The Fascinating History Of Civil Law Versus Divine Common Law Notes


Liquid Democracy

Delegate Democracy is a form of democratic control whereby voting power is vested in delegates, rather than representatives. This term is a generic description of either already existing or proposed popular control apparatuses.


Contrasted with Representative Democracy

Crucial to the understanding of delegate democracy is the theory's view of the meaning of "representative democracy." Representative democracy is seen as a form of governance whereby a single winner is determined for a predefined jurisdiction, with a change of delegation only occurring after the preset term length (or in some instances by a forced recall election if popular support warrants it). The possibility usually exists within representation that the "recalled" candidate can win the subsequent electoral challenge.

A democratic system in which most issues are decided by direct referendum. However, since no one has time for this, you can delegate your votes. Here’s the cool part; you can delegate your votes on a certain topic to one person, and then delegate your votes on another topic to someone else. And delegations are transitive; you can delegate to someone who delegates to someone else, etc, in which case your votes will flow to whoever is at the end of the line. Of course, you can “un-delegate” at any time.

Delegative democracy is a new paradigm for democratic organization which emphasizes individually chosen vote transfers ("delegation") over mass election. Delegative democracy combines the best elements of direct and representative democracy by replacing artificially imposed representation structures with an adaptive structure founded on real personal and group trust relationships. Delegative democracy empowers individuals and encourages widespread direct participation in a democratic organization, without unduly burdening or disenfranchising those members who, for lack of time, interest, or knowledge, would prefer to take a more passive role.

Delegative Voting (DV) is an alternative method of electing candidates to offices, which shares the most important advantages of other systems commonly proposed for electoral reforms while addressing some of their most important practical obstacles. Unlike all other serious alternatives, DV can be used as an almost zero-cost, "drop-in" replacement for conventional plurality or "first past the post" voting systems. Voters in DV mark their ballots exactly as they do in plurality elections, by selecting one of a list of candidates, and for this reason DV will feel entirely familiar to those accustomed to plurality voting. Furthermore, DV requires no new investment in voting equipment or extensive re-training of vote-counting staff or volunteers. DV eliminates the well-known "spoiler effect" of plurality voting, however, and greatly increases the effective choice voters have by allowing them to vote for the candidate closest to their own viewpoint without wasting their vote or helping to elect a candidate they strongly oppose.

Liquid Democracy

Let’s start with an old dream mentioned by Alexander Hamilton in 1788: “It has been observed by an honorable gentleman that a pure democracy, if it were practicable, would be the most perfect government.” With this notion he unfavorably compared pure (or direct) democracy to the republic proposed by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. This republic was to be what we call today a representative democracy.

A representative democracy is founded on the principle of elected individuals representing the people. Usually you elect a representative (individual or party) for a fixed term – if you change your mind during the term – you can’t do much about it. Also representatives usually stand for a whole package of political objectives. If you don’t find your own mix – you need to accept compromises.

On the other hand a pure (or direct) democracy may be less efficient, is believed to be impracticable on a large scale, and warnings of a mob rule go back as far as Plato. This being said many people, honorable or otherwise, hold up the dream of a pure democracy. New technology such as the Internet could place it within reach. Of course this is only the technical aspect. The remaining question is: will everybody be able to deal with every question or will people stop participating? Or will there be superficial decisions? – “sounds good – let’s vote for it”.

This is where Liquid Democracy comes in. The basic idea: a voter can delegate his vote to a trustee (technically a transitive proxy). The vote can be further delegated to the proxy’s proxy thus building a network of trust. All delegations can be done, altered and revoked by topic. I myself vote in environmental questions, Anne represents me in foreign affairs, Mike represents me in all other areas but I can change my mind at any time.

Anyone can select his own way ranging from pure democracy on the one hand to representative democracy on the other. Basically one participates in what one is interested in but for all other areas gives their vote to somebody acting in their interest. Obviously one may make a bad choice once in a while but they can change their mind at any time. Project LiquidFeedback LiquidFeedback is an online system for discussing and voting on proposals in an inner party (or inner organizational) context and covers the process from the introduction of the first draft of a proposal to the final decision. Discussing an issue before voting increases the awareness of pros and cons, chances and risks, and allows people to consider and suggest alternatives.

Tools of democracy

"What we've observed during the last months is that almost any decisions the Pirates took at their conventions were heavily discussed beforehand by a large number of people, many of whom did not attend the conventions," Bieber says. "[Absent members] will support the decisions being made there because they had the chance to input into the discussions beforehand. It's one reason for the stability the Pirate Party is showing."

The most widely-used online Pirate platform is PiratePad, a collaborative text editor. Adapted by party members from the commercial EtherPad software, which Google acquired and open-sourced in late 2009, Pirates use it alongside chatrooms, wikis and mailing lists to collaboratively work on policies.

But a few of the local Pirate chapters, notably the one in Berlin, are also experimenting with a platform called Liquid Feedback. Also open-source (and therefore available for implementation by anyone), Liquid Feedback is built around a concept called 'liquid democracy.' It's effectively a technology for hacking traditional politics. If PiratePad is about collaboration and discussion, Liquid Feedback is about competition and decision-making. Any of the 6,000 members that use it can propose a policy. If the proposal picks up a 10 percent quorum within a set period, such as a week, it becomes the focus of an almost 'gamified' revision period. Any member can also set up an alternative proposal, and over the ensuing few weeks these rival versions battle it out, with members voting their favorites up or down.

"In the ideal case you have five or six people working on alternative initiatives, and everyone tries to be the better one so they can win the poll in the end," Berlin Pirate Party spokesman Ingo Bormuth explains. "We hope it's healthy competition, but we want people to compete against each other so they stay [involved] in the topic."

Each member has one vote, but most are not interested in marking up endless reams of policy papers. So the system allows every vote to be entrusted to another member – for everything, or for certain topics or specific proposals, or not at all. What's more, the person who has been delegated the votes of others can then re-delegate all those votes, plus their own, to someone else.

It's a trust-based approach and the nearest thing Liquid Feedback has to a reputation system. Members don't get points-based kudos for their involvement and expertise; they collect real votes. In theory, votes being passed up the chain like this could lead to a crony elite or even a dictator, but there is a failsafe mechanism. Every delegated vote can be reclaimed at any time, so no high-flying Pirate can operate without a continuous mandate. "We want effective people to be powerful and do their work, but we want [the grassroots] to be able to control them," Bormuth says.

This is liquid democracy: a sliding scale between direct democracy and representative democracy, where each member can decide where they sit in the spectrum at any given time.

"Just recently we had something regarding the EU Data Protection Directive," Weiss recounts. "The [winning] Liquid Feedback initiative said the Pirate faction in [the Berlin] parliament should bring those proposals forward. We discussed it in the faction and decided to bring it into parliament. It's not quite correct to say it was successful there, but an amended version was successful."

However, Weiss is wary of overstating the importance of Liquid Feedback relative to more frequently-used tools, and he is certainly sceptical of the idea that the platform is in itself a big draw for voters. "The average person knows we're a grassroots movement and they know we do things over the Internet, but they may not know about liquid democracy," he says. The politician also points out that, while Liquid Feedback does work for handling fundamental topics, it has limitations.

"For questions such as 'do we want to institute a basic income', there's more to it than decision on Liquid Feedback," Weiss says. "There's a decision at conference, and by an elected group of people. You can't have a system that maps the whole discourse that has to happen for this kind of democracy. But you can have quantified feedback that shows you where the majority lies on a given point."

Bieber reckons Liquid Feedback's interface may be seen as "nerdy or geeky" by many new recruits, especially when compared with the familiar mechanisms of wikis and collaborative text editors. It has an interface only a developer could love, although the Pirates have recently published APIs so people can build more attractive front-ends for smartphones and the web.

While other tools are open to all, Liquid Feedback can only be accessed by registered members. "With PiratePads, you don't need to be a member of the Pirate Party to join the discussion and edit the text," Bieber says. "To some this is the starting point for a critique of Liquid Feedback … that erecting areas of restricted access for members is against the grassroots attitude."

The objective we pursue with our concept of '(@ Direkter Parlamentarismus)' is to realise the original idea of democracy and to make it applicable to all areas of society, not only in the range of the political system. Today's democracy allows us primarily to elect political representatives. This was until now the only way to realise democracy in large societies. However, the basic concepts of democracy are autonomy and parliamentary discourse - both are not realised today.

"Real" democracy has little in common with contemporary democratic systems where citizens exert influence mostly by voting for a set of positions represented by a political party every four or five years. We have developed a viable concept in which every interested citizen can at any time participate and place his/ her vote on single political issues directly and bindingly.

