohmann's 'antisemic speech' of October 3 2003.
http://www.mosaisk.com/revolution/Winston-Churchill-Zionism-Versus-Bolshevism.php
for your information 'Nedlly' it is BAKERS who make cake, NOT BANKSTERS !
Peace be with you.
27 October 2011 9:55PM
@ecotort.
I
thank you for your very detailed contribution to this debate. However I
am rather confused why you should go to very detailed lengths to refute
my very simple statement ( although you may say very simple ).
Not really sure what to say except that you have brought up issues which I was not at all implying but all power to you.
Peace be with you.
27 October 2011 11:42PM
@Nedlly:
. . . as an "Occupier" of more than thirty years standing, I am, I
hope, simply making the point that I am neither, rude, obnoxious,
insensitive, unaware of reality and history, pretentious, uneducated,
chav ( in thinking ), intolerant, stupid, self centered, incomplete,
pseudo-labour, lazy thinkers, a non thinker, nor am I unemployed, or
rude,rude, rude except when sorely provoked . . .
28 October 2011 12:07AM
@ ecotort.
What can i say except that i was rude , which was wrong and I apologize.
27 October 2011 12:07PM
there is much confusion between 'anti semetic' and 'anti zionist'.
anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/03/comment
anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/03/comment
. . . - it is alleged that the City of London:
1. is private "CITY STATE" owned by a PRIVATE CORPORATION known as the "CROWN ESTATE".
2. that it is not subject to English Law.
3. it has it's own Government and Police Force.
4. it was responsible for financing the African Slave Trade and the Opium Wars.
5. it financed monsanto in the production of "AGENT ORANGE", otherwise known as "DIOXIN", a defoliant used for killing trees in the Vietnam War to expose the Vietnamese who were hiding in the Trees. . . "AGENT ORANGE" was sprayed indiscriminantly upon Americans and Vietnamese alike, and has produced extraordinarily painful mutations in children for three subsequent generations, both in America and in Vietnam.
6. it is responsible for RECKLESSLY financing continuous attempts to SELL UNTESTED GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD ALL OVER THE WORLD.
6. it is currently responsible for financing wholesale AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH, to the extent that the threat of environmental damage and destruction to the Earth is now as serious as a World War.
1. is private "CITY STATE" owned by a PRIVATE CORPORATION known as the "CROWN ESTATE".
2. that it is not subject to English Law.
3. it has it's own Government and Police Force.
4. it was responsible for financing the African Slave Trade and the Opium Wars.
5. it financed monsanto in the production of "AGENT ORANGE", otherwise known as "DIOXIN", a defoliant used for killing trees in the Vietnam War to expose the Vietnamese who were hiding in the Trees. . . "AGENT ORANGE" was sprayed indiscriminantly upon Americans and Vietnamese alike, and has produced extraordinarily painful mutations in children for three subsequent generations, both in America and in Vietnam.
6. it is responsible for RECKLESSLY financing continuous attempts to SELL UNTESTED GENETICALLY MODIFIED FOOD ALL OVER THE WORLD.
6. it is currently responsible for financing wholesale AGGRAVATED CRIMINAL DAMAGE AND DESTRUCTION OF THE EARTH, to the extent that the threat of environmental damage and destruction to the Earth is now as serious as a World War.
It
is recorded in History that the territory known as the "City of London"
was given to "Jewish" Bankers by Cromwell in exchange for financial
support in his invasion of Britain against the Crown.
It
is essential at this point, in order not to be labeled as
"Anti-Semetic", to be clear that just because we are saying that the the
CRIMINAL Bankers in question were "Jewish", does not mean we are saying
that all Jews are to be tarred with the same brush as those Criminal
Bankers amongst them. There is also some doubt as to whether those
CRIMINAL "Jewish" Bankers are Semetic at all, that they are in fact
descendants of Esau not Jacob/Israel:
In
the time of Jesus, 2000 years ago, the inhabitants of Jerusalem and
Judaea, and their ruler king Herod, were Edomites (sons of Esau not
Jacob/Israel), who had stolen the land from the “House of Judah” whilst
the House of Judah had been in slavery in Babylon and the Idumeans were
pretending to be Israelites when they were really Edomites (Idumeans) -
sons of Esau (who had sold his birth-right to his younger brother Jacob
in exchange for a bowl of soup).
