RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh?

RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LadyEllen -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/18/2010 5:19:43 PM)
honestly RealOne, I dont know where you are getting this stuff from. You really ought to come over here and see it for what it is - a decaying shitheap, nothing like it seems you might imagine. which king are you referring to? E

pahunkboy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/18/2010 5:41:26 PM)
It is perplexing to me that Both the Queen of England and Goldman Saches own alot of shares of Monsanto. When are the people going to finally Abolish the the crown and the City of London. (corp) ?

Real0ne -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/18/2010 6:14:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen honestly RealOne, I dont know where you are getting this stuff from. You really ought to come over here and see it for what it is - a decaying shitheap, nothing like it seems you might imagine. which king are you referring to? E danged if I can remember. It was well before the magna charta and that wqas what 1200ish? People here dont even know that if you look in the records of the courts of the exchequer that "income tax" was being charged against thepeople since about the year 1000! I will have to wait until I run across it again as its impossible to remember where I get all this info from off the top of my head. When I find it I will send it to you.

LadyEllen -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/18/2010 6:26:55 PM)
You are aware that England under Henry VIII split with Rome in a sort of "all bets are off" kind of way, yes? As a result of that alone there is no prospect whatever of Rome having any claim on anything here. Add to that our little episode of regicide and one very conditional restoration of monarchy followed by another conditional "glorious revolution" and any residual possibility of claim is clearly extinguished, and this notwithstanding the union of England and Scotland which must put the final nail into any remaining potential coffin of a claim, should one ever have existed. E

Real0ne -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/18/2010 6:34:47 PM)
yes I know....but in the contract land its anyones guess. Contracts last forever and while he may have split off politically it does not follow he will not honor the contract. Thats why I ask the question. Common law evolved in part out of ecclesiastic law.... and that is how I found out about it in the first place. (Researching how the kings conducted their courts when they were not staffed as we here are all deemed sovereign and therefore have the political authority of a king/queen in court) So far knock on wood the leg/admin courts here are upholding it. knock on wood......(you can bet the last thing they want however is the people taking over) LOL oh and in the local library we just happen to have the old english law books.... a shelf about 8ft high and maybe 16ft long because of course we are lower canada and under the common law.

LadyEllen -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/18/2010 6:45:22 PM)
Contracts will always have a fixed term, whether it be determined by the passage of time or the completion of some purpose. A contract also relies on the existence of the parties and the subject matter of the contract. And there have been many events that would support the termination of one or both over the centuries, as I alluded to. I wonder if you are confusing the role of equity in English law, which developed alongside the common law under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, who decided on matters where there was a direct appeal to the king, based on what was more just according to religion rather than the strict and often harsh common law? E

Real0ne -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/18/2010 7:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen Contracts will always have a fixed term, whether it be determined by the passage of time or the completion of some purpose. A contract also relies on the existence of the parties and the subject matter of the contract. And there have been many events that would support the termination of one or both over the centuries, as I alluded to. I wonder if you are confusing the role of equity in English law, which developed alongside the common law under the direction of the Lord Chancellor, who decided on matters where there was a direct appeal to the king, based on what was more just according to religion rather than the strict and often harsh common law? E you blended things together in a way I am not exactly sure what you are trying ot say there but it depends on what the contract is designed to do... Take the us constitution for instance. It is designed to last forever as a contract trust. The government cannot in the name of the people even though they think they have power of attorney to do so abrogate it. The problem is of course the bankruptcy took us into admiralty so the creditors can collect. It was the only way to collect and part in course to the creation of the constitution in the first place. They cannot collect in the common law nor can they in "purely" equity. Here... Well ecclesiatic law has a lot in common with merchantile/admiralty which also developed at the same time.... In fact people could jump between one and another and the courts (yours) would fight each other to get them into their jurisdiction. Now common law being the unwritten law was the law of the king in that when he made a declaration (in early times) it was law. He would travel around with his regal retinue and courtiers and hear cases and they would record the cases hence the court of record. So back to the contract, if I give you my car and sign a paper says it is yours that is an indefinite contract and you would have the the right to pass it down to your heirs. The king/queen does not give up their property to you for instance when one passes nor do they pay taxes to themselves.