We will realise a system in which every citizen can be a parliamentarian in each political area.

The basic idea is a democratic system in which most issues are decided (or strongly suggested to representatives) by direct referendum. Considering nobody has enough time and knowledge for every issue, votes can be delegated by topic. Furthermore delegations are transitive and can be revoked at any time. Liquid Democracy is sometimes referred to as Delegated or Proxy Voting.

The Schulze method is a voting system developed in 1997 by Markus Schulze that selects a single winner using votes that express preferences. The method can also be used to create a sorted list of winners. The Schulze method is also known as Schwartz Sequential Dropping (SSD), Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping (CSSD), the Beatpath Method, Beatpath Winner, Path Voting, and Path Winner.

The Schulze method is a Condorcet method, which means the following: if there is a candidate who is preferred over every other candidate in pairwise comparisons, then this candidate will be the winner when the Schulze method is applied.

Currently, the Schulze method is the most widespread Condorcet method (list). The Schulze method is used by several organizations including Wikimedia, Debian, Ubuntu, Gentoo, and Software in the Public Interest. The output of the Schulze method (defined below) gives an ordering of candidates. Therefore, if several positions are available, the method can be used for this purpose without modification, by letting the k top-ranked candidates win the k available seats. Furthermore, for proportional representation elections, a single transferable vote variant has been proposed.

A New Monotonic, Clone-Independent, Reversal Symmetric, and Condorcet-Consistent Single-Winner Election Method

Forum posts with additional info

Earth legally owned by the "Most Holy and Undivided Trinity"?

I have studied some of history of the Batavian Republic, now The Netherlands, which has been overthrown under first the authority of Napoleon and finally in 1815 under authority of "the Holy and Indivisible Trinity" (the Pope) at the Vienna Congress.

The "Final Act of the Congress of Vienna/General Treaty" reads:

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.

So, what we are looking at, is a legal contract between several parties under the authority of some legal entity, identified by the name "Most Holy and Undivided Trinity", because this treaty has been signed "in the NAME of" or "under authority of" that legal entity. In other words, what we got here is some legal entity claiming ownership of essentially all of Europe appointing certain rulers (kings) over parts of it's supposed territory.

In order to figure out who this legal entity is, we have to go back to 1213:

Medieval Sourcebook: John I: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213

do offer and freely concede to [...] our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances,[...]; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church...

How interesting. So, ALL Kings of England, as of 1213, operate under the authority of the "chief pontiff", which is of course the head of the Roman church. So, legally the "chief pontiff" can also be identified under the name "Most Holy and Undivided Trinity", since that is the name under whose authority the treaty of Vienna was signed.

Later in history, under this same authority - either direct or via the King of England - ownership of the Americas has been claimed, under te legal pretence that the ownership of these lands had not been claimed before. However, in 1611 we find a document authorized by the King, still operating under the authority of the "chief pontiff" of course, that says otherwise:

To the most high and mightie Prince, James by the grace of God King of Great Britaine, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c.

1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and the Earth.
26 And God said, Let vs make man in our Image, after our likenesse: and let them haue dominion ouer the fish of the sea, and ouer the foule of the aire, and ouer the cattell, and ouer all the earth, and ouer euery creeping thing that creepeth vpon the earth.

In other words, here we have a document, authorized (indirectly) by the legal entity identified by a number of names, amongst which "chief pontiff" and "Most Holy and Undivided Trinity", wherein it is testified that some entity, legally identified by the name "God", made (authored) the Earth and gave it to the people (article 26).

In other words: legally, we are looking at an authorized document, written well before the birth of Jesus Christ, in which the ownership of the Earth is claimed and given to the people.

So, if this legal entity, identified by a/o the NAME "Most Holy and Undivided Trinity", can legally claim ownership of the Earth, it can only do so if it can come up with a document that proves that the people, who were given dominion over the Earth according to article 26, handed the ownership of the Earth over to this legal entity.

In other words: I would like to suggest someone to go and notify the "Most Holy and Undivided Trinity" that the we, the people, claim dominion over the Earth according to article 26 of the above document.

And, now the people have legal ground to claim dominion over the all the Earth, it should of course be added to the notification that the people demand all the taxes and other benefits unlawfully collected over the ages to be payed back. And I would suggest it would not be unreasonable to also demand an interest of 4% per annum on top of that.

As for the authorized version of the above document, there are also versions that are officially and directly authorized by the "chief pontiff":

This is the latest one:

In this one, some remarkable pieces have vanished. However, in the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible, which was also officially authorized, we read:

[1] In the beginning God created heaven, and earth.
[26] And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

I see that I deleted the part of the quote from the Confession document referring to the chief pontiff in my above post, because my post was too long at first. Here is a bigger part: Medieval Sourcebook: John I: Concession Of England To The Pope. 1213

do offer and freely concede to God and His holy apostles Peter and Paul and to our mother the holy Roman church, and to our lord pope Innocent and to his Catholic successors, the whole kingdom of England and the whole kingdom Ireland, with all their rights and appurtenances,[...]; and now receiving and holding them, as it were a vassal, from God and the Roman church, [...] we perform and swear fealty for them to him our aforesaid lord pope Innocent, and his catbolic successors and the Roman church, according to the form appended; and in the presence of the lord pope, if we shall be able to come before him, we shall do liege homage to him; binding our successors aid our heirs by our wife forever, in -similar manner to perform fealty and show homage to him who shall be chief pontiff at that time, and to the Roman church without demur.

More on this matter here: A KING'S CHARTER WHICH REFUSES TO DIE

Seems to me as a matter of law, a contract entered into voluntarily by someone voids any conflict or injury to that individuals rights. The king always intended to retain his minerals and money, and he knew as stated by other quotes in this article the barristers would retain his land under the corporate trust.


Do the king and the Pope have proper claims to their landholdings? No. The king's claim would not exist accept for his barristers (lawyers), his backers the bankers, the Pope, via his churches land holdings and financial backing of the early banking families. The reason I also say no, is fraud and deception are involved.
How did the king come by his claim? By the Conquest of Britain by William the Conqueror in 1066, and thanks to the Pope's partnership with England as trustee for Rome, working inside of Britain with her Jesuit priests. Conquest does not change land held in trust.
So the lands held by the Brits and trusts (wills of testament), and traditions of the fathers land going to the sons, could not be overturned by the Conquest of William the Conqueror.
But even further than that, God Almighty granted to Adam and his descendants the entire earth, it was given away to satan, but later reclaimed by Jesus Christ as the second Adam, the land was then placed in trust for the descendants of Israel, including the lost 10 tribes. Causing the world to be ruled over by Israel and the riches of the world to be stored up for the righteous. To deny this trust and Charter is to deny the written Word of God Almighty, if the Pope denied this he would expose himself as the apostate Church (the whore) spoken of in Revelations. Why do I say this, because he and the king hold lands by the king's civil law, through creations of Trusts and Charters, over land they do not own, for they cannot.

According to this, it is necessary to claim dominance over the whole Earth along the line I sketched above in order to finally deal with this matter. If this is not done, you still have a legal loophole that has not been accounted for...

Pied Pipers of Babylon by Verl K. Speer

In the interview with Winston Shrout, David asked about some books that people may want to read.

I have just found the following book, which appears to be just that. And it includes an interesting mail exchange between Speer and none less than Ron Paul in 1984 as well: :

The Doctor of Common Law, Verl K. Speer released his book Pied Pipers of Babylon in 1985. Out of print with limited used copies in circulation, this book needs to be in the hands of all who care for their future, the world we live in, and the system we are subjects to/of.
Much of what Winston Shrout teaches is based on Dr. Speers work. He was way ahead of his time in respects to understanding the truth about law and the mercantile system, Dr. Speer experienced the destruction first hand through the subsidies and controls inflicted upon his family farm in Kansas.

From the e-book itself:

The key discovery of Dr. Speer is that Americans have become subject to a foreign system of law - essentially a form of the Roman civil law.
This jurisdiction, he says, was imposed on our country by England. He Contrasts this with the "other great system," the common law.
"Common law," as Speer defines it, is based on reason and the immutable laws of God and nature.
It is the law of conscience - and as such, it can not be written, only written about.
One of the first things of interest this reviewer learned from "Pipers" was the cause of the American Revolution. It was not, as most people think, the tax on tea or "taxation without representation."
Rather, as is mentioned in two separate places in the Declaration of Independence, it was England's attempt to subject Americans to the civil law.


Today, says Speer, maritime law has come ashore and threatens to squeeze Out all our rights.
How then have Americans been tricked out of their common-law rights and into the admiralty courts, just as happened more than 200 years ago?
Speer explains this in his book. Furthermore, he examines the principles applicabl e to the resolution of this dilemma, and how they may be invoked and implemented.
Among the topics covered in great detail by Speer are the "malady of paper money" and the powers of the jury to judge the facts and the law , and to nullifv the law where necessary-that is, whenever the law is unjust. Also covered at length is the subject of land patents and alodial land title .

I have started reading in this book and so far it seems to me this is a very good and well written introduction to the subject.

As a side-note, in my country, The Netherlands, the Batavian Republic ( has been (illegally) overturned by first Napoleon and then the 1815 Vienna Congress.

It's final act ( reads:

In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity.

This act essentially reveals that the Pope c.q. the Roman Catholic Church claims to own the planet. You know, the Church with the IHS symbol David Wilcock reported on being depicted in real Human Bones in the Sedlec Ossuary (search for ¨IMAGES FROM WITHIN A RITUAL SITE" on David's site ):

I posted more on this on the freedomreigns forum:

So: happy reading and connect the dots!

I have been reading the first chapter of "Pied Pipers of Babylon" by Verl K. Speer ( and it is AWESOME to read.

What he describes in the fist part is essentially that common law originates with the Israelites, who have migrated via the Black Sea area in what is now Russia towards Northern Europe.

Basically, he says the Anglo-Saxians are (partially) the descendants of the Israelites and that is why the "Natural" or "Common Law" is essentially the same as the laws described in the Bible, as well as the legal system that goes along with it. And that connects very nicely with what Winston Shrout referred to in the interview.

Now a lot of things are beginning to make sense. First of all, as I posted at the freedomreigns forum, the Roman Church essentially claims to own the whole planet:

A very important aspect with that, is that the French revolution under Napoleon, essentially was all about rejecting the authority of the Pope and thus the return to common law in France as well as The Netherlands. It were these ideas that were taken over in the United States constitution.

And what may be the most incredible about this story, is that this has all been predicted in the Bible with an astonishing accuracy, as has been explained by Prof. Walter Veith in his Total Onslaught series:

In "A Woman Rides the Beast" he describes the Roman Catholic (Universal) church as being the Woman that rides the beast, the kingdom of the anti-christ.

"The Man Behind the Mask": "Who is the Antichrist? When does the Bible say the Antichrist will appear on Earth?"

"The Wine of Babylon": "The Bible speaks about an end-time Babylon that would lead the whole world astray. The doctrines for this end-time power can be found in ancient Babylon."

But may be the most interesting one to start with is this "The Beast From the Bottomless Pit" "This video offers a detailed look at the French Revolution and the setting up of the new world order. It includes a discussion of the power behind the French Revolution, the birth of human rights, and the significance they play in current events."

Most of these videos can also be found on YouTube.

While I certainly do not agree with everything he says, especially regarding human rights because that is the basis of the Common law that has been passed to us by means of the Bible, this series is very interesting and relevant in order to get a bigger picture of what is actually IN the Bible and of the nature of the Roman Catholic church that claims to own the whole planet and thus is what is referred to as the anti-christ in the Bible.

And this image of the City Hall in Nurnberg shows without a shadow of a doubt that the old protestants new perfectly well who the fourth beast in the Bible was:


And as far as I understand now, common law is all about REAL physical stuff, while Civil Roman law aka admirality law essentially deals with virtual stuff, like paper money that does not really exist.

And there we got the reason for the whole gold confiscation exercise. You see, without real physical gold (and silver) as money, you have no way to settle your debts under common law.

In other words: the whole gold confiscation scam has only ONE purpose: getting rid of (divine) common law once and for all...

Another important source on the history of the Vatican is Avro Manhattan:

His book "the Vatican Billions" shows a lot of details:

The establishment of the Papal States provided the Roman Catholic Church with a territorial and juridical base of paramount importance. From then on it enables her to launch upon the promotion of an ever bolder policy directed at the accelerated acquisition of additional lands, additional gold, and the additional status, prestige and power that went with them.


Not content with the Papal States and the new regions acquired, the popes now wanted even more, thus proving the accuracy of the old saying that the appetite increases with the eating. They set themselves to expand even further their ownership of additional territories. They concluded that the newly born Papal States, although of such considerable size, were too small for the pope, the representatives of the Blessed Peter. These territories had to be extended to match Peter’s spiritual imperium. Something incontrovertible by which the popes would be unequivocally granted the ownership of whole kingdoms and empires had, therefore, become a necessity.
At this point this most spectacular of all forgeries makes its official appearance: the Donation of Constantine.
Purporting to have been written by the Emperor Constantine himself, it emerged from nowhere. The document with one master stroke put the popes above kings, emperors and nations, made them the legal heirs to the territory of the Roman Empire, which it granted to them, lock stock, and barrel, and gave to St. Peter - or rather to St. Silvester and his successors - all lands to the West and beyond, indeed, all lands of the planet.
The document was a sum of the previous forgeries, but unlike past fabrications it was definite, precise and spoke in no uncertain terms of the spiritual and political supremacy which the popes had been granted as their inalienable right. The significance and consequences of its appearance were portentous for the whole western world.
The social structure and political framework of the Middle Ages were molded and shaped by its contents. With it the papacy, having made its boldest attempt at world dominion, succeeded in placing itself above the civil authorities of Europe, claiming to be the real possessor of lands ruled by Western potentates, and the supreme arbiter of the political life of all Christendom.


The capture of Jerusalem and the success of the First Crusade gave incalculable prestige to the pontiffs.
While the nations of Europe attributed this victory to manifest supernatural power, the Roman Pontiffs were quick to transform the great martial movements of the Crusades into powerful instruments to be used to expand their spiritual and temporal dominion. This was done by employing them as military and political levers which never ceased to yield territorial and financial advantages throughout the Middle Ages.
Such policies went a step further when, basing papal claims on an even more daring interpretation of the Donation, it was stated that the secular rulers should be made to pay tribute to the papacy. A vehement advocate of this was Otto of Freisingen, who in his Chronicles composed in 1143-6, did not hesitate to declare that as Constantine, after conferring the imperial insignia on the pontiff, went to Byzantium to leave the empire to St. Peter, so other kings and emperors should pay tribute to the popes.
For this reason the Roman Church maintains that the Western kingdom have been given over to her possession by Constantine, and demands tribute from them to this day, with the exception of the two kingdoms of the Franks (i.e. the French and German).
Such advocacy was made possible because only a century earlier, in 1054, Pope Leo IX had declared to the Patriarch Michael Cerularius that the Donation of Constantine really meant the donation “of earthly and heavenly imperium to the royal priesthood of the Roman chair.” From all this it followed that soon Lombardy, Italy, and Germany began to be reckoned, in the eyes of Rome, as “papal fiefs,” the popes declaring ever more boldly that the German kings had possessed the Roman Empire, as well as the Italian Kingdom, solely as a present from the pontiffs.


The use of the forged Donation initiated a new and more definite phase, however, when Pope Urban II claimed possession of Corsica in 1091, deducing Constantine’s right to give away the island from the strange principle that all islands were legally juris publici, and therefore State domain. When the popes, after having abstained for one hundred and eighty nine years from ruling Corsica directly, became strong political potentates themselves, they had no hesitation in asking for “their island” back.
In 1077 Pope Gregory VII simply declared that the Corsicans were “ready to return under the supremacy of the Papacy.”
On this notion that it was the islands especially that Constantine had given to the popes they proceeded to build, although nothing had been said in the original document; and with a bold leap the Donation of Constantine was transferred from Corsica to the far west, that is, to Ireland, with the result that soon the papal chair claimed possession of an island which the Romans themselves had never possessed.
From then onwards, by virtue of the Donation of Constantine, the popes loudly claimed to be the feudal lords of all the islands of the ocean, and started to dispose of them according to their will.
Laboring to obtain papal supremacy, they used these rights as a powerful political bargaining power by which to further their political dominion over Europe:
1. by compelling kings to acknowledge them as their masters
2. by granting to such kings dominion over lands of which the papacy claimed ownership
3. by making the spiritual and political dominion of the Church supreme in the lands thus “let” to friendly nations.
The most famous example of such a bargain in transfer is undoubtedly Ireland. Ireland had been for some time the prey of internecine wars which were steadily but surely bringing it to total state of quandary. By 1170, in fact, she had already had sixty-one kings. It so happened that the popes, having decided to bring the Irish, among whom were “many pagan, ungodly and rebellious rulers,” under the stern hand of Mother Church, planned a grand strategy thanks to which they would not only impose the discipline of their religious system, but also tie to the papacy more firmly than ever the English kingdom by conferring upon the English monarch the sole right to conquer that island and subjugate its people.

And in case Drake and his fellows are interesting in figuring out what they were really fighting for in Vietnam, he has a book on that one too: The Shocking Story of the Catholic "Church's" Role in Starting the Vietnam War

@evike: thanks for posting my previous post at David’s blog. Good to notice that people found it.

I just hope @dwilcock takes notice. The combination of Speers book, Walter Veith and the Dutch Batavian declaration of human rights paints an absolutely fascinating picture about the principal issue the current battle is all about: *CONTROL* of the human population of this planet, which in the legal domain comes down to the choice between two fundamentally opposed legal systems as explained by Speer:

1. Common law, the law of the people, where the people judge, essentially based on their conscience.

2. Civil (codified) law, the law of rulers, where the people are subjugated to the government, which is then by definition a dictatorship.

And it is just awesome that this choice is not only the battle for freedom, but also the root of so-called religious wars. The wars between protestants and catholics had nothing to do with religious questions as such. It was all about freedom, freedom vs. fascism or absolute dictatorship by the Vatican, the whore of Babylon.

And that is why this Dutch protestant version of human rights is so fascinating. It reflects the issue between common (natural) law and civil law so beautifully along with fascinating differences in the symbolism used compared to the French version that I think this is a very important historical document.

I have watched all of Veiths video’s some time ago and I absolutely love them, because he has done his homework and comes with an incredible amount of data to support his thesis. And you can tell he stands for what he believes in.

He also has a video wherein he deals with the question of the supposed Darwinian evolution and he just whipes the floor with it. And he also comes with very convincing arguments that the great flood actually happened.

In other words: he shows that the Bible does contain a wealth of information that can be substantiated with evidence.

However, IMHO, we should realize that the Bible has been messed with. And I think that has been done right from the beginning. In other words: it does contain a very important message and Veith did a very good job of bringing that message to the surface, but you cannot draw conclusions on issues that are only covered by just a few lines in the Bible. For example, the question of whether or not reincarnation is real is answered by Veith based on just a few lines in the Bible, IIRC. That goes a bit too far for my taste.

And the Dutch version of human right shows that “human rights” as such are not the problem. He is right that the French Civil law version and thus the UN go totally against the interests of the people of this planet, BUT the common law version does not.

And it is fascinating that the common law version of human rights appears to have been used by the founding fathers of the United States, which turns out to give humanity a single line of attack against the whore of Babylon.

I don’t know anything about the rest of the world, but as far as I can tell, all of Europe has been under Civil law ever since the middle ages, except for England. And that means that the process currently being used in the US is very difficult to repeat in Europe.

However, as far as I can tell, the 1798 Dutch Batavian constitution is the ONLY common law constitution lawfully ratified by the people of a European country and appears therefore to be the single point of attack against the whore of Babylon in Europe.

However, it does not grant a right for trial by jury. And since that has never been used in The Netherlands (except for a few years after 1803 under Napoleon) we do not have the same possibility of attack as has been used in the US.

BUT it does grant a right to every civilian to charge ever other civilian. AND it says that all international treaties should be signed in the name of the Batavian people.

So, as far as I can tell there ARE a few attack vectors, but these are pretty challenging to use, because the 1798 constitution is of course no longer officially recognized as being valid.

In other words: the liberation of Europe totally depends on the results obtained in the US. Only after the US has been returned to common law it is possible to expect enough people in Europe to awaken to be able to file a declaration of independence and a bill of rights.

In order to get that process going, it may be possible to create some fireworks in The Netherlands using the old 1798 constitution. But that is a lot of work and so far I am not aware of anyone looking into this but myself….

A comment at David's site:


This whole thing about "Admiralty Law" is a fraud. Admiralty law is also known as Maritime law and it was formed in the 13th Century by the the Venetian/Magyar trading families.

The word "Maritime" is a 13th Century word formed from two Latin words maris meaning “sea and see as in Holy See” and timeo meaning “to fear, be afraid (of)”. Hence the literal original meaning of “maritime law” is to “be fearful and afraid of the Law of the Holy See (Vatican)”.

If you want to learn more, read the Canons of Positive Law. The Holy See (Latin: Sancta Sedes, Italian: Santa Sede) refers to the episcopal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome. The primacy of Rome makes its bishop the worldwide leader of the church, commonly known as the Pope. Since Rome is the preeminent episcopal see of the church, it contains the central government of the church, including various agencies essential to administration. As such, diplomatically, the Holy See acts and speaks for the whole Catholic Church. It is also recognized by other subjects of international law as a sovereign entity, headed by the Pope, with which diplomatic relations can be maintained."[1][2]

Although it is often referred to as "the Vatican", the Holy See is not the same entity as the Vatican City State, which came into existence only in 1929; the Holy See, the episcopal see of Rome, dates back to early Christian times. Ambassadors are officially accredited not to the Vatican City State but to "the Holy See", and papal representatives to states and international organizations are recognized as representing the Holy See, not the Vatican City State.

Though all episcopal sees may be considered "holy", the expression "the Holy See" (without further specification) is normally used in international relations (and in the canon law of the Roman Catholic Church)[3] to refer to the See of Rome viewed as the central government of the Roman Catholic Church.

Re: Comment by kuuleimomi on June 13, 2012 @ 6:25 pm


Tell me what law and practice of law did our ancestors of the Kingdom of Hawai’i use to create their Constitution and Bill of Rights, since the Great Mahele Land Division was created? American? British? French?


May be the best way to look at the difference between Common Law and Civil Law is to regard them as being different ideologies, different philosophies.

The essential aspects of the two ideologies are these:

  • ) Under the common (law) ideology you have in essence people that are equal who voluntary setup a system by which they can make agreements and decisions in the interest of all.
  • ) Under civil law, you have a (group of) rulers that for one reason or the other decide they have a right to decide and essentially by definition dictate to their subjects what the can and cannot do.

In other words: the two ideologies are diametrically opposed to one another. The individual is either free or under the dictatorship of someone else.

Of course, both ideologies have existed all trough history, including to the ancient times the pyramids and other mysterious buildings were built.

All right.

Now under the civil dictatorship ideology, the dictator class/group of course strives to increase it's influence and thus strives to acquire ever more land and subjects to rule over, by annexating the land of others, including whole nations and cultures, by wars and other violence.

What you can see from the documents around the treaties of Vienna and Paris from around 1815 is that the Vatican essentially annexated all of Europe and their colonies, put them under legal jurisdiction and then appointed Kings as governors of these vassal states.

To the Vatican, it does not matter who dictates the rules under the citizen of the vassal states are subjected to, not does it matter whether or not these states like to call themselves "republics", "kingdoms" or whatever name they might like.

As long as they are legally under the dictatorship jurisdiction of the Vatican, the Vatican can change the rules of the "supreme" law it controls any time it pleases.

In other words: it can just say: "I hereby withdraw the sovereignty of all nations and declare myself (the Pope) as president and ruler over all people".

And it can do that because all civil law systems have a lawgiver and the current situation is such that most, if not all, of the world's civil law systems derive their authority from the self-appointed "univeral" law-giving authority claimed by the Vatican, whereby some agreement exists that the "rulers" of the worlds nations are legally to be considered as governors ruling in the name of the Vatican or the "chief pontiff".

So, fundamentally, any nation can make a choice to use either ideology independently of other nations and do so under their own sovereignty. So, both ideologies could have been used in Hawaii. However, at some point, Hawaii has been annexated by some country, some ruler, that acted as governor in the name of the Vatican and is therefore now legally under the jurisdiction of the Vatican, no matter which ideology it had been using before.

However, since the common law ideology is legally just as valid as the jurisdiction of any, by definition, self appointed ruler, each and every nation on the planet has the possibility to declare their independence under this jurisdiction.

Re: Comment by pansy on June 13, 2012 @ 11:32 pm


So, if what you say is true, when a people declare their population to be liberated from this vassal arrangement, all debts that were accrued stay with the Vatican created entity and the people are free from debt, correct?


Yes, that is exactly what I meant to say.

As far as I understand this, this is legally very much like when you have a corporation "A" that establishes a subsidiary corporation "B".

In this case, corporation "A" claims to own a whole town, including a house which historically belonged to family "Z". Now "A" establishes corporation "B" and says "B" legally owns the house and can do with it whatever it pleases, in this case hire Mr X. as "housecleaner", who then buys all kinds of stuff on behalf of "B", meanwhile making sure he stays within the budget given to him by the manager, who has a habit of just lending whatever he needs from some bank.