Jesus condemned them and warned the world against them in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.
King of kings’ Bible – Revelation 2:9: "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan."
3:9: "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but do LIE (Idumeans); behold, I will make them to come and worship
before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
Jesus condemned them and warned the world against them in Revelation 2:9 and 3:9.
King of kings’ Bible – Revelation 2:9: "I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and [I know] the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but [are] (Idumeans) the synagogue of Satan."
3:9: "Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are NOT, but do LIE (Idumeans); behold, I will make them to come and worship
before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."
http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Rothschild-timeline-revised-excerpt.html
1688: A. N. Field, in his book, “All These Things,” published in 1931, explains the situation in England this year, as a result of Cromwell’s decision to ignore the law banning the Jews from entering England, and allowing them back in defiance of the law, only 33 years earlier, as follows,
“Thirty-three years after Cromwell had let the Jews into Britain a Dutch Prince arrived from Amsterdam surrounded by a whole swarm of Jews from that Jewish financial centre. Driving his royal father-in-law out of the kingdom, he graciously consented to ascend the throne of Britain. A very natural result following on this event was the inauguration of the National Debt by the establishment six years later of the Bank of England for the purpose of lending money to the Crown. Britain had paid her way as she went until the Jew arrived.”
1694: The deceptively named, “Bank of England,” is founded. It is deceptively named as it gives the impression it is controlled by the Government of England when in fact it is a private institution founded by Jews. In his book, “The Breakdown of Money,” published in 1934, Christopher Hollis explains the formation of the Bank of England, as follows,
“In 1694 the Government of William III (who had come in from Holland with the Jews) was in sore straits for money. A company of rich men under the leadership of one William Paterson offered to lend William £1,200,000 at 8 per cent on the condition that, ‘the Governor and Company of the Bank of England,’ as they called themselves, should have the right to issue notes to the full extent of its capital. That is to say, the Bank got the right to collect £1,200,000 in gold and silver and to turn it into £2,400,000 (that is, double it), lending £1,200,000, the gold and silver to the Government, and using the other £1,200,000, the banknotes, themselves.
Paterson was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make money…In practice they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or
1688: A. N. Field, in his book, “All These Things,” published in 1931, explains the situation in England this year, as a result of Cromwell’s decision to ignore the law banning the Jews from entering England, and allowing them back in defiance of the law, only 33 years earlier, as follows,
“Thirty-three years after Cromwell had let the Jews into Britain a Dutch Prince arrived from Amsterdam surrounded by a whole swarm of Jews from that Jewish financial centre. Driving his royal father-in-law out of the kingdom, he graciously consented to ascend the throne of Britain. A very natural result following on this event was the inauguration of the National Debt by the establishment six years later of the Bank of England for the purpose of lending money to the Crown. Britain had paid her way as she went until the Jew arrived.”
1694: The deceptively named, “Bank of England,” is founded. It is deceptively named as it gives the impression it is controlled by the Government of England when in fact it is a private institution founded by Jews. In his book, “The Breakdown of Money,” published in 1934, Christopher Hollis explains the formation of the Bank of England, as follows,
“In 1694 the Government of William III (who had come in from Holland with the Jews) was in sore straits for money. A company of rich men under the leadership of one William Paterson offered to lend William £1,200,000 at 8 per cent on the condition that, ‘the Governor and Company of the Bank of England,’ as they called themselves, should have the right to issue notes to the full extent of its capital. That is to say, the Bank got the right to collect £1,200,000 in gold and silver and to turn it into £2,400,000 (that is, double it), lending £1,200,000, the gold and silver to the Government, and using the other £1,200,000, the banknotes, themselves.