LadyEllen -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/18/2010 7:12:37 PM)
You would have gifted me the car, unless there was some consideration required from my side. You are free to make such a gift of course, but it would not comprise a contract without consideration from my side. If on the other hand there was consideration from my side then we could have a contract, which would be discharged by performance when I pay you the price and you give me the car. It would not be correct to say that our respective enduring right to keep what we gained indicates that the contract remains live, as I believe you are saying, in perpetuity. The Crown owns everything here by the way - all land is owned by the Crown so it could be said to follow that everything on it must do too. One can have freehold or leasehold possession, but never actually own the land. E

Real0ne -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/18/2010 7:26:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen You would have gifted me the car, unless there was some consideration required from my side. You are free to make such a gift of course, but it would not comprise a contract without consideration from my side. If on the other hand there was consideration from my side then we could have a contract, which would be discharged by performance when I pay you the price and you give me the car. It would not be correct to say that our respective enduring right to keep what we gained indicates that the contract remains live, as I believe you are saying, in perpetuity. The Crown owns everything here by the way - all land is owned by the Crown so it could be said to follow that everything on it must do too. One can have freehold or leasehold possession, but never actually own the land. E right we have tenant in fee simple here. Not allodial. In common law and that is true btw, it get a bit hairy in admiralty and merchantile and if it goes into a trust arrangement you can be in a contract and not even know about it. Thats not where we are at though. You are right in that they king would have granted to the pope as a gift which really would not come under a true contract. I doubt the pope however has any means of enforcing anything if england simply took it back. Maybe the crown has some connection that I am not aware of since you used to have bishops on the royal staff. I bet there is a chain that links it rather than a direct link. We here are allowed to believe we own the land. Its all mortgaged for the debt through a trust however evidenced by eminent domain.

Termyn8or -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 1:06:25 AM)
Common, equity, admiralty..... are you trying to give yourself a headache or what ? Practical uses are limited. You walk into any court in the US these days and there is a gold fringe on the flag. That is a court of admiralty. If you raise a big enough stink, and get them to switch flags and for the judge to remove his robe like they did in Michigan to convict Kevorkian, all you do is antagonize the court, and it does nothing to negate statutory law unless you REALLY know what you are doing. If you even get a law nullification, the case will be sealed and won't do anyone else any good. They switched over from statutory law to common law because it suited them. Why can't we do that ? The reason is becasue since about 1933 we have all been living under AMJ, Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction. Under common or tort law they would have to let about half of the people out of the prisons right now, and probably pay them reparations. I am not holding my breath. They rule by their own force and will, not our's. As long as they can get away with it they will. Ummmm, just wondering, how the hell did we get here. It starts out whether Hitler was a Jew and we get into this somehow ? Fascinating. Only on CM I guess. T

pahunkboy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 6:01:16 AM)
Hitler was also doped up with massive injections of speed and god knows what else. You can add Kennedy too - the injections- tho the outcome on him was different then Hitler.

Real0ne -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 6:49:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Common, equity, admiralty..... are you trying to give yourself a headache or what ? Practical uses are limited. You walk into any court in the US these days and there is a gold fringe on the flag. That is a court of admiralty. If you raise a big enough stink, and get them to switch flags and for the judge to remove his robe like they did in Michigan to convict Kevorkian, all you do is antagonize the court, and it does nothing to negate statutory law unless you REALLY know what you are doing. If you even get a law nullification, the case will be sealed and won't do anyone else any good. They switched over from statutory law to common law because it suited them. Why can't we do that ? The reason is becasue since about 1933 we have all been living under AMJ, Admiralty Maritime Jurisdiction. Under common or tort law they would have to let about half of the people out of the prisons right now, and probably pay them reparations. I am not holding my breath. They rule by their own force and will, not our's. As long as they can get away with it they will. Ummmm, just wondering, how the hell did we get here. It starts out whether Hitler was a Jew and we get into this somehow ? Fascinating. Only on CM I guess. T yah but you cant use the gold fringe anymore even though you are correct because some idiot took it to court and did not defend it properly and got a ruling saying it was "just decoration", even though its right in the manual! LOL So it gets dismissed in any stat court as frivolous. (thats what happens when you turn these things over to the government to handle) [legislature created "admin" courts] I am not a kevorkian fan but in essence they denied him his court or he gave it to them to adjudicate one of the two. I would have to view the transcripts of that case. If they unlawfully snatched it from him (which they do all the time through fraud upon the court), then he can counter sue for trespass and trespass on the case. (and a few others) But if he could not keep his court in that case its doubtful he could keep his court in a trespass case. Art 34 Magna charta; No one shall present a writ of praecipe such that a free man lose HIS court. Good chance he would have their balls in a vice if he wanted to pursue it. disclaimer: this is not to be construed under any circumstances as legal advice and its intended use is for entertainment and educational purposes only. (oh and by the time they get done hypothecating it, a felony "charge" is worth about 400 million to them.)

