Thread: The Burning of the White House in August, 1814.

This year markes the 200th Anniversary of the burning of the White House. Who else but westwind would have a near direct link with this event? True. Major Alured D. Faunce, of the 4th Regiment ( anglo english command ), during the English/ American War of 1812, and the subsequent burning of Washington in August 1814, Major D. Faunce led the burning party that first ransacked then burnt the White House. Then moved on and burnt the Treasury. This D. Faunce is the G.G.G.Grandfather of our life long Family friend, living in Australia, and now an elderly woman, we are now all elderly. She is mightally proud of her Faunce de Laune ancestors, and often tells this History. She also is a friend of America, realising America's role in preventing the Japenese, ( Nippon ), from including Australie in their proposed sphere of influence. ( see 2WW. ). Some Google sites. "" The Defense and Burning of Washington in 1814. Naval Records. '' and on a Wikipedia site. "" Burning of Washington, White House. "". westwind.

And your point is?

Dear MeteorWayne. History. The Thread has been posted correctly, has it not?.

I think the question is what do you want to discuss about it?

Dear Lynx Fox. I was hoping there wouldn't be anything for me to discuss. Just looking for a few posts perhaps informing me as to what attitude Americans in General have concerning these past Skirmishes. Thinking about it it's reasonable to assume that there would not be a lot of interest as it was so long ago. I havn't many claims to fame you see Lynx Fox, and as I had this connection to part of America's History, and the fact that it is 200 years this year since the war began, I thought I'd share my information with History, Science Forum. This is not too sensitive is it Lynx Fox, or likely to be a subject that others outside Science Forum may misconstrew? If so, have it closed down as I will understand . westwind.

That war is barely taught in US history so I don't think you'll get much opinion about it.

Na...it's not sensitive in the least. Was just curious what was its purpose. Any of us can post random factoids, but most thread start with a question, or commentary or something to get things started unless the topic is so obviously controversial that it starts itself. The war of 1812 isn't a self starter. Light a match under it--see what happens.

This is just about all I learned about the war of 1812.
Classic Country, Battle of New Orleans - Johnny Horton Lyrics

In 1814 we took a little trip
Along with Colonel Jackson down the mighty Mississip.
We took a little bacon and we took a little beans
And we caught the bloody British in the town of New Orleans.

[Chorus:]
We fired our guns and the British kept a'comin.
There wasn't nigh as many as there was a while ago.
We fired once more and they began to runnin' on
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.

We looked down the river and we see'd the British come.
And there must have been a hundred of'em beatin' on the drum.
They stepped so high and they made the bugles ring.
We stood by our cotton bales and didn't say a thing.

[Chorus]

Old Hickory said we could take 'em by surprise
If we didn't fire our muskets 'til we looked 'em in the eye
We held our fire 'til we see'd their faces well.
Then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em ... well

[Chorus]

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**

We fired our cannon 'til the barrel melted down.
So we grabbed an alligator and we fought another round.
We filled his head with cannon balls, and powdered his behind
And when we touched the powder off, the gator lost his mind.

[Chorus]

Yeah, they ran through the briars and they ran through the brambles
And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn't go.
They ran so fast that the hounds couldn't catch 'em
Down the Mississippi to the Gulf of Mexico.**

Hey Harold, I really like this. I didn't connect this song and tune with 1812, I've heard it many times as a late night radio cheer-up. thank you for posting the complete version and I'm sure there are variants to the verses. westwind.

Yes, it seems there was another version released in Britain where it was the "Rebels" running through the brambles.
Johnny Horton - Battle of New Orleans (special cut version for Britain) - YouTube

It is all bullshit anyway.
Two sides to a conflict - both sides made up of total bloody idiots.
The Americans were conned into believing they were fighting for liberty, when in reality they were putting their lives on the line to give their wealthy leaders cheaper taxes. The other side were equally conned, as the idiots they were, into believing that 'King and Country' actually meant something.

End result - putting your life on the line fighting someone else's war, is just plain lunacy.

Think you have the wars mixed up Skeptic. We'd been an independent nation for a generation before the war at question. Foreign invasion is usually considered a good reason to fight.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

That war is barely taught in US history so I don't think you'll get much opinion about it.

Na...it's not sensitive in the least. Was just curious what was its purpose. Any of us can post random factoids, but most thread start with a question, or commentary or something to get things started unless the topic is so obviously controversial that it starts itself. The war of 1812 isn't a self starter. Light a match under it--see what happens.

And the REASON this Second American War of Independence, from which we derive our national anthem, is so little taught and known in these United States? Perhaps it would imperil the "special relationship" cultivated by Old Blight? Perhaps so that Americans do not look warily upon the British, or perhaps gut them on sight?

Naw, that would be a crazy conspiracy theory...

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Think you have the wars mixed up Skeptic. We'd been an independent nation for a generation before the war at question. Foreign invasion is usually considered a good reason to fight.

And a good bit of the fighting was done by the Native American allies of the British, who saw the Yankees as foreign invaders- little realizing the cynical motives of Old Blight. The cousins of their allies, the so-called "First Nations" of Canada, were being displaced by the British Empire in much the same manner. Divide and rule.

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Yes, it seems there was another version released in Britain where it was the "Rebels" running through the brambles.
Johnny Horton - Battle of New Orleans (special cut version for Britain) - YouTube

Oh yes, another great victory for the British like Singapore, Dunkirk, Arnhem, and Dieppe.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Yes, it seems there was another version released in Britain where it was the "Rebels" running through the brambles.
Johnny Horton - Battle of New Orleans (special cut version for Britain) - YouTube

Oh yes, another great victory for the British like Singapore, Dunkirk, Arnhem, and Dieppe.

You just can't hold it back. Brit bashing seems to be your forte.

It is fun and easy. And pretty damned accurate. You DID notice this thread is about you lot burning our capital, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT?

Arthur, westwind is an Aussie. To my knowledge the united States has never been invaded by Australia.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

It is fun and easy. And pretty damned accurate. You DID notice this thread is about you lot burning our capital, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT?

Yes, the thread is about the burning of the White House. Therefore Singapore, Dunkirk, Arnhem, and Dieppe have nothing to do with the OP. You have even managed to get your Brit bashing into the physics section, you are resourceful I will give you that.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Arthur, westwind is an Aussie. To my knowledge the united States has never been invaded by Australia.