Paterson was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to the Bank was a privilege to make money…In practice they did not keep a cash reserve of nearly two or
27 October 2011 12:13PM
Paterson
was quite right about it that this privilege which had been given to
the Bank was a privilege to make money…In practice they did not keep a
cash reserve of nearly two or three hundred thousand pounds. By 1696
(ie. within two years) we find them circulating £1,750,000 worth of
notes against a cash reserve of £36,000. That is with a, ‘backing,’ of
only about 2 percent of what they issued and drew interest on.”
The names of the Jewish controllers of the Bank of England are never revealed, but it is clear, as early as this year, through their control of the Bank of England, Jews had control over the British Royal family. However, whilst their identity is protected, they may have wished they picked a more discreet front man, after William Paterson states,
“The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”
The fact that Paterson chose to let the cat out of the bag in this manner, may explain why he would go on to die a poor man, outcast by his associates, or maybe this, “shabbez goy,” (a non-Jew who chose to clandestinely represent the interests of Jews), had merely outlived his usefulness to the Jews behind the scenes.
1698: Following four years of the Bank of England, the Jewish control of the British money supply had come on in leaps and bounds. They had flooded the country with so much money that the Government debt to the Bank had grown from its’ initial £1,250,000, to £16,000,000, in only four years, an increase of 1,280%.
Why do they do it? Simple, if the money in circulation in a country is £5,000,000, and a central bank is set up and prints another £15,000,000, stage one of the plan, and sends that out into the economy through loans etc, then this will naturally reduce the value of the initial £5,000,000 that was in circulation before the bank was formed. This is because the initial £5,000,000 that was 100% of the economy is now only 25% of the economy. It will also give the bank control of 75% of the money in circulation with the £15,000,000 they sent out into the economy.
This causes inflation which is simply the reduction in worth of money borne by the common person, due to the economy being flooded with too much money, an economy which the Central Bank are responsible for. As the common person’s money is worth less, he has to go to the bank to get a loan to help run his business etc, and when the Central Bank are satisfied there are enough people with debt out there, the bank will tighten the supply of money by not offering loans. This is stage two of the plan.
Stage three, is sitting back and waiting for the people in debt to them to go bankrupt, allowing the bank to then seize from them real wealth, businesses and property etc, for pennies on the pound. Inflation never affects a central bank, in fact they are the only group who can benefit from it, as if they are ever short of money they can simply print more.
The names of the Jewish controllers of the Bank of England are never revealed, but it is clear, as early as this year, through their control of the Bank of England, Jews had control over the British Royal family. However, whilst their identity is protected, they may have wished they picked a more discreet front man, after William Paterson states,
“The Bank hath benefit of interest on all monies which it creates out of nothing.”
The fact that Paterson chose to let the cat out of the bag in this manner, may explain why he would go on to die a poor man, outcast by his associates, or maybe this, “shabbez goy,” (a non-Jew who chose to clandestinely represent the interests of Jews), had merely outlived his usefulness to the Jews behind the scenes.
1698: Following four years of the Bank of England, the Jewish control of the British money supply had come on in leaps and bounds. They had flooded the country with so much money that the Government debt to the Bank had grown from its’ initial £1,250,000, to £16,000,000, in only four years, an increase of 1,280%.
Why do they do it? Simple, if the money in circulation in a country is £5,000,000, and a central bank is set up and prints another £15,000,000, stage one of the plan, and sends that out into the economy through loans etc, then this will naturally reduce the value of the initial £5,000,000 that was in circulation before the bank was formed. This is because the initial £5,000,000 that was 100% of the economy is now only 25% of the economy. It will also give the bank control of 75% of the money in circulation with the £15,000,000 they sent out into the economy.
This causes inflation which is simply the reduction in worth of money borne by the common person, due to the economy being flooded with too much money, an economy which the Central Bank are responsible for. As the common person’s money is worth less, he has to go to the bank to get a loan to help run his business etc, and when the Central Bank are satisfied there are enough people with debt out there, the bank will tighten the supply of money by not offering loans. This is stage two of the plan.
