Cracking The Cult Of The Constitution (Part I) Next 11 pages

ORIGINAL POST AT

https://realitybloger.wordpress.com/2013/08/05/cracking-the-cult-of-the-constitution-part-i/

I have to admit I thought I was fairly cognoscente on the discrepancies between what we were taught and what we have experienced with the American Constitution, but this article is a whole new experience that may or may not appeal to you because of our cognitive dissonance. Nevertheless, it is well worth your time, and may open many eyes. You may go to the main site to read it straight through, but for the average reader I am going to post about ten pages per day. It may be the longest read many of you have ever made. My hat goes off to Mr. Richardson!

OLDOG

CRACKING THE CULT OF THE CONSTITUTION
A three-part essay

 by: Clint Richardson

7-12-2016 8-27-52 AM

7-12-2016 8-28-37 AM

7-12-2016 8-29-24 AM

Below we see the incremental stage between the change over to a hand over heart gesture… It is actually quite humorous to be conditioned to actually think that placing our hand over our heart is any less significant or strange than placing our stiff-arms in the air, communist-style.

7-12-2016 8-30-39 AM

7-12-2016 8-31-32 AM

Pledge, Or Else…

In the case of West Virginia State Board Of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), we read that this pledge of stiff-armed allegiance was not simply a choice by our children, but instead a requirement punishable by expulsion from the school system for “insubordination” in true communist fashion:

“The Board of Education on January 9, 1942, adopted a resolution containing recitals taken largely from the Court’s Gobitis opinion and ordering that the salute to the flag become ‘a regular part of the program of activities in the public schools,’ that all teachers and pupils ‘shall be required to participate in the salute honoring the Nation represented by the Flag; provided, however, that refusal to salute the Flag be regarded as an Act of insubordination, and shall be dealt with accordingly.’ [319 U.S. 624, 627]  The resolution originally required the ‘commonly accepted salute to the Flag‘ which it defined. Objections to the salute as ‘being too much like Hitler’s’ were raised by the Parent and Teachers Association, the Boy and Girl [319 U.S. 624, 628]  Scouts, the Red Cross, and the Federation of Women’s Clubs. Some modification appears to have been made in deference to these objections, but no concession was made to Jehovah’s Witnesses. What is now required is the ‘stiff-arm’ salute, the saluter to keep the right hand raised with palm turned up while the following is repeated: ‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of [319 U.S. 624, 629]  America and to the Republic for which it stands; one Nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’”

(***Notice that the word “God” is not included in the Pledge within this ruling, as the words “under God” were not added until 11 years after this court case, in the year 1953.)

Failure to conform is ‘insubordination’ dealt with by expulsion. Readmission is denied by statute until compliance. Meanwhile the expelled child is ‘unlawfully absent‘ and may be proceeded against as a delinquent. His parents or guardians are liable to prosecution, and if convicted are subject to fine not exceeding $50 and jail term not exceeding thirty days.”

Now, does this requirement to say an oath to the United States flag sound like patriotism to you… or communism?

Listen to what this royal bloodline cousin of kings and presidents had to say:

“…at a meeting of Boy Scouts, presided over by the veteran founder of that organization, Colonel Dan Beard, the writer heard the thousand or more, standing at attention, shout “I pledge allegiance to my flag” and the rest of the words. In answer to his questions, Colonel Beard said: “Why, that’s said by the Boy Scouts every time they have a roundup, big or littleand for that matter, by the Pioneer Girls and the Campfire Girls too. It’s the A B C of training for citizenship. It was adopted from the public schools when the Scouts first started in 1905 — they didn’t have to learn it; it’s their regular hurrah for flag and country. I’ve heard it for nearly twenty years, from the top of Michigan to the toe of Florida, and from Montana back to New York again. The youngsters of every race say it and it makes Americans of them.”

(Source: University of Rochester Dept. of Education, http://www.lib.rochester.edu/index.cfm?PAGE=3418)

What makes a child an American? Is it natural birthright (being natural-born)? Is it naturalization? Is it blood?

No, it is their pledge (oath) to a corporate flag as good little citizen soldiers…

The Wehrmacht Oath of Loyalty to Adolf Hitler, 2 August 1934, was pledged:

“I swear by God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.”