Was responding to Dave Wilson of Cumbria UK. Plus you are wrong, Australia at the time was a British colony, actually several colonies, but very much a part of the Empire.

Originally Posted by Dave Wilson

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

It is fun and easy. And pretty damned accurate. You DID notice this thread is about you lot burning our capital, WHAT THE HELL DO YOU EXPECT?

Yes, the thread is about the burning of the White House. Therefore Singapore, Dunkirk, Arnhem, and Dieppe have nothing to do with the OP. You have even managed to get your Brit bashing into the physics section, you are resourceful I will give you that.

Add the Battle of New Orleans to the list of defeats, then. You lot have a disturbing habit of mistaking them for victories.

Physics? How about Paul Dirac, brilliant physicist, who was even bright enough to LEAVE your silly little kingdom and come to OUR nation? Along with Priestly and many others, draining away what little gumption was to be found there.

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Arthur, westwind is an Aussie. To my knowledge the united States has never been invaded by Australia.

Was responding to Dave Wilson of Cumbria UK. Plus you are wrong, Australia at the time was a British colony, actually several colonies, but very much a part of the Empire.

Until 1840, Australia was The British Empires penal colony, I don't think the Aussies count in regards to the 1814 war.

Arthur Angle learn to play well with others, you're already on thin ice around here. The British slights have nothing to do with the OP. No one here supported them because they weren't alive yet; nor are they advocating that England did the right thing.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Arthur, westwind is an Aussie. To my knowledge the united States has never been invaded by Australia.

Was responding to Dave Wilson of Cumbria UK. Plus you are wrong, Australia at the time was a British colony, actually several colonies, but very much a part of the Empire.

Until 1840, Australia was The British Empires penal colony, I don't think the Aussies count in regards to the 1814 war.

"Colonies", sir- the plural is more appropriate to the case. And you are welcome to your erroneous opinion, as usual. It is a perennial policy of empires to draw troops from one area to serve in campaigns far away and/or employ mercenaries.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Arthur Angle learn to play well with others, you're already on thin ice around here. The British slights have nothing to do with the OP. No one here supported them because they weren't alive yet; nor are they advocating that England did the right thing.

And when has England "DONE the right thing"? Apart from dragging this once great nation into over a century of hot and cold running wars, what has it done at all? What, our ALLY? What kind of booby prize is THAT? Ask the Czechs, the Turks, the French, and the Palestinians about what great allies the British are!

Poor record in battle AND treacherous, great draft pick there! PLUS the only European nation to invade our shores, as the OP points out. With "friends" like these...

Originally Posted by Arthur Angler

And when has England "DONE the right thing"? Apart from dragging this once great nation into over a century of hot and cold running wars, what has it done at all?

Tied up the Third Reich until Russia could launch its counter-attack.

Half the world's problems are caused by our inability to forget long past misdeeds, whilst the other half are caused by our ability to forget the lessons we learned.

Originally Posted by SpeedFreek

Half the world's problems are caused by our inability to forget long past misdeeds, whilst the other half are caused by our ability to forget the lessons we learned.

Add to that the ability of individuals to identify with groups and shun other groups, even though the 'conflicting' groups share far more in common than the individuals within the same favored group.

As wars go, the War of 1812 was a hand-slapping hissyfit that ended in a stalemate. The only people I've heard give a crap about it are Canadians with a bad sense of history claiming that 'their' guys won.

Not being British, I can jump to their defense without accusations of bias. I hope.

The British have had their moments of glory. They stood up to the colossus that was German militarism in the Battle of Britain and won, on sheer guts and very little in the way of resources.

Britain is the mother of democracy. British democracy began with William the Conqueror, who established an advisory committee of his tenants (read aristocrats). It gained power over the centuries and was the ruling body of Britain 100 years before the American war of independence. While modern Americans claim liberty as an American trait, it began in Britain.

The British often claim 'British grit' as a national quality. While this can be debated, their history is full of times when the British people rose above serious difficulties and triumphed. At the end of WWII, Britain was bankrupt, and rationing of petrol and foodstuffs continued well into the 1950's. In the end, the British people, through sacrifice and hard work, lifted their nation from the mire and back into economic prosperity. Modern day Greeks, take note!

So I deny Arthur Angler's anti-British stance, and say "well done" to the courage of the British people.

Chums, Guys... When I created this thread I wished to declare my interesting assossiation with American history. Unlike some Carriculums I was fortunant enough to benefit from a rounded education, Histories of England, Scotland, Wales, Ireland and the New World included. Not forgetting all the places marked red on the Empire World Map. And, as I've mentioned before on Science Forum, I was actually born a British Subject. I remained so, saluting the Flag, read Union Jack, every Monday morning at school assembly. This of course came to an end when someone in whitehall discovered I was actually born in Australia. Alien Passports were then issued. But, to return to the thread. This Anglo/ Fur trading/Canadian/ mercenary/french war officially is known as the War of 1812. The Whitehouse and the treasury wasnt actually burnt to the ground untilsometime in August 1814. Now this gives all parties the opportunity to patch up their differences and start preparations for the 200th Anniversery of the burning. Celebrations of Customs belonging to all the Nations involved, Guy Fawkes , Clam Baking etc etc. would be part of the Events, and, it would be appreciated if the host Nation, ie, America, would extend an invitation to Australia and New Zealand to come along as Guests and Observers. westwind.

This being a science forum, we can certainly recognize the contributions of British scientists. The list is long and distinguished.

Westwind, I hereby extend you an invitation to come on over. You won't find too many who will be celebrating the burning of the white house, though. Or probably very many who even know about it.

Maybe you can burn it again. I'll help you.

Come on all you History buffs. This is a great piece, ( peace ), of history. I'm considering coming over should I still be around, and I would certainly looking for some American Pie, also Wimpy Hamburgers. But the real reason for this post I would like some more viewers to register, making this my best Thread. Is it OK to tout for business and personell interest on the Forum? westwind.

To all my Viewers out there. Thank you. Without Viewers the Posted Thread is obviously of no interest. To each and every Viewer of this Thread I wish a long and healthy life, and if I can manage to bring a smile to your inner Soul then my job is done. westwind.

On top of that America is still technically owned by the UK, with the UK being technically owned by the Pope.
Also with the Queens Privy Council being head of the American Judiciary, I think there was a noteable case in the late 1970's ( 79 I think) where the queen herself passed a bill, able to make laws and even over rule the supreme court!
Makes you wonder why the war was even fought, also the constitution actually offers very little protection in most courts in america as the use different types of law and judges routinely dismiss use of the US constitution in their courts.