Politesub53 -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 11:11:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy It is perplexing to me that Both the Queen of England and Goldman Saches own alot of shares of Monsanto. When are the people going to finally Abolish the the crown and the City of London. (corp) ? It is perplexing to me where you come up with such drivel. Maybe your keyboard is genetically modified. The only thing I have ever read about GM and the Royal family was when Prince Charles spoke out against GM crops.

pahunkboy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 11:25:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy It is perplexing to me that Both the Queen of England and Goldman Saches own alot of shares of Monsanto. When are the people going to finally Abolish the the crown and the City of London. (corp) ? It is perplexing to me where you come up with such drivel. Maybe your keyboard is genetically modified. The only thing I have ever read about GM and the Royal family was when Prince Charles spoke out against GM crops. Then the price should divest of Monsanto.

Politesub53 -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 12:00:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Remember that king that gave everything in the kingdom to the pope? If you mean King John I ( He of Robin Hood fame ) you are correct. He did lay his crown at the feet of the Pope, however, the powers of the Church were withdrawn under laws introduced by Edward III. So as far as Rome owning the UK, this wasnt the case long before Henry VIII and reformation.

Politesub53 -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 12:03:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Then the price should divest of Monsanto. You just dont get it do you. The Prince doesnt hold Monsanto shares anywhere except in your imagination. It is possible some of the major companies he does have shares in have links with Monsanto, thats the way of business though. It isnt the same as him holding their shares.

mnottertail -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 12:04:26 PM)
So, thats why you guys drive on the wrong side of the road there, in penance for giving britain all to the pope. If arthur pendragon could see you now...... This is really starting to make sense. But I am unclear regarding hitlers participation vis a vis the monsanto shares, could you clear that up for me? Bobs your uncle!!!! Ron

pahunkboy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 12:14:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy Then the price should divest of Monsanto. You just dont get it do you. The Prince doesnt hold Monsanto shares anywhere except in your imagination. It is possible some of the major companies he does have shares in have links with Monsanto, thats the way of business though. It isnt the same as him holding their shares. And yet, youns fail to get an audit of the royal family via freedom of information act. ...so in your mind the prince has taken a vow of poverty- just like the queen.

mnottertail -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 12:17:59 PM)
DWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDD!!!! We have the freedom of information act here in the states. Hes in england so it is somewhat different. And here there is no requirement for folks to publish their stock holdings to every tinfoiler that doesnt take their meds in this country....I suspect the same is true over where Polite is at, just not written into the law. Ooversight on both our countries parts, I suppose. Ron

pahunkboy -> RE: Jew Hitler a Rothschild? ?? huh? (1/19/2010 12:41:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail DWOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDDD!!!! We have the freedom of information act here in the states. Hes in england so it is somewhat different. And here there is no requirement for folks to publish their stock holdings to every tinfoiler that doesnt take their meds in this country....I suspect the same is true over where Polite is at, just not written into the law. Ooversight on both our countries parts, I suppose. Ron and yet, this cabal is a welfare queen. The royal family is supported by the subjects. They have no equivalent of FIOA? The time has come to abolish the monarch. They do nothing useful- and told bush he was to invade Iraq- just like the tell Obama he is to STAY in Iraq and Afghanistan. The people do not want this. Therefore these welfare crowd has to go.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625