Stage three, is sitting back and waiting for the people in debt to them to go bankrupt, allowing the bank to then seize from them real wealth, businesses and property etc, for pennies on the pound. Inflation never affects a central bank, in fact they are the only group who can benefit from it, as if they are ever short of money they can simply print more.
Almost
every national bank in the World is either hosted or represented in the
City of London, and almost all of them are guilty of the FRAUD which is
otherwise known as "Fractional Reserve Banking".
The FRAUD known as "Fractional Reserve Banking" is one of the primary methods by which the internatioal banking cartel has gained (UNLAWFUL) posession and control (CONVERSION -see below) of the World, it's finance, and it's Governments.
Another primary tool is USURY, which is otherwise known as "the practice of charging rates of interest on loans of that (FRAUDULENTLY CREATED) money".
A third tactic is the practice of manipulating those rates of interest in order to operate the "BOOM AND BUST" cycles in the World's economies . . . when everyone goes BUST, the BANK-ERs buy the BANK-RUPT stock at Pennies on the Pound . . .
The FRAUD known as "Fractional Reserve Banking" is one of the primary methods by which the internatioal banking cartel has gained (UNLAWFUL) posession and control (CONVERSION -see below) of the World, it's finance, and it's Governments.
Another primary tool is USURY, which is otherwise known as "the practice of charging rates of interest on loans of that (FRAUDULENTLY CREATED) money".
A third tactic is the practice of manipulating those rates of interest in order to operate the "BOOM AND BUST" cycles in the World's economies . . . when everyone goes BUST, the BANK-ERs buy the BANK-RUPT stock at Pennies on the Pound . . .
In
English Law, the offence of "CONVERSION" covers all aspects of THEFT.
It is quite clear that "IF A LEGAL PROCESS IS USED TO GAIN ANOTHER
PERSONS' PROPERTY WITHOUT MORAL JUSTIFICATION, THAT WILL CONSTITUTE
CONVERSION or THEFT"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conversion_%28law%29
"an action for conversion lies for every species of personal property which is the subject of private ownership, whether animate or inanimate." [51][52][53][54][55]
"an action for conversion lies for every species of personal property which is the subject of private ownership, whether animate or inanimate." [51][52][53][54][55]
Any
unjustified exercise of dominion over property by one (THE BANKERS) who
is not the owner, nor entitled to possession, which interferes with the
LAWFUL right of possession of another (THE REST OF US), constitutes a
conversion. [101][126][127][128][129][130]
IF IT IS TRUE, as alleged, that the "City of London" is an independent State, which is NOT constitutionally subject to English Law, then in the light of the serious crimes against Humanity committed therein, and in the LAWFUL INTEREST of GLOBAL HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, there is a MORAL AND LAWFUL IMPERATIVE for the People of England to peacefully re-occupy and reclaim that Square Mile of territory and bring it back under English Law.
IF however, the "City of London" IS constitutionally subject to English
27 October 2011 12:13PM
IF
however, the "City of London" IS constitutionally subject to English
Law, then similarly, there is a MORAL AND LAWFUL IMPERATIVE for the
People of England to peacefully make a (?Symbolic!) citizens' arrest
upon the senior executives of the City of London, and LAWFULLY insist
that they be brought, in full Public View, before the Courts to answer
for their crimes.
27 October 2011 11:35PM
FRAUD is a CRIME
under the "Proceeds of Crime Act 2002" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002] all the money created out of nothing (FRAUD) can be CONFISCATED and placed in the PUBLIC PURSE in order to finance such worthy causes as the NHS, Libraries, a decent education for our kids, etc etc
under the "Proceeds of Crime Act 2002" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proceeds_of_Crime_Act_2002] all the money created out of nothing (FRAUD) can be CONFISCATED and placed in the PUBLIC PURSE in order to finance such worthy causes as the NHS, Libraries, a decent education for our kids, etc etc
Sunday, 6 November 2011
Thursday, 27 October 2011
PRESENT DAY SLAVERY
PRESENT DAY SLAVERY
It would seem that:-
1. by means of extensive criminal
malpractice, the world's major banks have assumed financial control over
nearly all of the world's governments.