Chris do you have any supporting evidence for your assertion that the US is controlled by the UK?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Chris do you have any supporting evidence for your assertion that the US is controlled by the UK?

I think 'controlled' is a bit strong, I can't ever really see anyone in the UK actually trying to 'control' america, however technically they do have, well the queens privvy council does have authority of the judicary.

I have been aware of the actual powers though for some time, here one example but I think there is lots of evidence on this one:

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 July 1997 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 please, 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."


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 July 1997 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 please, 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."


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 July 1997 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 please, 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."

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 July 1997 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 please, 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."

The thing is the Queen does not control any part of out government. As seen here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1778/note/made The change was made to an agreement that had been made by the US and UK governments in 1992.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

The thing is the Queen does not control any part of out government. As seen here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1997/1778/note/made The change was made to an agreement that had been made by the US and UK governments in 1992.

I did pretty much suggest that the UK doesn't usually actually try exercise it's power. Nor does the pope seek to exercise ownership of the UK, technically he could.

No, neither the UK or the pope in anyway control the US. Out governing documents specify we are a sovereign country

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

No, neither the UK or the pope in anyway control the US. Out governing documents specify we are a sovereign country

This is an extract from a document written by a judge:


One thing the Founding Fathers did not know, was that all of the Kings lands and all future
acquisitions such as the AMERICAS, had been given and pledged by King John to Pope
Innocent III and the Holy Roman Church, by the Treaty of 1213. After that fact was proven
to the Founding Fathers; King George and representatives from the Vatican; decided to use
the Constitutional draft created by the Founding Fathers, to further their plan to control the
Colonists! Control attained by bringing the Colonists to their knees in debt! Any way you
read it, the Constitution was never written with the intent of benefitting the American people!

Did you know that 98% of the Law Schools in America and England do not include
Constitutional Law as a part of their law curriculum? The reason for this phenomenon is
because Constitutional Law does not apply to or affect the enforcement of statutes, codes or
administrative regulations, which have replaced constitutional law, the common law, public
law and penal law and which have been designed to control you; [e.g.] Constitutional Law
is taught as an elective at Harvard, Yale and Cambridge, and only for students of law who
are planning a future career in government. This should make sense to you as you read on.
In the true History of America, neither side WON the Revolutionary War! At first, the
appearance of English troops in the Colonies; was simply a show of force by King George,
intended to intimidate the Colonists and force them to pay him taxes. Factually, back in
England; English soldiers refused to take up arms against the Colonists because they were
English citizens and relatives.

Ok, so now you are suggesting massive international conspiracy?

What judge? when? in what context? how did YOU get it?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Ok, so now you are suggesting massive international conspiracy?

What judge? when? in what context? how did YOU get it?

OK you want more?


In reality, the War was just a diversion! The Colonists had no chance of succeeding in
their efforts. Examine the facts for yourself! During this era; England had the largest Army
and Navy in the World. King George owned England, Ireland and France, having a
combined population of about 60 million subjects. The Colonists were poorly educated,
poorly armed and composed of farmers, tradesmen, bonded slaves, women and children
and boasted a total population of only 3 million subjects. And considering the undermining
that was occurring to their nation by the Kings spy’s and the Founding Fathers; the
Colonists didn’t have a prayer of defeating the English!
Americans have been indoctrinated by our federal and state governments and through
government controlled public schools and literature; government controlled media and
6
government controlled churches [YES, EVEN THE CHURCHES]; to believe that
America defeated the English! We celebrate that victory and our so-called Independence
each year on the 4th of July, and it is all a bunch of propaganda; a carrot to lead the horse
and keep this society stupid and passive! We boast today that our country represents the
finest schools in the world, but in reality, we’re no smarter than the first Colonists! We
only know more about other things because of new technology developments during the
last 250 years and yet the average IQ of America is 70.
Documented proof that the Constitution was not for us can be found at: Padelford, Fay
& Co. v. The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Savannah, [14 Georgia 438, 520].
This was a Court case wherein the Plaintiffs sued the City of Savannah, for violating
what they believed were their constitutionally protected rights! The decision of the Judge
says it all: "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 [the private person] is not a party to it!" [Emphasis added]
The United States Constitution was converted into a (Trust) and the legal definition of a
Trust is: “A legal obligation with respect to property given by one person (donor), to
another (trustee), to the advantage of a beneficiary (Americans).” The property in this
Trust includes all land, your personal possessions that you believe you own and your
physical body. The donor of the Trust is the King of England and the Holy Roman Church.
The Trustee’s are all federal and state public officials, which means that they truly are
Agents of a foreign power; the King and the Vatican.
The reason the Constitution was converted into a Trust is because, as a non-trust business
plan; The Constitution completely bound the hands of our government officials! By their
converting it into a Trust, our public officials; were then free to make any changes they
desired to this government, without their constituents knowledge! The rules of a Trust are
secret and no trustee can be compelled to divulge those rules, and the rules can be changed
by the trustees without notice to the beneficiary!
The one pitfall confronting them and their plan was the fact that by converting the
Constitution into a Trust, our public officials had to legally assign a beneficiary; and the
beneficiary chosen could not offend or be in contrast to the numerous International Treaties
that were in force. Our public officials wanted to stay in control of the Trust as the trustees;
however a trustee cannot also be a beneficiary! So even though the Constitution was never
designed or written for the Sovereign American people; they unknowingly became the
beneficiary of this secret Trust and hence, the creation of the “propaganda” regarding our
Constitutional Rights!
All high ranking public officials, lawyers and judges; laugh at the ignorance of people who
claim that their Constitutional Rights have been violated! Lawyers are actually taught to
treat the members of the general public as inferior individuals! This also explains the ‘air of
arrogance’ that most lawyers convey in their demeanor and speech!
7

Factual supporting references for this claim?

Still waiting for the specifics I asked for in my last post...

With respect I'm willing to give extracts, but the when where how and why will remain private.

Thus proving it is not actually fact, but rather unsupported supposition with little connection to reality.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Thus proving it is not actually fact, but rather unsupported supposition with little connection to reality.

The reason for converting every Sovereign American into a corporate fiction dates back to
the Principal of Law under the King! The King is a Sovereign Monarch and dictator, who
by his authority, creates the laws that govern his subjects. He is the Source of Law and
therefore the law cannot be enforced against him! In America, the Source of Law is the
Sovereign People and therefore no laws can be enforced against the Source, except for those
specifically agreed to or defined by the original Constitution. Those laws are defined as
Theft, Assault and Criminal Mischief; but since the Colonists never voted on the
Constitution, none of these offenses are enforceable against a living Sovereign! They are
enforceable however against a corporation or corporate fiction!
In theory and according to the common law; before any Sovereign can be arrested for one of
these crimes; a complaint must be filed with the elected Sheriff. The Sheriff, by his own
authority, assembles (a common law jury) of the accused Sovereigns immediate neighbors,
called a Grand Jury. The neighbors hear the complaint and evidence presented to them by
the complainant. They are permitted to ask questions of any witness and can subpoena
anyone else who can shed light on the allegations. A majority must then decide if the
accused Sovereign is to be tried by a court. All of this is done without [a judge or prosecutor
in attendance]! This is a real Grand Jury proceeding, which is far removed from the joke
perpetrated by our corporate government and courts today!
What happened to our Grand Jury rights of old? The Bar Association has successfully stolen
that right away from the Sovereign people, little by little, through rewrites of the Judiciary
Act, so that now the American public believes that the Grand Jury is an instrument subject
to the jurisdiction, right and whim of the prosecuting attorney! The prosecuting attorney
controls the entire proceeding and who testifies. The judge then tells the jury what the law is
and the members of the panel are always denied the opportunity to view the written law!
All of our governments are corporations and are responsible for the creation of about 800
thousand laws called statutes, which are designed to control the Sovereign people of
America. Just like the King; these statutes cannot be enforced against the Source of Law,
which are the living, breathing, flesh and blood Sovereign people.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Thus proving it is not actually fact, but rather unsupported supposition with little connection to reality.

<br><br>The reason for converting every Sovereign American into a corporate fiction dates back to<br>the Principal of Law under the King! The King is a Sovereign Monarch and dictator, who<br>by his authority, creates the laws that govern his subjects. He is the Source of Law and<br>therefore the law cannot be enforced against him! In America, the Source of Law is the<br>Sovereign People and therefore no laws can be enforced against the Source, except for those<br>specifically agreed to or defined by the original Constitution. Those laws are defined as<br>Theft, Assault and Criminal Mischief; but since the Colonists never voted on the<br>Constitution, none of these offenses are enforceable against a living Sovereign! They are<br>enforceable however against a corporation or corporate fiction!<br>In theory and according to the common law; before any Sovereign can be arrested for one of<br>these crimes; a complaint must be filed with the elected Sheriff. The Sheriff, by his own<br>authority, assembles (a common law jury) of the accused Sovereigns immediate neighbors,<br>called a Grand Jury. The neighbors hear the complaint and evidence presented to them by<br>the complainant. They are permitted to ask questions of any witness and can subpoena<br>anyone else who can shed light on the allegations. A majority must then decide if the<br>accused Sovereign is to be tried by a court. All of this is done without [a judge or prosecutor<br>in attendance]! This is a real Grand Jury proceeding, which is far removed from the joke<br>perpetrated by our corporate government and courts today!<br>What happened to our Grand Jury rights of old? The Bar Association has successfully stolen<br>that right away from the Sovereign people, little by little, through rewrites of the Judiciary<br>Act, so that now the American public believes that the Grand Jury is an instrument subject<br>to the jurisdiction, right and whim of the prosecuting attorney! The prosecuting attorney<br>controls the entire proceeding and who testifies. The judge then tells the jury what the law is<br>and the members of the panel are always denied the opportunity to view the written law!<br>All of our governments are corporations and are responsible for the creation of about 800<br>thousand laws called statutes, which are designed to control the Sovereign people of<br>America. Just like the King; these statutes cannot be enforced against the Source of Law,<br>which are the living, breathing, flesh and blood Sovereign people.


The sovereign states had been abolished in 1790 by the adoption of Article 1 of the
Statutes at Large, which converted all the sovereign states into federal districts and gave
the federal government lawful jurisdiction everywhere. In consideration of the fact that the
federal government is a corporation and that corporations can lawfully own other
corporations; and all the American subjects to be educated have admitted under penalty of
perjury that they are corporations; the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the corporate federal
government. [See how sneaky and tricky lawyers can be? And all the more reason why
lawyers should never be allowed to serve in government or in judgment of us]!
Under our corporate governments, no Sovereign can lawfully be tried or convicted of any
statutory crime! I recently discovered how to avoid prosecution under the Trust, when a
Sovereign is taken before a corporate prosecuting Attorney or a Judge:
First: “the Sovereign must inquire if we are on the record, and if not, insist upon it!
Say nothing, sign nothing and answer no questions until you are convinced that the
proceedings are being recorded!”
Secondly: all a Sovereign has to say for the record is: “I am a beneficiary of the Trust,
and I am appointing you as my Trustee!”
Thirdly: the Sovereign then directs his Trustee to do his bidding! “As my Trustee, I want
you to discharge this matter I am accused of and eliminate the record!”
Fourthly: if the Sovereign suffered any damages as a result of his arrest, he can direct that
the Trust compensate him from the proceeds of the Court by saying; “I wish to be
compensated for [X] dollars, in redemption.”
This statement is sufficient to remove the authority and

if you want people to listen you will have to provide sources for your assertions.

As it stands modern international politics does not bare out the suppositions you are making.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

if you want people to listen you will have to provide sources for your assertions.

As it stands modern international politics does not bare out the suppositions you are making.

Firstly, lets get this straight, I am making no assertions what so ever, just extracts from a rather lengthy document I was given. Thoughout the document sources are referenced and many court cases sighted.

But you refuse to actually list any of the references or any of the Authors of the statements.

Why do you take the assertions of siad document as factually and legally correct when modern history indicates they are not?

You are quoting from sources readily available to us all on the internet. Posting these without proper acknowledgement of the source is, I believe, in breach of forum regualtions that you agreed to when you signed up. It may also be against the laws of the country in which you reside. It is certainly rude and ignorant.

http://ecbiz111.inmotionhosting.com/~intmen5/matrix.htm



You say that you are making no assertions, yet in post #33 you said this:

On top of that America is still technically owned by the UK, with the UK being technically owned by the Pope.
Also with the Queens Privy Council being head of the American Judiciary, I think there was a noteable case in the late 1970's ( 79 I think) where the queen herself passed a bill, able to make laws and even over rule the supreme court!
........., also the constitution actually offers very little protection in most courts in america as the use different types of law and judges routinely dismiss use of the US constitution in their courts.