At some point, Mr. X asks company "A" when they actually bought the town that always belonged to his family. And it turns out that company "A" just hired some crooks to kick his family out of the property years ago.

In other words: "A" never had any legal rights to actually own the town nor the house of Mr. X and that in actual fact Mr. X's family is the OWNER of the house, because it has always belonged to his family and that is a well known fact.

So he files a lawsuit and wins the case, which of course causes "B" to go bankrupt.

In that case: who is responsible for the liabilities of "B"?

"A" or Mr. X??

Re: Comment by flagged on June 26, 2012 @ 6:24 am

Somewhat strange coming from a self proclaimed socialist, being that the self proclaimed socialist is by nature, and will, dependent.

It depends on your definition of socialism, I guess:

Socialism is an economic system characterised by social ownership and/or control of the means of production and cooperative management of the economy, and a political philosophy advocating such a system. “Social ownership” may refer to any one of, or a combination of, the following: cooperative enterprises, common ownership, direct public ownership or autonomous state enterprises. There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism. They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets versus planning, how management is to be organised within economic enterprises, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.
A socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital, and accounting would be based on physical quantities, a common physical magnitude, or a direct measure of labour-time. Distribution of output would be based on the principle of individual contribution.

It is very interesting that socialism and freedom are generally seen as being diametrically opposed, because capitalism is generally associated with freedom:

Capitalism is an economic system that is based on private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods or services for profit. Competitive markets, wage labor, capital accumulation, voluntary exchange, and personal finance are also considered capitalistic. There are multiple variants of capitalism, including laissez-faire, mixed economies, and state capitalism. Capitalism is considered to have applied in a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics, and culture. There is general agreement that capitalism became dominant in the Western world following the demise of feudalism.
Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism. Economists usually emphasize the degree to which government does not have control over markets (laissez faire), as well as the importance of property rights.

A very interesting form of capitalism is state capitalism:

The term state capitalism has various meanings, but is usually described as commercial (profit-seeking) economic activity undertaken by the state with management of the productive forces in a capitalist manner, even if the state is nominally socialist. State capitalism is usually characterized by the dominance or existence of a significant number of state-owned business enterprises. Examples of state capitalism include Corporatized government agencies (agencies organized along corporate and business management practices) and states that own controlling shares of publicly listed corporations, effectively acting as a large capitalist and shareholder itself.
State capitalism has also come to refer to an economic system where the means of production are owned privately but the state has considerable control over the allocation of credit and investment, as in the case of France during the period of dirigisme. Alternatively, state capitalism may be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. This practice is often claimed to be in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.
There are various theories and critiques of state capitalism, some of which have existed since the 1917 October Revolution or even before. The common themes among them are to identify that the workers do not meaningfully control the means of production and that commodity relations and production for profit still occur within state capitalism. Other socialists use the term state capitalism to refer to an economic system that is nominally capitalist, such that business and private owners gain the profits from an economy largely subsidized, developed and where decisive research and development is done by the state sector at public cost.
Marxist literature typically defines state capitalism as a social system combining capitalism—the wage system of producing and appropriating surplus value—with ownership or control by a state. By that definition, a state capitalist country is one where the government controls the economy and essentially acts like a single huge corporation, extracting the surplus value from the workforce in order to invest it in further production. Friedrich Engels, in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, argues that state capitalism would be the final stage of capitalism consisting of ownership and management of large-scale production and communication by the bourgeois state.


State capitalism has been used by various socialists, including Anarchists, Marxists and Leninists.

If your definition of socialism is essentially “state capitalism”, then indeed your idea that a socialist is dependent, dependent on the (wellfare) state, is correct.

However, in actual fact, it is the concentration of power trough the capitalism part that makes the individual dependent, be it in the form of a dominant state, or in the form of dominant corporations:

Corporate capitalism is a term used in social science and economics to describe a capitalist marketplace characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations, which are legally required to pursue profit.


Corporate capitalism has been criticized for the amount of power and influence corporations and large business interest groups have over government policy, including the policies of regulatory agencies and influencing political campaigns. Many social scientists have criticized corporations for failing to act in the interests of the people, and their existence seems to circumvent the principles of democracy, which assumes equal power relations between individuals in a society.

In other words: state capitalism and corporate capitalism are in essence the same thing.

So, the problem is not the idea of having competitive markets (part of capitalism), nor the idea of having cooperative enterprises or common ownership (part of socialism). The problem is the concentration of power by means of either large “faceless” private corporations (by uncontrolled accumulation of capital and thus power) and/or the state.

Exactly for the reason you mentioned: dependency.

And that is why Raifeissen’s philosophy is so interesting:

Raiffeisen stated that there is a connection between poverty and dependency. In order to fight poverty one should fight dependency first. Based on this idea he came up with the three ‘S’ formula: self-help, self-governance and self-responsibility. Originally in German: Selbsthilfe, Selbstverwaltung and Selbstverantwortung. When put into practice the necessary independence from charity, politics and loansharks could be established.

If we want to get rid of dependency, we need to get rid of *both* the centrally controlled (wellfare) state as well as of all the corporations, because those two are the essential mechanisms by which dependency (and thus poverty) is created.

In the case of corporations, the problem is that these fictitious “persons” are given the right to own property, just as real human beings. IMHO, this is the fundamental problem that allows corporations to make the people dependent on these state-like institutions. In essense, corporations ARE mini-states and thus the same thing as state capitalism you see more clearly in repressive socialist states.

In other words: if you get rid of both corporate and state capitalism, you get rid of dependency. The idea of using a republic and a bill of rights gets rid of the state capitalism. The idea of using cooperatives instead of corporations get rid of corporate capitalism, the other side of the coin of “dependency”.

What you end up with then, is a republic wherein people are empowered to form communities wherein they can work together to produce the things they need, instead of working to increase the profits of some corporation they are dependent on.

In other words: you then empower the people to use the libertarian “self-help, self-governance and self-responsibility” ideas more effectively by the use of an organizational structure known as the cooperative.

And then one particular form of socialism comes together quite naturally with one particular form of capitalism as well as with the ideas of liberty….

Re: Comment by flagged on June 27, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

What i didn’t hear you say is: “I am not a socialist” or ‘i dont believe you should force people to be charitable, thereby removing their right to moral agency’

How can one say “I am not a socialist” or “I am not a capitalist” when these terms are very vaguely defined?

I am above all a realist and an analyst.

And I do admit I believed in democratic state control for quite some time, especially since we saw what happened when our country privatized energy supply, health care and the railway system. It worked reasonably before, because we have a reasonably functioning democracy in The Netherlands, and now things are getting more expensive, while the services get worse.

And who can blame anyone for believing in either the “free market” (capitalism) or “democratic” state control? After all, that is the choice we are being given.

The problem is that these choices are two faces of the same “central control” coin, either by corporations or by a rigged democracy, a “democracy” controlled by the media, which is controlled by corporations. And the whole system on it’s turn is controlled by the bankers.

In other words: it doesn’t matter whether you call yourself a socialist or a capitalist or whatever, because in all current systems you are under the control of the bankers, except may be in Iran, Cuba and North Korea, but these are also not very attractive nations to live in.

So, I have been more of a socialist for a long time, because I perceived the threat of big corporations as a problem and I believed a democratic state could keep these problems under control, not realizing that the state is actually under control of big corporations. I also saw that in the US, the situation is not much better than in Europe, so I thought that the free market ideology that appears to be the foundation of the US was not a solution either.

Until I realized that the US government, a corporation, is also under control of other corporations, because it has been illegally taken over by the cabal.

However, going back to a small state that only exists in order to defend the freedom as defined in the bill or rights and common law, cannot give a solution to problems like how we can create infrastructure like roads and comes very close to anarchy. It drops a lot of problems on the individual.

So, it is clear that one the one hand people need to be free and sovereign, that is their God given right, and on the other hand we need some kind of organizational structure in order to provide proper healthcare, to provide insurance, to build infrastructure, to build complex factories, etc.

As soon as you put these kind of tasks in the hands of the state, you get forced taxes, forced charitability, etc. which by definition takes away the sovereignty of the individual and also gives some people the opportunity of abusing power.

If you put these kinds of tasks in the hands of corporations, you get the same problem.

So, the solution I see is to have a small state, a republic, which very limited tasks, which are to guarantee the freedom and security of the people and to enable the people to organize themselves in order to handle the other tasks on a voluntary basis.

However, that cannot be done with the corporation as a basic organizational structure, because these are centrally controlled. So, we need people controlled organizations to handle these tasks. And that is what a cooperative does.