The current oath of enlisted soldiers of the United States also pledges:

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Notice that these oaths by Nazi and U.S. military soldiers are not to protect the common people within the nation (whom in the United States are referred to as possible domestic “enemies of the State” in the “Trading With The Enemies Act”). Instead, these oaths only swear (or affirm in the U.S) to protect the United States government, its president, and its officers. This is an oath to protect the continuity of government against you, whoever you are; all 7 billion of you on Earth and including all U.S. citizens…

The constitution is the foundation of government, so allegiance to that piece of paper (charter) – as with worshiping its flag – is not allegiance in any way to the actual living, breathing, common people. The constitution did not create the people. The people were here long before the constitution. Creation is an act of God and/or nature, and the people of course existed long before the language of the constitution was created by men of a certain blood. The constitution in fact created govern-ment (control) of those people (men) who were first created of nature (God), creating in them each an artificial person. In other words, the constitution is not of nature (not created naturally), and is actually against nature and against the Bible (more on this later). The president is also but an office held by a government person (Corporation Sole) as designated by the constitution. And the enemies are not enemies of the people, but enemies against the continuity of government (control) of the people as a body politic and its corporate world-wide monopolies – including citizens and non-citizens (all natural people). Thus these United States oaths taken by military men and women are to protect artificial constructs, not real people. These are strawman oaths in that they are pledges to artificial persons and things.

A False Oath To The
Incorporation
Of Souls

What is the purpose of becoming a Corporation Sole?

The first known Corporation Sole (to my current knowledge) was established by the Church of England in the year 1448. It is always and can only be legitimately established under an Ecclesiastical (religious law) body within its proper form.

Ecclesiastical Law was called the “Cannons of the Church” – a play on words so as to not actually use the word “law”. These “Canons” were essentially the forced adherence of the people by the State to matters of religious conscious by law (Canon). In other words, mind control. In order to guarantee that the ownership of real property was continued to be held by the Church outside of the control of the State, the concept of “Corporation Sole” was created as a legal fictional (artificial) person of the Church – a spiritual assembly, if you will. In the end, these Corporations Sole represent eternal life in an artificial legal capacity. In other words, the office for which the Corporation Sole creates is passed from living man to living man (or woman), who then becomes the Sole fiction of that office. The real property and political (ecclesiastical) powers are transferred or “conveyed” with the Corporation Sole to the new officer (soul).

Sound confusing? Well it’s supposed to. For you are not supposed to be a party to or have even a basic knowledge of this common law elitist privilege.

In a way, since the Corporation Sole has no need of a board of directors or other typical corporate charter requirements, you could say that this incorporation creates a “Sovereignty” – a dictatorship of one. It is called a Corporation “Sole” in reverence to the sole individual “soul” who fills the corporation.

The “Queen of England” as an office is a Corporation Sole overseen by the sole officer (the current living Queen), and its ministry is the government/church of England who allowed its creation within Ecclesiastical law. Many of the “Secretaries of State” in England are also individual Corporations Sole. The office of British Monarch in each Commonwealth Realm is also an individual and separate Corporation Sole. Thus, each time the Queen travels to one of her Commonwealth countries, she is doing so as a separate and unique officer (Corporation Sole) in each country – and is all but immune to that countries statutory base of legislative or parliamentary laws. For instance, in general and while in England, Queen Elizabeth II is the artificial person (Corporation Sole) named “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the United Kingdom”. Remember, this is the name of her corporation. But when governing (controlling) the Commonwealth of Canada, she takes the corporate role of “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada” – a completely separate Corporation Sole. In Australia she is “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Australia”. Again, these are all separate individual Corporations Sole.

Interestingly, because both Canada and Australia are politically established as “Federal” governments, the Queen also has individually distinct Corporations Sole for each “Province” of those two countries. When dealing specifically with the local government in Alberta, Canada, she switches corporate hats once again and becomes “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Alberta”, and again for every other Province thereof. And when the Queen dies or advocates her throne, she will simply sign over here many Corporations Sole and all the “Rights” of real property (including whole continents) to the next bloodline Monarch (man or woman) in succession, likely her eldest  son.

A Bishop in the Vatican (Church of Rome) is also acting as a Corporation Sole, where the current office of Bishop is the sole officer and its ministry is the Church of Rome. The office of “The Arch Bishop of Canterbury” is also an individual Corporation Sole of the Church. And of course the many Catholic Churches spread across the nations are also in utilization of Corporations Sole.

The Office (corporation) of the “The Corporation of the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Later-day Saints” is also a Corporation Sole, where the office of the President is the sole officer and its ministry (people) is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And this explains a lot… like why for so many years I could never find a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for the “Mormon Church” corporation and its corporate holdings. For a Corporation Sole is not required to follow the Statutes that require such financial disclosure and auditing as other incorporated entities are!

Cities, districts, counties, and states, as well as the Federal government and its agencies are not Corporations Sole. They are bound by Statutory laws and must file a CAFR (independently audited “annual financial report”) and represent a multi-faceted “body politic” in their incorporation and are not of a “church”. Microsoft and Apple Corporations are also not Corporations Sole, for all of these have more than one person (i.e. president, vice-president, secretary, etc.).