If those are not assertions are they in fact purple Angora rabbits?

Chris, if you want to be taken seriously here then you have to act seriously. Offering a finding by a judge and then refusing to say what judge said it and where and when is just silly. I mean laughably silly. It makes you like a bigger turkey than David Icke. (At least he is entertaining.) Wise up while you still have some residual forum affection attached to your newbie status.

The document I have was written anonimously, I really couldn't tell you if I wanted to. As for Privy Council being head of the Judiciary, I personally believe this to be true however I was only offering it as speculation. As for extracts of the document I used examples that relate to specific court cases that, they suggest other things took place and motives came into play that we are genrally not tourt. I was offering this as interesting debate as it helps to shed light onto other possible reasons for why and how certain events happened that actually fit the facts.

If the debate about facts, events or history or where the ideas and information came from really wind you up this much then probarbly best for you to go read things you are comfortable with.

BTW who is David Icke?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

If the debate about facts, events or history or where the ideas and information came from really wind you up this much then probarbly best for you to go read things you are comfortable with.

What winds me up is your combination of gullibility and arrogance, your lack of forum etiquette, and your disrespectful way of avoiding responses to hard questions or observations. Spewing out amonymous material that lacks even a hint of peer review and that can be found primarily on conspiracy theory sites does not constitute presentation of facts, of events, or of history. Refusing to discuss sources is not an honest method of debate. Playing the 'you can't handle the truth' card merely displays the sterility of your 'argument'. Grow up.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

BTW who is David Icke?

Google is your friend.

David Icke Website

David Icke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you really make all your posts like this one?

Chill out, count to ten it's only a post, take a deep breath.

Now firstly, it's speculation for discussion, it is based on historical facts and court cases. Now you may not totally agree with all interpretations and conclusions but facts and court cases are certainly interesting an thought provoking.

If you actually want to contribute anything about the 'history or facts' please go ahead as I it may help with understanding why things actually occurred, but if your just going to moan about where the information is coming from, it doesn't really help anybody as anyone is capable of moaning.

If there is anything you actually wish to dispute using evidence or actual historical events please go ahead I'm more than happy to listen and learn, but listen to you moan without offering anything of substance is just a waste of time.

If your source is anonymous then why do you take it as credible?

Treaty of Tordesillas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It seems that most of the western hemisphere is owned by Spain, with eastern Brazil owned by Portugal.

I think mathman has it right. There are lots of weird things in history giving territory to countries other than the ones who currently hold that territory. Among the worst culprits were the various popes, who thought they had the right to confer territory where they willed.

Other nations did not agree, and the current boundaries are mostly the result of who won, or who lost what wars, and what were written down in the various peace treaties.

Or, as Henry Ford said : "History is bunk!"

​It is today's reality that matters, not historical claims.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

If your source is anonymous then why do you take it as credible?

I think if the history and facts are accurate, and the ones that are on record certainly are, then it has to afford further investigation to me. Whilst I may be sceptical of certain of the things contained I think the version of history they suggest does actually answer big questions that are at best unanswerable given the motives and version of history traditionally tourt.

It is for this reason that I feel I should give it some merit, and as such further investigation to get to the truth of the matter. Everything should checked from multiple sources of information before ever declaring anything accurate.

I didn't feel I should just dismiss the contents of this document because I was concerned about it's implications or anonimity. I also think that when things come to light that are not generally in the public domain they should be scutinised for accuracy and also what they can actually teach us, because as we all know, nobody ever has every piece of the puzzle or bit of the big picture.

Repeat after me:

correlation is not causation

Once again I wish to thank all viewers for their interest inthis Thread. I myself have been following the Postes with the same interest, have learnt more of the American Physic(sic) American way of dealing with the cuts and thrust of Events that have overtaken your Nation. Especially the in depth approach that searches out all, I repeat all, the relevant facts, to try and get at the truth of the matter. This then is added to your Constitution for Lawyers AND Politititions(sic) to at least consider. History is not cut and dried. If you do not understand what has gone before and the whys and wherefores of that, then you will surely repeat the mistakes and waste valuable time with your ignorance. History is a stepladder, you climb higher and see further on the rungs of History. westwind.

How much is the tribute the US pays to UK every year?

Better question, why does the US even still pay a tribute to the UK?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

How much is the tribute the US pays to UK every year?

Better question, why does the US even still pay a tribute to the UK?

Even better question: where did you get the idea that the US pays tribute to the UK?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

How much is the tribute the US pays to UK every year?

Better question, why does the US even still pay a tribute to the UK?

Show the records of the US paying tribute to the UK please. if it is just third hand accounts again, then why why are you accepting it as factual?

Originally Posted by Harold14370

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

How much is the tribute the US pays to UK every year?

Better question, why does the US even still pay a tribute to the UK?

Even better question: where did you get the idea that the US pays tribute to the UK?

I'm sure I remember reading about it a while back, didn't really know to much about it that's why I was asking. Any thoughts or info either way would certainly be interesting, I've had a look recently and haven't been able to find to much more on the subject.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I'm sure I remember reading about it a while back, didn't really know to much about it that's why I was asking. Any thoughts or info either way would certainly be interesting, I've had a look recently and haven't been able to find to much more on the subject.

So, you read something somewhere sometime, and accepted it as absolutely true. Why are you so damned gullible? Do you believe everything you read? No? Then what method do you use to choose what to reject and what to believe in? Whatever it is, it certainly isn't rational.

Think about that.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

I'm sure I remember reading about it a while back, didn't really know to much about it that's why I was asking. Any thoughts or info either way would certainly be interesting, I've had a look recently and haven't been able to find to much more on the subject.

So, you read something somewhere sometime, and accepted it as absolutely true. Why are you so damned gullible? Do you believe everything you read? No? Then what method do you use to choose what to reject and what to believe in? Whatever it is, it certainly isn't rational.

Think about that.

Can you remember when you found out the first US president and if so what method did you use, please indeed think about that one.

The difference there is the first president is something that one can verify and fact check in multiple places.