To sum this up: I don’t believe one should force people to pay taxes for whatever reason (except when absolutely required for the protection of the rights as defined in the bill of rights), to force them to have an insurance or anything of that nature nor to force them to share anything of their property for charity. Every individual has a moral right to his/her sovereignty and that is a God given right that cannot be taken away. That is the only way to guarantee freedom of the individual.

However, I do believe cooperatives, of which membership is on a voluntary basis, should be regulated up to a certain degree (banking cooperatives, for example) and can be forced to pay taxes, because these are not real people and therefore have no rights. These are subjects of the state and can thus be treated that way. And if the state is a proper republic, controlled by the people, then also that regulation should be minimal, because the cooperatives are under direct control of the people and are therefore regulated by the people directly. And therefore there is no need for the state to make an endless list of laws and regulations in order to “codify” the “will of the people”.

1934 series bonds

Some stuff I posted at David's blog with some info on these treasury bonds.

After some googling for images like "US 1934 chest" I found another article with a high-res image of what looks like a real 1934 \$ 100,000,000 Federal Reserve Note:

I had a very interesting time in Los Angeles during a most tumultuous time for the United States in the summer/fall of 2001. I cannot, in all good faith, verify all the complete details of what I am about to share. I did, however, observe that the events were apparently real. I was more than an observer in the process. I participated in many of the things I am about to offer as 'information' for your discretionary tastes.
I will attempt to report these events as best as possible from a place of simple observation with a few poignant questions here and there. Please understand there is no 'right' or 'wrong' frame of reference in this material. Just consider the information with an open mind. It is best not to judge because it clouds our vision.
The object in the corner slot is a thumbnail of a scan of a \$ 100,000,000 Federal Reserve Note (one of thousands) that were printed in 1934 to help bring the US out of the depression. Apparently they are real and the US Treasury Department is well aware of them. As the story goes, a relative of Ferdinand Marcos (daughter?) and widow of Paul Hunter (member of shadow government turned good guy aka the 'king of kurdistan') held several hundred of these Notes by way of some very interesting circumstances.
Suffice it to say that some of the funding resources for black ops were now in the hands of the good guys. We all know of these 'black ops' programs now, just not the extent of which they are operational. If we did, they would not be 'black ops' anymore.

The high-res scan:

Googling for "yamashita gold federal reserve bond" resulted in some more interesting images:

Here a save-keeping receipt for two 500 million US treasury checks:

Here what appears to be interesting information on the collateral accounts, including some pictures with gold allocated to Soekarno in Basel:

And here some pictures of another find in the Philippines:

Another very interesting document which appears to contain a lot of information on a.o. the Black Eagle fund, etc. is "Collateral Damage (Part 2): The Subprime Crisis and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001" By E.P. Heidner:

Abstract: The U.S. Subprime and global financial crises of 2008 was the direct result of a covert monetary policy implemented by the U.S. financial institutional caretakers of the World War II Black Eagle Gold Fund. Major growth in this fund occurred in 1986 when the Reagan/Bush administration ousted Ferdinand Marcos and confiscated the Philippines holdings of Japanese pre-WWII treasury, buried in the Philippines due to the U.S. Naval blockade of Japanese ports.
Not being able to publicly acknowledge the illegal confiscation of multiple nationaltreasuries, U.S. officials and their banker-agents have released major portions of this fund to the money market in excess of monetary demand, expanding the money supply by \$ 3.5 to \$ 7 trillion. The individuals responsible for releasing this gold were also responsible for deliberately opening the subprime mortgage market to national banks, thus creating inflationary demand in the high risk, subprime housing market.
In addition to the ‘coincidence’ that virtually all of the troubled mortgages which are at the source of the 2008 economic crisis seem to come from a timeframe and monetary growth spurt linked to the ‘9/11 bond dump’ this report will document that the primary source of funds for the liar’s loans and troubled subprime loans comes from banks that are in lock-step with the covert funding operations. Given that these same individuals covertly financed the collapse of the ruble in 1991 using these same funds, and then orchestrated the buy-out of key Russian industries for pennies on the dollar, this analysis provides evidence that a similar gambit is being made for the takeover of key U.S. industries.

This document contains no less than 197 references and some scanned documents.

This is also a very interesting article:

You would hope that if you were selling one of the world's few one million pound notes you would at least get its face value at auction.
But one of only nine ever issued was sold today for a fraction of its original price with one collector securing it for £69,000 at a specialist sale in London.
Produced in 1948 under the post-war Marshall Plan to help the British economy stave off bankruptcy, the notes were part of a £300 million loan from the United States, but were never legal tender.
All the notes that made up the package, valued at £25,000 upwards, were destroyed apart from the highest denominations.

Apparantly, the US was not the only one printing these kinds of bonds:

How nice!

The New York Fed admits on their own website they DID print the 1934 series of bonds:

It should also be noted that the largest denomination of currency ever printed by the Bureau of Engraving and Printing was the \$ 100,000 Series 1934 Gold Certificate featuring the portrait of President Wilson. These notes were printed from December 18, 1934, through January 9, 1935, and were issued by the Treasurer of the United States to Federal Reserve Banks only against an equal amount of gold bullion held by the Treasury Department. The notes were used only for official transactions between Federal Reserve Banks and were not circulated among the general public.

And there are also images of scams on that page....

With googling for images with "Morgenthau bonds" I found another incredible site with images that appear to be the real deal. And the good part is, these bonds are for sale :)

Attention! A unique bond Serie 1934 No. "D 04143737 A", with nominal value of 100 million dollars, is sold privately. Its price hasn't been established!
The sale will be take place by tender. All those who wish to buy the rarity can just send an application with indication of offered price by fax: +49 (0) 40 325 07 998
If the price is ok with the seller, an agent will contact the buyer and discuss terms of verification, sale and transfer of the bond
In late June 2010 to my office came a man, posing as Russian lawyer probate. After a short acquaintance, he put me on a bearer bond issued in 1934 the U.S. Federal Reserve and several certificates. The lawyer told the client he represents, would like to clarify a few questions:
-Whether the certificates are valid
-If he can get the bond money
, Which in this case there are interest
And how he can get the amount due
I stared at my bank records provided and it seemed to me that I have double vision. Several times I counted the zeros on the bonds and could not believe that such securities may be issued in bearer form.
Before me lay a bond D 04143737 A, valued at \$ US 100.000.000, which was guaranteed by the U.S. Reserve System. Warranty is for certificates:
1. Insurance Certificate № SC1226-71-B004; D 04143701A,
2. Gold Bullion Certificate № SC 1226-71-B004; D A 04,143,701
3. Treasury Certificate № SC 1226-71-B004; D A 04,143,701
4. Federal Reserve Certificate № SC 1226-71-B004; D A 04,143,701 valued at \$ US
In all the certificates was the same series. The lawyer explained to me that the bond of one hundred million dollars, is only 1 / 250 portion of the amount of trust, issued to bearer!
I looked up and saw a certificate from the lawyer's eyes. He said: "My client says that in his opinion, so far, this trust is not repaid ... I am interested in the fate of the money. "

The guy also has a Youtube channel:

In this vid, he shows a bond:

There are some very high res pictures:

With bond numbers, etc.

It also includes some correspondence which appears to confirm these are legitimate bonds, too:

Treasury Certificate SC 1226-71-B004 No. D 04143701 A, Series of 1934, signed by Henry Morgenthau valued at US \$
The original of this certificate was notarized by a Spanish notary public on May 9, 2000:
Notaria de Salt
Notario D. Vicente Casellas Huertas
c/ Pridenci Bertana
n°1 17190 Salt / Girona


Response of the notary public D. Vicente Casellas Huertas to Arthur Shtern to the inquiry dated January 19, 2011 in which he confirms that on May 9, 2000 he notarized the ORIGINALS of certificates!

Here's another source where these bonds have turned up. This time in France:

Following the publication of a long blog post titled "Operation Golden Lily and the Treaty of Versailles!" about the seizure of \$ 134.5 billion in “counterfeit” US bearer bonds in Chiasso (Italy, June, 2009), I was contacted by an intermediary who "works in China for the owners of this type of bonds." For the purposes of narrative, I shall call him "Mr. Yang."
Here is an excerpt from his first message:
I read with great interest your posts on 1934 Treasury bonds, actually I work in China for owners of such bonds and I’m officially mandated to negotiate them. By the way, I have got some very interesting information that match partly yours.
In this case the U.S. Treasury is totally in bad faith and does not answer any specific question about the bonds, even if today the existence of such bonds is known to Chinese authorities... but Americans are now unable to repay sums for trillions of dollars! "
Let me say that suddenly my attention awoke! :-)

This site also includes some high res pictures.