2. they have assumed near infinite
financial wealth by charging untold interest on loans of virtual money
which was created therby - through the stupendous criminal fraud known
as "fractional reserve banking".
3. the banks are financing heinous
"agravated criminal damage and destruction of the environment" we all
share " by means of criminal industrial piracy.
4. furthermore they are guilty of criminal economic exclusion
of lawful organic & sustainable permaculture theory and practice,
the general 'excuse' being that it is not financially viable. The
financial arguments used are based upon fraudulently created virtual
money and lawfully unenforceable contracts to commit "agravated criminal
damage and destruction of the environment".
5. When combined, points 1 to 4 above
clearly constitute "criminal global economic slavery" by the bankers, in
other words: "we are in criminal bondage to destroy our planet!"
As in North Dakota, USA, bankers must be public servants, not agents of unlawful free-market enterprise including salvery.
7. The only necessary criteria for a public servant's finances, is that all those finances be open to public scrutiny. Any concealment may constitute a criminal offence punishable in law.
Noblesse Oblige.
26. The
process of enslavement and, in many cases, the treatment of victims of
slavery, servile status and forced labour are often accompanied by other
violations of human rights. For example, THE CLASSIC PROCESS OF ENSLAVEMENT, INVOLVING either abduction or RECRUITMENT THROUGH FALSE PROMISES (education?) OR DUPLICITY, involves a violation of the individual’s right to liberty and security of person, as
guaranteed
by article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights, as well as, in many cases, a violation of the right of a person
deprived of his/her liberty to be treated with humanity and of the right
not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment (eg,
working in an industry which is damaging and/or destroying the
environment you live in).
The Supplementary Convention of 1956
explicitly prohibits “the act of mutilating, branding or otherwise
marking a slave or a person of servile status in order to indicate his
status, or as a punishment, or for any other reason” (art. 5). (BAR CODES AND PROPOESED MICROCHIPPING OF HUMANS!)
27. Victims
of slavery, servile status and forced labour are, almost by definition,
deprived of their right under article 12 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights to liberty of movement and freedom to
choose their residence. ALMOST
INVARIABLY, THEY ARE DEPRIVED OF OR PREVENTED FROM EXERCISING THEIR
RIGHT OF ACCESS TO THE COURTS AND TO A FAIR TRIAL 31 BY THEIR OWNERS,
CONTROLLERS, EMPLOYERS OR BY THE AUTHORITIES THEMSELVES.
28.
…Virtually all cases involve violations of the victims’ freedom of
expression, their right to receive and impart information, their right
of peaceful assembly and their freedom of association.
29.. . . on
the death of former slaves, the families of their former owners still
intervene to take possession of their property – sometimes with the
author-
ity of the courts – thus preventing the heirs of former slaves from inheriting. (DEATH DUTIES ? )
33. The
Supplementary Convention of 1956 categorizes serfdom as a form of
“servile status”, and defines it as “the condition or status of a tenant
who is by law, custom or agreement bound to live and labour on land
belonging to another person and to render some determinate service to
such other person, whether for reward or not, and is not free to change
his status” (art. 1(b)). Land tenure systems viewed in all their aspects
– legal, economic, social and political – can in certain circumstances
be seen as oppressive power relationships arising from ownership or use
of land and disposition of its products to create forms of servitude and
bondage.