So, to use that same methodology, what facts can you present for the assertion that the US pays tribute.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

The difference there is the first president is something that one can verify and fact check in multiple places.

So, to use that same methodology, what facts can you present for the assertion that the US pays tribute.

Hey if you don't think the US pays to tribute to the UK why don't you just point out the mistake and explain why so that I and others may learn.
At presents your demands for 'facts and records' leave it open to speculation that their are facts and records to support this.

I am quite happy to put my hands up and say look guys I've made a mistake on this one, but you haven't given me any reason to think that this is the case. I am just trying to find out if anyone else has any info either way.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

The difference there is the first president is something that one can verify and fact check in multiple places.

So, to use that same methodology, what facts can you present for the assertion that the US pays tribute.

Hey if you don't think the US pays to tribute to the UK why don't you just point out the mistake and explain why so that I and others may learn.
At presents your demands for 'facts and records' leave it open to speculation that their are facts and records to support this.

I am quite happy to put my hands up and say look guys I've made a mistake on this one, but you haven't given me any reason to think that this is the case. I am just trying to find out if anyone else has any info either way.

You've got it all backwards. You are the one making the assertion, so it's your burden to back it up. I could say, "The Easter Bunny, in a conspiracy with the Pope, actually controls everything you say. Prove me wrong." See how absurd your position is?

Without seeing anything to back up your evidence-free assertion, the most logical position is to dismiss what you say, just as one should rationally dismiss the equally evidence-free Bunny-Pope conspiracy assertion.

Originally Posted by tk421

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

The difference there is the first president is something that one can verify and fact check in multiple places.

So, to use that same methodology, what facts can you present for the assertion that the US pays tribute.

Hey if you don't think the US pays to tribute to the UK why don't you just point out the mistake and explain why so that I and others may learn.
At presents your demands for 'facts and records' leave it open to speculation that their are facts and records to support this.

I am quite happy to put my hands up and say look guys I've made a mistake on this one, but you haven't given me any reason to think that this is the case. I am just trying to find out if anyone else has any info either way.

You've got it all backwards. You are the one making the assertion, so it's your burden to back it up. I could say, "The Easter Bunny, in a conspiracy with the Pope, actually controls everything you say. Prove me wrong." See how absurd your position is?

Without seeing anything to back up your evidence-free assertion, the most logical position is to dismiss what you say, just as one should rationally dismiss the equally evidence-free Bunny-Pope conspiracy assertion.

Hey guys I was just asking a question for information, if you haven't got any thats fine no problems.

Im still interested in why your accepting of this assertion without any evidence and ~250years of history that says we don't.

forget the alamo
and
remember
Jubilation T Cornpone
and the wisdom of the dutch settlers of new amsterdam when confronted by the military might of the Duke of York

Hmmm, in what way is your post relevant to the current discussion, if I may ask.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Hmmm, in what way is your post relevant to the current discussion, if I may ask.

by way of proposing alternate methods of confronting conflict and or conflict resolution
eg:
IV. New Amsterdam becomes New YorkThe Beginning of English Rule. 1664-1674.. Roosevelt, Theodore. 1906. New York
and/or
GREAT EPOCHS IN AMERICAN HISTORY

and of course(?)
we all remember jubilation T cornpone from little abner
(" the first in love, the first in war, the first to say "I quit!"

a tad too obtuse?

A tat off the mark and Not actually related to the current assertions being made.

I wondered where I read it, it seems the issue is quite complicated, but a book by Stephen Ames called "The Ultimate Delusion" helps shed light on the matter.

Extract: " 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. King George funded both sides of the Revolutionary War.
Now the Articles of Confederation which were 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."
The Articles of Confederation acknowledge the debt owed to King George.
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, the conquest was not yet complete. 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 come to the meeting, but there is 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 going to reorganize the United States because it was Bankrupt.
On September 17, 1787 twelve State delegates approve the Constitution. The States have now become 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."

The next bit is quite interesting as it explains why and how the UK is involved:

Extract: "
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, Approved 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 it's udders ? 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."


Now before anyone goes getting their 'knickers in a twist' I am only putting these extracts up to answer a question and for the purposes of the discussion and make no assertions as to the validity, this being said I have as yet found nothing that in anyway contradicts this information.

So the first for a repayment of loans, not setting up a tribute payment.

The second is, from the looks of it, dealing with income that falls under aspects of US-Foreign nation treaty coverage.

I would suggest looking up the actual text for each rather then going with the spin that is being put on both by Stephen Ames.

I have never heard of him, what are his credentials?

Also where is the paper trial fro payments that supposedly been taking place for over 250 years?

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

So the first for a repayment of loans, not setting up a tribute payment.

The second is, from the looks of it, dealing with income that falls under aspects of US-Foreign nation treaty coverage.

I would suggest looking up the actual text for each rather then going with the spin that is being put on both by Stephen Ames.

I have never heard of him, what are his credentials?

Also where is the paper trial fro payments that supposedly been taking place for over 250 years?

Have you got any information that may help with the debate?

Other then common sense which says the US is a sovereign from the UK and the world is not owned by the pope. No I do not have a lot. however I am getting the impression that you and me both have the same level of understanding on the issue.

I will point out that its you making the claim, thus its your obligation to supply viable evidence. Its pretty clear that Mr Ames doesnt understand what he is writing about, if he is suggesting British Royalty have power over US politics.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Other then common sense which says the US is a sovereign from the UK and the world is not owned by the pope. No I do not have a lot. however I am getting the impression that you and me both have the same level of understanding on the issue.

I will point out that its you making the claim, thus its your obligation to supply viable evidence. Its pretty clear that Mr Ames doesnt understand what he is writing about, if he is suggesting British Royalty have power over US politics.

Do you think it is possible that we can conduct an enlightening discussion with a free exchange of ideas, opinions and information without the need for anyone to put under 'obligation', I think if you do not agree with the premise of a question that it is easier to come and give a explantion as to why. This will help me and others to understand your position and evaluate it's merit.

Whilst it seems clear that you most definately have an opinion it is difficult really understand if it is your opinion that you don't like the implications of the information, find the source untrustworthy or actually have information of your own that is contradictory.

Whilst I am interested in your opinion I am also interested in why you seem so convinced and the reasons behind this. I remain open minded until I have discovered proof one way or another, but I do find the whole notion interesting and suggestive of manipulation stretching back hundreds of years.