This paper (with references) confirms that Treasury notes with very high nominations HAVE indeed been issued by the US Treasury:

A Paper for Presentation at the 2005 Annual Conference of the Economic History Society at the University of Leicester, 8-10 April 2005
By Dr. Franklin Noll
For most of their history after World War II, Treasury notes have been issued with denominations never rising above a high of \$ 1 million. Yet, from 1955 to 1969, the Treasury issued Treasury notes with the added denominations of \$ 100 million and \$ 500 million. The purpose of this study is to determine why the Treasury issued these very-high-denomination Treasury notes and why it stopped doing so.

This guy also has more interesting papers:

This pdf, for example, shows that there multiple treasury notes with very high nominations were issued:

For example (page 5):

Treasury Notes: Series A-1947
Authorizing Act (s):
24 September 1917, amended
Public Debt
Issued for:
United States Treasury
Instrument Type:
Interest: 1.50%
Maturity: 4 years
Redeemable: on maturity [15 September 1947]
Callable: n/a
Sold at: par
Coupon: \$ 500, \$ 1,000, \$ 5,000, \$ 10,000, \$ 100,000, \$ 1,000,000
Non-Negotiable: n/a
Series A-1947 [12 July 1943]
Annual Report of the Secretary of the Treasury, 1943: 327.

The Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Treasury can be found at

This one should be very interesting. The one from 1934:

And 1935:

Very interesting that here you find the proof that bonds with attached interest coupons WERE issued after all AND with nominations as high as \$ 100,000 as well:

[Treasury notes, series D-1936. Department Circular No. 522]
Treasury Department,
Washington, September 10, 1934.
The Secretary of the Treasury, pursuant to the authority of the Second Liberty Bond Act, approved September 24, 1917, as amended, offers for subscription, at par, 1% percent notes of the United States, designated Treasury notes of series D-1936, in payment of which only Treasury certificates of indebtedness of series TS-1934, maturing September 15, 1934, may be tendered. The amount of the offering is limited to the amount of Treasury certificates of indebtedness of series TS-1934 tendered and accepted.
The notes will be dated September 15, 1934, and will bear interest from that date at the rate of 1 percent per annum, payable semiannually on March 15 and September 15 in each year. They will mature September 15, 1936, and will not be subject to call for redemption prior to maturity.
The notes shall be exempt, both as to principal and interest, from all taxation (except estate or inheritance taxes) now or hereafter imposed by the United States, any State, or any of the possessions of the United States, or by any local taxing authority.
The notes will be accepted at par during such time and under such rules and regulations as shall be prescribed or approved by the Secretary of the Treasury in payment of income and profits taxes payable at the maturity of the notes.
The notes will be acceptable to secure deposits of public moneys, but will not bear the circulation privilege.
Bearer notes with interest coupons attached will be issued in denominations of \$ 100, \$ 500, \$ 1,000, \$ 5,000, \$ 10,000, and \$ 100,000. The notes will not be issued in registered form.

Googling for "series of 1934" (with the "" also in the google search bar), like for example:

This listing, of a \$ 100,000 Gold Certificate, is intended for educational purposes only. I do not own this note, nor have I ever owned it in the past.
The description and the scan were uploaded in response to the many people who claim they have a genuine \$ 100,000 Gold Certificate, and would like to know a little more about their note. This then is for you.
The \$ 100,000 Gold Certificate is the highest denomination ever printed for all Federal paper money in the United States. The notes were dated Series of 1934 and a total of 42,000 units were printed. Depicted on the front of the note is Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States. He served as President from 1913 to 1921.
It is important to understand that \$ 100,000 Gold Certificates (like the one pictured) were intended for use in FISCAL CHANNELS ONLY. They were never issued for general circulation. The notes are strictly government property and are not legal to collect or own.
Of the 42,000 notes printed, there are no notes outstanding. In other words, all the notes that were printed are accounted for.

Interesting contradiction. How can you have "many people who claim" when "all the notes that were printed are accounted for"?

Well, they were "accounted for" by wiping "approximately \$ 100 million in gold, silver, and other assets as security for this old currency" under the carpet in 1961:

JUNE 24, 1960


The bill would authorize adjustments in the accounts of paper currency issues of the United States issued prior to July 1, 1929, and gold certificates issued prior to January 30, 1934, and the writing off the Treasury statements and accounts of the amount of each denomination of each kind of old large-size currency now outstanding that has been destroyed or irretrievably lost and which in the judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury will never be presented for redemption. The effect of the proposal would be to improve the cash position of the Treasury by more than \$ 100 million.


The CHAIRMAN. S. 3714 would authorize the Treasury to adjust its accounts with respect to the large size currency issued by the Government prior to 1929 and with respect to about \$ 12 million of gold certificates issued between 1929 and 1934.
The Treasury and the Federal Reserve System are holding approximately \$ 100 million in gold, silver, and other assets as security for this old currency. This includes about \$ 61 million in gold and silver reserves held by the Treasury and about \$ 37 million in reserves held by the Federal Reserve banks to secure Federal Reserve notes.

This act appears to have been enacted, but it may have been changed:

"The act of June 30, 1961, is the Old Series Currency Adjustment Act"

Also a very interesting detail can be found in several Treasury bulletins, like this one:

"Excludes gold certificates, Series of 1934, which are issued only to Federal Reserve banks and do not appear in circulation."

How can you have "gold certificates, Series of 1934" which are "issued only to Federal Reserve banks and do not appear in circulation" that have been DESTROYED or IRRETRIEVABLY LOST?

I mean, if these things were really only used by Federal Reserve banks, why on earth would you need an act to "authorize adjustments in the accounts of paper currency [..] and writing off [...] old large-size currency now outstanding that has been destroyed or irretrievably lost"???


Interesting notice in the UK

The pdf below is a brilliant synopsis of the reality facing Britain and indeed humanity as a whole. It is time to let the traitors in Parliament know we know and will stand for it no longer. It is also their chance to redeem themselves and start to serve us the people instead of there own interest and those who would enslave us all.
I urge all members of the Kent Freedom Movement to read and then send copies to your respective MP's.
Insist on getting answers to ALL the points raised. If no satisfactory answers are forthcoming visit them at a public surgery (film it if possible) and again serve public notice on them and demand answers to these most relevant questions.*xwRkfYNkRGCZWzhbr9dsvankEx6AfaR0MWysEnIydfGg/To_all_politicians_final_draft.pdf

This appears to be the final version (later date, same author):

Full text also here:

Symbols in de Dutch declaration of Human Rights

ALL-SEEING EYE. An important symbol of the Supreme Being, borrowed by the Freemasons from the nations of antiquity. Both the Hebrews and the Egyptians appear to have derived its use from the natural inclination of figurative minds to select an organ as the symbol of the function which it is intended peculiarly to discharge. Thus, the foot was often adopted as the symbol of swiftness, the arm of strength, and the hand of fidelity.

On the same principle, the open eye was selected as the symbol of watchfulness, and the eye of God as the symbol of Divine watchfulness and care of the universe. The use of the symbol in this sense is repeatedly to be found in the Hebrew writers. Thus, the Psalmist says, Psalm xxxiv, 15: "The eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and his ears are open unto their cry," which explains a subsequent passage (Psalm cxxi, 4), in which it is said: "Behold, he that keepeth Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep."

In the Apocryphal Book of the Conversation of God with Moses on Mount Sinai, translated by the Rev. W. Cureton from an Arabic manuscript of the fifteenth century, and published by the Philobiblon Society of London, the idea of the eternal watchfulness of God is thus beautifully allegorized:

"Then Moses said to the Lord, O Lord, dost thou sleep or not? The Lord said unto Moses, I never sleep: but take a cup and fill it with water. Then Moses took a cup and filled it with water, as the Lord commanded him. Then the Lord cast into the heart of Moses the breath of slumber; so he slept, and the cup fell from his hand, and the water which was therein was spilled. Then Moses awoke from his sleep. Then said God to Moses, I declare by my power, and by my glory, that if I were to withdraw my providence from the heavens and the earth, for no longer a space of time than thou hast slept, they would at once fall to ruin and confusion, like as the cup fell from thy hand."

On the same principle, the Egyptians represented Osiris, their chief deity, by the symbol of an open eye, and placed this hieroglyphic of him in all their temples. His symbolic name, on the monuments, was represented by the eye accompanying a throne, to which was sometimes added an abbreviated figure of the god, and sometimes what has been called a hatchet, but which may as correctly be supposed to be a representation of a square. The All-Seeing Eye may then be considered as a symbol of God manifested in his omnipresence—his guardian and preserving character—to which Solomon alludes in the Book of Proverbs (xv, 3), where he says: "The eyes of the Lord are in every place, beholding (or, as in the Revised Version, keeping watch upon) the evil and the good." It is a symbol of the Omnipresent Deity.

There's a rose on the hat..

In addition to being a symbol of love, the rose is also symbolic carrier of secrets or tacit understanding. The term “sub rosa” means under the rose and comes from the practice of Romans hanging roses above meeting tables. Here it was understood that anything said at this table, beneath the hanging roses, was forbidden to be repeated elsewhere.

Which apparantly is a bonnet on a spade:

Marianne is one of the symbols of the French Republic and embodies the Republic as much as the tricolored flag. Marianne represents the permanence of those values which bind French citizens to the Republic: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. A Marianne is a bust of woman wearing a Phrygian cap. In this article we will be interested in the origin of this bonnet.

The cap was worn for the first time in France at the Procope, a coffee shop where revolutionaries used to gather. It resembles the cap worn by freed slaves in the Roman Empire; slaves whose masters had endowed them with freedom and whose descendants became fully-fledged Roman citizens. The Phrygian cap was thus a symbol of freedom as early as Antiquity already.

The oldest traces of this bonnet date back to Mithra, the Iranian divinity of the Sun, of friendship, oath, and contracts. Mithraism was the most widespread religion in Europe before Christianity. The statues of Mithra, which have survived to present day, represent Mithra wearing a Phrygian cap and a floating cape; he is kneeling on the primordial bull, holding a dagger in the right hand and drawing the bull's head towards the back with the left.

The Phrygian cap was also worn by Trojan mythical characters such as Eneus. However, the cap of Libertas, the Roman goddess of freedom, was pilleus, an ordinary round felt bonnet. On the old representations of Libertas, in particular on the Roman imperial currency, she holds a pilleus in one hand, and often a rod (vindicta) in the other. Libertas, however, never wears the pilleus, and is not associated with the Phrygian cap.

After assassinating Julius Caesar (44 B.C.), the conspirators paraded in the streets, raising a Phrygian cap at the top of a spade. The image of a bonnet on a spade, as a symbol of freedom in artistic works, appears around 1570 in the Netherlands in iconography. But the bonnet does not have any particular form and often conforms to the local habit; it thus resembles neither the pilleus nor the Phrygian cap. This iconographic tradition developed in various European countries and became a source of inspiration for American artists during the struggle for independence.

"Both Mithras and Christ were described variously as 'the Way,' 'the Truth,' 'the Light,' 'the Life,' 'the Word,' 'the Son of God,' 'the Good Shepherd.'

The Christian litany to Jesus could easily be an allegorical litany to the sun-god. Mithras is often represented as carrying a lamb on his shoulders, just as Jesus is.

Midnight services were found in both religions. The virgin mother...was easily merged with the virgin mother Mary. Petra, the sacred rock of Mithraism, became Peter, the foundation of the Christian Church."

Ancient Persian: Mithraism

In the years before the introduction of the Christian religion, Roman inhabitants of the empire worshipped the god Mithra for close to well over 400 years. Mithraism was regarded as the primary closing religion of the Roman Empire, and later eventually becoming the principal ranked competing rival to Christianity after its uprising.

The first written mention of Mitra dates back around 3,500 years in the Hindu Vedas, and then assumingly spread to Persia and reached west throughout the entire length of the Roman border to Scotland. It is still regarded as one of the most universal religions and greatest mystery cults in the Western World. Its mysteries that spread by the Romans likewise had a large significant importance on the development of early Christianity during its first four centuries. Both Roman Mithraism, like Iranian Mithraism were cults of loyalty toward its king. Many prominent Roman figures were among its initiates, and were encouraged by various Roman emperors, such as Commodus, Aurelian, Diocletian, Galerius and Licinius.

In 307, a temple was even dedicated to Mithra and he officially became the "Protector of the Empire". The birthday of Mithra furthermore occurred during the Winter Solstice that celebrated the Natalis Solis Invicti on December 25th. This large celebration was known for signaling the birth of a young Sun god who sprang from a rock or a cave in the form of a newborn infant.

His triumph and ascension was celebrated at Easter, and as being the god of light, he also preformed the usual assortment of miracles; such as raising the dead, healing the sick, and casting out devils. Before returning to heaven, he celebrated a last supper with his 12 disciples on the zodiac. In memory of this, his worshippers partook in a sacramental meal of bread marked with a cross. It was called mizd, Latin missa, Greek maza, English mass.

In 313 CE, the official birthday of Jesus in alignment with Mithra also became December 25th. In the year 375 CE, Pope Julius I likewise declared the Nativity of the birth of Jesus as December 25th to align followers of the Sun god Mithra. This event became the very motivation as to why Jesus received his official birth anniversary on December 25th in accordance of the ancient pagan resurrecting solar godman in the Roman Empire, as before that, no one knew of his historical birth. St. Augustine even went as far as declaring that the priests of Mithra worshipped the same deity as he did.

Paul equally attested to knowing nothing about Jesus' birth, ministry and healings, which was alarming, as the origins of Christianity itself derive from Paul, and not Jesus. Paul doesn't even quote anything that Jesus is alleged to have said, nor did any of Jesus' original twelve disciples write of his teaching.

Afterwards, St. Augustine wrote that Christians ought not to celebrate Jesus' birth, like the heathens do on account of the Sun, but rather on account of god who made the Sun. The early Jesus was regarded so much a Sun god himself to the ancients, that the term Jesus of Nazareth (Nazaroth) in Hebrew is actually the twelve signs of the zodiac. No city by this name existed during this time. A church council further declared that it would be wrong to celebrate the birthday of Jesus as though he were a King Pharaoh.

Eventually though, this festival of "Christmas" became a civic holiday by the emperor Justinian where the events became so customary that it begun marking the beginning of the ceremonial year for Christians. The use of giving gifts, holly, mistletoe, yule logs, fruitcake, ringing bells, candles, wassail bowls, and decorating a tree however all derived from early pagan customs. Many European countries still call this celebration "Yuletide" (or wheel of the Sun) A harvesting festival celebrated at the end of the year. None of which derive from Christian origins.

In spite of Mithraism being regarded as a late ascetical all male cult, with a priesthood consisting of celibate man and militants only, a much earlier feminal Mithra had been identified with the Persian goddess Anahita. According to the Greek historian Herodotus, the ancient Persians worshipped a sky-goddess Mitra, the same as Mylitta, Assyria's Great Mother, and Alitta, known to the Arabians. The Lydians then went about combining Mithra with his archaic Mother/spouse Anahita as an androgynous Mithra-Anahita, as distinguished with Sabazius-Anaitis of the Anatolian mystery cults.

The correlation of the Bull and the Goddess, including the Bull's blood being delivered to the Moon for fructification can also be explained through the coexistence of its procreant objective. When the Bull's head is viewed from a forefront perceptive its cranium and horns exhibit a striking match of the uterine organs of the human female.

Afterwards in the 2nd century Church Fathers such as Justin Martyr and Tertullian made various effects on trying to enforce that Mithraism had copied itself from Christianity. Tertullian wrote of the Devil's "diabolical mimicry" in creating the Mysteries of Mithras:

"The devil, whose business is to pervert the truth, mimics the exact circumstances of the Divine Sacraments. He baptizes his believers and promises forgiveness of sins from the Sacred Fount, and thereby initiates them into the religion of Mithras. Thus he celebrates the oblation of bread, and brings in the symbol of the resurrection. Let us therefore acknowledge the craftiness of the devil, who copies certain things of those that be Divine."

It was a known fact that Mithraism had included these rituals a long time before the time of Jesus Christ. In 1989, Mithraic scholar David Ulansey wrote the book "The Origins of the Mithraic Mysteries", in which he exhibited its local Anatolian descent in Tarsus, Turkey, the home of the apostle Paul, and dating well back to the representation of the astronomical situation from the Age of Taurus the Cow/Bull (4500-2400 BCE).

Many Scholars now agree that Paul, the founder of Christianity, likewise subsisted as the Pythagorean philosopher "Apollonius of Tyana" (after the Sun god Apollo) who was the former Solar Messiah to the figure of Jesus Christ.

Many Roman writers reference Apollonius as "Pol" and various comparisons have been made between them, such as being located at Tarsus, Ephesus and Rome at exactly the same time of each other. Pol also had a companion called Demas, as Paul does with Damis.

"For when one says, 'I belong to Paul,' and another, 'I belong to Apollos,' are you not merely human? What then is Apollos? What is Paul? Servants through whom you came to believe, as the Lord assigned to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth."

- I Corinthians 3:4-6