34. Records
of discussions that occurred both in the United Nations and in the ILO
before the adoption of the Supplementary Convention in 1956 indicate
that the term “serfdom” was intended to apply to a range of practices
reported in Latin American countries and more generally referred to as
“peonage”. Those practices, which had developed in a context of
conquest, subjugation of indigenous peoples, and seizure of their lands,
involved a landowner granting a piece of land to an individual “serf”
or “peon” in return for specific services, including (1) providing the
landowner with a proportion of the crop at harvest (INTEREST CHARGED ON A
MORTGAGE!)), (2) working for the landowner or (3) doing other work, for
example domestic chores for the landowner’s household. In
each case, it is not the provision of labour in return for access to
land that is in itself considered a form of servitude, but the inability
of the person of serf status to leave that status. The term
“serfdom” and its prohibition in the Supplementary Convention appear
applicable to a range of practices that still occur today but are rarely
recognized or described in the countries concerned as “serfdom”, as the
term is linked by many to the political and economic order of medieval
Europe.
35. In some cases the status of “serf” is hereditary, affecting entire families on a permanent basis,
while in others it is linked to and reinforced by debt bondage; in the latter case those affected are
obliged to continue working for their landowner on account of debts they supposedly owe as well
as on account of their tenant status.
1. by means of extensive criminal
malpractice, it seems that the world's major banks have assumed
financial control over nearly all of the world's governments.
2. they have assumed near infinite
financial wealth by charging untold interest on loans of virtual money
which was created therby - through the stupendous criminal fraud known
as "fractional reserve banking".
3. the banks are financing heinous
"agravated criminal damage and destruction of the environment" we all
share " by means of criminal industrial piracy.
4. they are guilty of criminal economic
exclusion of lawful organic & sustainable permaculture theory and
practice, the 'excuse' being that it is not financially viable. The
financial arguments used are based upon fraudulently created virtual
money and legally unenforceable contracts to commit "agravated criminal
damage and destruction of the environment".
5. when combined, points 1 to 4 above
constitute criminal economic slavery by the bankers, in other words: "we
are in criminal bondage to destroy our planet!"
Tuesday, 13 September 2011
A Creative Response to the UK Government's Proposed Criminalisation of "Squatting" . . .
A Creative Response to the UK Government's Proposed Criminalisation of "Squatting" . . .
The obvious bias in the consultation shows a predjudice that Squatters are (already)
criminal in that their point of view is not asked for, in fact it is actively discouraged by the
loaded nature of the questions - this makes the whole consultation unbalanced, hence it is
inequitable, and therefore without doubt unlawful and invalid.
The very word "Squatting" has extreemely predjudicial connotations; and in fairness it
ought to be relegated to the dustbin of civilised society, in the same way that words such
as Nigger, Wog, and Chink already have been.
A new name needs to be chosen to describe lawful occupation of otherwise empty,
abandonned, and/or disused properties.
In the particular case of eco-activists occupying a property for the purposes of eco-activism
(including accommodation for eco-activists), the word "Requisition" springs readily to mind
- particularly bearing in mind that the threat of environmental damage and destruction is
commonly agreed to be every bit as serious as a threat of World War.
An entirely new consultation must be initiated, which seeks to obtain balanced information,
including facts about the many benefits of Squatting otherwise disused and empty
properties.
Such benefits may include, but are certainly not limited to:
-fostering self reliance and a healthy "outside the box" mentality.
-development of arts and craft skills.
-furthering social skills.
-providing self-funded/resourced housing and further education; in particular to socially excluded younger people, at little or no cost to the local council or government.
-renovation and care of properties in many cases.
-formation of housing associations - partnerships with local councils.
-eco-activism - eg Ploughhares, Trident, Transport Policies (RTS), GMO's banned in Europe, etc
-SOCIAL CENTRES.
NURTURING NVDA ON IMPORTANT ISSUES:-
Organiations, many of whose members would say that Squatting has nurtured their activism include, but are not limited to:
CND
GreenPeace
Green Party
FoE
Groundswell
Monetary Reform
The fact that the present "consultation" is clearly designed to lead respondants in a
negative train of thought with regard to squatting, while almost entirely disregarding the possibility of
lawful occupation of disused properties for positive and genuinely socially beneficiant purposes,
can only lead the reasonable person to the conclusion that the present consultation be
entirely set aside, and a new equitably balanced one be inaugrated prior to any proposed
legislation being enacted, lest any such legislation be later found by the Courts to be
unlawful, thereby further undermining the demonstrably already tenuous respect
bestowed upon our government by the youth of today.
The obvious bias in the consultation shows a predjudice that Squatters are (already)
criminal in that their point of view is not asked for, in fact it is actively discouraged by the
loaded nature of the questions - this makes the whole consultation unbalanced, hence it is
inequitable, and therefore without doubt unlawful and invalid.
The very word "Squatting" has extreemely predjudicial connotations; and in fairness it
ought to be relegated to the dustbin of civilised society, in the same way that words such
as Nigger, Wog, and Chink already have been.
A new name needs to be chosen to describe lawful occupation of otherwise empty,
abandonned, and/or disused properties.
In the particular case of eco-activists occupying a property for the purposes of eco-activism
(including accommodation for eco-activists), the word "Requisition" springs readily to mind
- particularly bearing in mind that the threat of environmental damage and destruction is
commonly agreed to be every bit as serious as a threat of World War.
An entirely new consultation must be initiated, which seeks to obtain balanced information,
including facts about the many benefits of Squatting otherwise disused and empty
properties.
Such benefits may include, but are certainly not limited to:
-fostering self reliance and a healthy "outside the box" mentality.
-development of arts and craft skills.
-furthering social skills.
-providing self-funded/resourced housing and further education; in particular to socially excluded younger people, at little or no cost to the local council or government.
-renovation and care of properties in many cases.
-formation of housing associations - partnerships with local councils.
-eco-activism - eg Ploughhares, Trident, Transport Policies (RTS), GMO's banned in Europe, etc
-SOCIAL CENTRES.
NURTURING NVDA ON IMPORTANT ISSUES:-
Organiations, many of whose members would say that Squatting has nurtured their activism include, but are not limited to:
CND
GreenPeace
Green Party
FoE
Groundswell
Monetary Reform
The fact that the present "consultation" is clearly designed to lead respondants in a
negative train of thought with regard to squatting, while almost entirely disregarding the possibility of
lawful occupation of disused properties for positive and genuinely socially beneficiant purposes,
can only lead the reasonable person to the conclusion that the present consultation be
entirely set aside, and a new equitably balanced one be inaugrated prior to any proposed
legislation being enacted, lest any such legislation be later found by the Courts to be
unlawful, thereby further undermining the demonstrably already tenuous respect
bestowed upon our government by the youth of today.
Sunday, 14 August 2011
A Response to the London Riots . . ..
A common cause of disaffection shared by most of the people
involved in the riots, (and a great multitude who were not
involved), has to be the inhumanity of the built environment on
inner city housing estates, together with extreemely limited
education and employment (escape) prospects, except for
exceptionally gifted and highly motivated young people in an
extreemely challenging environment.
Our built environment is directly created through investment of
finance, or lack of it, which is directly controlled by the banks.
The banks are controlled from the City of London, which is an
independant state, similar to the Vatican State, and it is NOT
subject, nor is it answerable, to the English Parliament.
In fact, for several hundred years, due to insufferable levels of
National Dect, and consequent interest payments thereupon
(since the time of Cromwell), the English Government has been
heavily influenced, if not completely controlled by the City.
People need to be engaged in employment which benefits the
environment in which we all live, rather than damaging and
destroying it for limited financial gain; this is the only way for
people to gain proper respect for self AND others, and a
healthy pride in the local area, which will halt vandalism and
anti-social behaviour
Bearing in mind that over 95% of the money in the world has
been created by the fraudulent (criminal) practice of Fractional
Reserve Banking, and consists of nothing more substantial than
millivolts of electricity in a computer, there is no real economic
reason why that 'money' should not be seized by the English
Government under the 'Proceeds of Crime Act', and used to
pay the people to use all our splendid and amazing
technologies in the creation of a beautiful
Permaculture world to live in.
No comments:
Post a Comment