Even just a sensible explanation of the events may give me and others another perspective upon which to maybe understand your point of veiw.

The thing is, in science, it is the person that proposes an hypothesis that has to provide evidence that supports said hypothesis and disproves prior ones.

I am going on the lack of evidnece for any such ties to exists. there is no evidence at all that any money flow exisits between the US and the UK. So far the sources tyou have provided have been going on old doculents and misunderstanding of how they work.

treties formed in the 1400's are most often not viable in the modern world due to the major shifts that have happened in the global community.

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Do you think it is possible that we can conduct an enlightening discussion with a free exchange of ideas, opinions and information without the need for anyone to put under 'obligation',

No, this is not possible and it is ridiculous to suggest that it is. There are obligations that need to be fulfilled to permit an 'enlightened discussion'. Two spring to mind in this context:

1) There is an obligation to apply rules of common sense in the ideas, opinions and information offered and not to promote wantonly foolish notions.
2) There is an obligation, where an idea, opinion or information are apparently wantonly foolish, for the promoter to provide some form of justification for that notion to be given any attention.

Whilst it seems clear that you most definitely have an opinion it is difficult really understand if it is your opinion that you don't like the implications of the information, find the source untrustworthy or actually have information of your own that is contradictory.

1. the implications can be disregarded because the idea is ludicrous.
2. The source is questionable, because it is apparently unsupported by other documentation.
3. The evidence against is the total lack of evidence for: as Paleo pointed out there is no money trail; there is no motivation for maintaining such an arrangement on the part of the US; there is no means to enforce such an arrangement on the part of the UK

You actually make a valid point, whilst as said I remain open minded, about the money trail. I also think that any significant somes of money would be very hard to hide suggesting that it would enevitably leave a money trail and I also think if it existed a money trail would noticable.

I'm not as convinced though about your assertions on a lack of "motivation for maintaining such an arrangement", as we know most of american law is adapted from british law, quite alot of common law, and also commercial law. So that said I could possibly imagine there being some tie in through treaty or law though exactly what or how I do not know.

Do you think it is just really unlikey or actually impossible for the UK to have any control of the US?

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

Do you think it is just really unlikey or actually impossible for the UK to have any control of the US?

From a scientific perspective I see little justification in describing any proposed historical scenario as impossible. I do do see a point in describing something as having a vanishingly small possibility. such is the case here.

There is absolutely no reason, no mechanism, no evidence, no logic for something like this to be followed. British law is based upon Roman Law, yet the UK does not pay tribute to the Italian government.

I ask you to consider the mechanism by which this control would be exercised. Military? Obviously not. Nuclear blackmail? Obviously not. Economic? How the hell would that work? The US like practically every country on the planet has broken agreements when it suited them. Why would they allow such control to be exrcised when there is no means to enforce that control? It is just a truly silly idea.

Originally Posted by John Galt

I ask you to consider the mechanism by which this control would be exercised. Military? Obviously not. Nuclear blackmail? Obviously not. Economic? How the hell would that work? The US like practically every country on the planet has broken agreements when it suited them. Why would they allow such control to be exrcised when there is no means to enforce that control? It is just a truly silly idea.

I think there are many ideas that can appear silly, I don't think that everybody has the same level of understanding or learning so a silly idea to one person might only be part of a learning process to others so I think that when we know or understand something someone else does not then a meaningful explanation can be very helpful, after all there will always remain things that each of us do not know or understand.

That said I don't entirely disagree with what you are saying, especially about broken agreements as I don't think there is a country in the world that isn't motivated by self interest. I do think though it is possible that this question may still continue to arise and that it may lead to confusion. I don't think that everybody is going to fully understand the whole legal position in regard to common law and other such UK connections. I must admit I myself don't know or understand wether, if or how any common law laws can be changed in america or who has the power to change them, if indeed they can be changed.

One might argue that placing one hands in the flames of a fire is all about not having a sufficient level of understanding about fire and the temperature at which permanent damage occurs to biological entities. This might be a valid argument for a four year old child. For someone older placing your hands in a fire is (without some very extreme external conditions applying) simply silly.

The same applies here. Unless you have been completely isolated from news media and a passing exposure to simple history lessons then entertaining the idea that the UK has some kind of control over the US is worse than silly. It is ludicrous. It is not my intention to offend, but one can only hold such a view through extreme naivety or gullibility. This isn't a matter of proving the proposition wrong, there is no case to answer. I think I made a comparison earlier with David Icke. The comparison stands.

Originally Posted by John Galt

One might argue that placing one hands in the flames of a fire is all about not having a sufficient level of understanding about fire and the temperature at which permanent damage occurs to biological entities. This might be a valid argument for a four year old child. For someone older placing your hands in a fire is (without some very extreme external conditions applying) simply silly.

The same applies here. Unless you have been completely isolated from news media and a passing exposure to simple history lessons then entertaining the idea that the UK has some kind of control over the US is worse than silly. It is ludicrous. It is not my intention to offend, but one can only hold such a view through extreme naivety or gullibility. This isn't a matter of proving the proposition wrong, there is no case to answer. I think I made a comparison earlier with David Icke. The comparison stands.

Just because not everyone has learned enough, or understands enough to realise that power is exercised throughout the United States by states that has enacted reception statutes that give power to 'english' common law over US citizens and as such have yet to learn that the idea of the UK having any power over the US is not such a silly idea I certainly wouldn't liken them to a 4 year old child, I would just suggest that perhaps they arn't quite as knowledgeable as they may have thought they were and perhaps still have some things to learn on the subject.

How's this, purely 'hypothetically', US citizens living in america discover that a small amount of their social security payments have gone 'missing', said citizens make enquires as to where the missing money has gone. After alot of research they discover the money has gone to a foreign country as 'tribute'. Now obviously they are not overly happy at this and take the matter to court, unfortunately for them the court is using 'english' common law thanks to reception statutes, the court upholds the decision that this money was 'rightly' deducted as the 'english' common law still classed them as colonists that are required to pay. An attempt to use the United States Constitution to assert their rights not to have to pay results in the judge informing them that they are not signitaries of the constitution and as such not party to the compact and it gives them no legal powers in law.

Because of the unwanted 'publicity' caused by the court case the judge then slaps an injuction on any reporting of the case.

But of course this all just totally hypothetical.

Do you actually believe that there is a money tie? yes or no

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

How's this, purely 'hypothetically', US citizens living in america discover that a small amount of their social security payments have gone 'missing', said citizens make enquires as to where the missing money has gone. After alot of research they discover the money has gone to a foreign country as 'tribute'. Now obviously they are not overly happy at this and take the matter to court, unfortunately for them the court is using 'english' common law thanks to reception statutes, the court upholds the decision that this money was 'rightly' deducted as the 'english' common law still classed them as colonists that are required to pay. An attempt to use the United States Constitution to assert their rights not to have to pay results in the judge informing them that they are not signitaries of the constitution and as such not party to the compact and it gives them no legal powers in law.

Because of the unwanted 'publicity' caused by the court case the judge then slaps an injuction on any reporting of the case.

But of course this all just totally hypothetical.

I think the word you were looking for was imaginary.

US citizens living in america discover that a small amount of their social security payments have gone 'missing',

It never is "your" money anyhow...it's a payment for the already retired generation. Once you retire, "your money" will be payed from by stealing it from a younger family trying to balance keeping their car running and buying high quality food for their baby.

Originally Posted by Paleoichneum

Do you actually believe that there is a money tie? yes or no

Absolutely not, but I was enjoying discussing the possibility.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Originally Posted by Chrisgorlitz

How's this, purely 'hypothetically', US citizens living in america discover that a small amount of their social security payments have gone 'missing', said citizens make enquires as to where the missing money has gone. After alot of research they discover the money has gone to a foreign country as 'tribute'. Now obviously they are not overly happy at this and take the matter to court, unfortunately for them the court is using 'english' common law thanks to reception statutes, the court upholds the decision that this money was 'rightly' deducted as the 'english' common law still classed them as colonists that are required to pay. An attempt to use the United States Constitution to assert their rights not to have to pay results in the judge informing them that they are not signitaries of the constitution and as such not party to the compact and it gives them no legal powers in law.

Because of the unwanted 'publicity' caused by the court case the judge then slaps an injuction on any reporting of the case.

But of course this all just totally hypothetical.

I think the word you were looking for was imaginary.

John, you are 100% correct none of this 'hypothetical' senario has any basis in fact. But I was interested to see the way in which you would be able to discredit it.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

US citizens living in america discover that a small amount of their social security payments have gone 'missing',

It never is "your" money anyhow...it's a payment for the already retired generation. Once you retire, "your money" will be payed from by stealing it from a younger family trying to balance keeping their car running and buying high quality food for their baby.

When my ancestors lived in tribes it was the practice for the younger members of the tribe to look after their aging elders. (Their wisdom was seen as an important triabl asset.) It seems perfectly reasonable to me that in the enlarged societies we are now part of that the practice should be formalised and administered by governments.

I take it that your ancestors followed a different methodology, viewing demands placed upon them by aging members as an unecessary and unacceptable load.

Most likely our ancestors worked until they died and didn't have the false sense of entitlement that their young would take care of them even as they were completely capable of still taking care of themselves. Based on my own genealogy, most of them had 5 to 15 children and 25 to 100 potential grandkids to help them out in their feeble years instead of the much lower numbers of today. When the social security retirement age was originally set, about half of people never made it to that age and because the poor die as much as ten years younger, it turned out to one of the most regressive aspects of modern society (some minority groups still don't make it, but rich white women live much much past it). Also when it started, due to its pay as you go, the amount put it was a couple percent. Today due to demographic it represents the most burdensome form of "head tax" for the poor who'll almost certainly never see a return on investment as they represent the ponzea scheme end game players.

Once people are handicapped, I have no problem with society helping them-but I think SS was always a bad idea.

(I can't figure out a way to tie this to 1812...other than the metaphorical burning of Washington DC to add a culture of independence comes to mind..hehe)

You just tied it in time Lynx. However, today it is my historical duty to inform all Members that on my wonderful Foxtel TV Programme for this Weekends viewing there will be an History Re-enactment of the 1812 War that led to the Burning of the White House and the Treasury in Washington State. It is time slotted for 1930HRS to 2130HRS on Foxtels History Channel on Sunday night AEST plus Daylight Saving forward hour. Thats Australian Eastern Standard Time. I think with Daylight saving adjustments we are currently eleven hours ahead of Greenwich Time in London. Thats on our East Coast. Now, at the White House, I'm not sure what time Mr. Obama, The President, will have to tune in. westwind.

Sunday in Melbourne is the 18th November.

I believe if you can get your local time right you may be able to watch it on You Tube.

The Captain who was responsible for the burning of The White House was Capt. Alured D. Faunce, of the Forth Regiment. He was later promoted to Major. I;m not sure if he went on to New Orleans, where, I think the British suffered a defeat. westwind.

While I am aware that the war of 1812 to 1815 is much glorified inside America, from an outsiders view point, it seems much less justifiable. While the USA had some reasonable grievances against Britain before that war, it would be hard to use them to justify the fact that the USA declared war. The USA declared war at a time when Britain was ensconced in war with France (Napoleon), and was thus weakened. The USA also used that war to attack native Americans and steal their land off them. They also tried to invade Canada and take land there. Very hard to justify any of that.

The so-called 'glory' came when Britain, in 1814, defeated France and was able to take aggressive action against the USA. The Americans repulsed them, with major losses of land, and during which time, Britain burned Washington. This permitted a treaty which restored the USA/Canada boundaries that existed before 1812. Lots of dead people for little gain, except for stealing native land.

As I understand it skeptic the Americans are a little peeved about the English here. Only Daniel Boone remembered the War brcause it interfered with his Trapping..

But there is a nice Poste earlier in this Thread where "We chased them down the Mississipee and on the Alomho',or something like that.....

Fancy later on tipping all that Tea overboard. That was bloody Childish. In Boston Harbour wasn't it??

Still, English Women got to wear Ermine over the shoulders and the Canadians are there to keep an eye on them nowadays. westwind.

Westwind.
The Boston tea party was in 1773, as a protest against British taxes. It was one of the events leading to the war of independence. Not quite the 1812 to 1815 war.

While I am aware that the war of 1812 to 1815 is much glorified inside America,

This is really not true. The war of 1812 is hardly taught and even less known in the US. The vast majority of Americans have probably never heard of it.

Lynx

I was thinking, when I wrote that, of the song : The Battle of New Orleans. ​I think that constitutes glorification.