But most importantly, this does not necessarily preclude the fact that the individual officers, including Bill Gates and the presidents of the United States, CEO’s, and political officers (legislators) of corporations and governments themselves are not individually acting under their own Corporation Sole instead of as real people (mankind).

In the United States today, the legal status called Corporation Sole is completely tax-exempt, is exclusively under common law (immune from laws called “statute”), and is recognized by all 50 states as such. It has to be, you see, or else states would not be able to recognize their own representatives who are acting under this capacity as individual Corporations Sole (representatives). You might say that this makes politicians immune from their own created laws (statutes). Like me, you may have often wondered why those in government get away with literal murder and organized crime under the “color” of office under the United States.

Now you know…

A Corporation Sole is perhaps best understood as an “unincorporated corporation”, where an individual (no employees) is the only person involved, making all decisions for the Corporation Sole without opposition, and having no corporate bylaws required (which are statutory and not requirements of or in the common law). By unincorporated I mean to say that the Corporation Sole is not officially a legal status granted by government, but instead one granted by an Ecclesiastical church/religion. Though its roots are steeped in antiquity, the Corporation Sole has ecclesiastically been used by the higher members of the church (government) for many centuries. The Pope, his Cardinals, and his Bishops are all individual Corporations Sole. The Royal Family and their representatives such as Prime Ministers are also individual Corporations Sole. And entities in United States politics such as “President Obama”, “Representative Ron Paul”, Governors, and other congressmen and the Vice President and Cabinet Heads are also individual Corporations Sole. They are acting under an Ecclesiastical (religion-based) office, which is for all intents and purposes immune to government’s legal Codes – the laws which they help to create for the rest of the “people”.

Ron Paul, for instance, is listed as a traded corporation on Dunn & Bradstreet (DNB.com) under these business listings:

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, UNITED STATES
Also Traded as RON PAUL
203 CANNON HOUSE OFC BLDG, WASHINGTON, DC

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES
Also Traded as RON PAUL
203 CANNON HOUSE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, DC

Link–>http://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&searchType=BSF&busName=ron%20paul&state=DC&country=US&cm_mmc=dnb-_-home-_-retail-_-lookup_-topbar#goTop

These are the Corporations Sole for Ron Paul.

How about the President of the United States?

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Also Traded as BARACK H OBAMA
725 17TH ST NW, WASHINGTON, DC

Ok. Here is the corporation that is the Office of the President, but what about Obama himself as a “Sole”?

OBAMA, BARRACK HUSSEIN
1600 PENNSYLVANIA AVE NW, WASHINGTON, DC

Link–>http://creditreports.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/IballValidationCmd?storeId=11154&catalogId=71154&searchType=BSF&busName=president%20obama&state=DC&country=US&cm_mmc=dnb-_-home-_-retail-_-lookup_-topbar#goTop

It is important to note that if we check back here in 2017 after the next presidential election, this corporation known as “EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT” will then read to be “Also Traded as _____ __ _______”. In other words, it will be traded as whomever the next president as Corporation Sole will be when the office is passed in succession by Obama to his cousin and bloodline successor.

After all, a man cannot be “traded”. That would be slavery.

But the artificial person (Corporation Sole) is not a man – it is a thing.

For further understanding, let’s read from Black’s Law 1st. edition:

CORPORATION SOLE. A corporation consisting of one person only, and his successors in some particular station, who are incorporated by law in order to give them some legal capacities and advantages, particularly that of perpetuity, which in their natural persons they could not have had. In this sense, the sovereign in England is a sole corporation, so is a bishop, so are some deans distinct from their several chapters, and so is every parson and vicar. A corporation sole consists of a single person, who is made a body corporate and politic, in order to give him some legal capacities and advantages, and especially that of perpetuity; as a bishop, dean, etc.

Black’s 5th Edition states:

Corporation sole. Unusual type of corporation consisting of only one person whose successor becomes the corporation on his death or resignation; limited in the main today to bishops and heads of dioceses.”

And we can read from the Massachusetts Supreme Court, in the case of “The Overseers of the Poor of the City of Boston v. David Sears 39 Mass (2Pick) 122 at 128 (1839)”:

“…the distinction between an aggregate and sole corporation, growing out of the different modes of constitution and forms of action, is striking and obvious. A bishop or parsons acting in a corporate capacity and holding property to him and his successor in right of office, has no need of a corporate name, he performs all legal acts under his own seal, in his own name and name of office; his own will alone regulates his acts, needs no treasurer, for he has no personal property except the rents and proceeds for the corporate estate, and these he takes to his own use when received. By-laws are unnecessary, for he regulates his own action, by his own will and judgment, like any other individual acting in his own right. These examples are sufficient to clarify the legal distinctions between the two classes of corporations.”

STAY TUNED

MORE COMING TOMORROW

5-10-2016 8-55-33 AM

 

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: