My son came to the same conclusion thinking about the wording of this truth. Could it be that the crown's contract with the U.S. corporation terminated with the queen's death?
So much is going on that it's hard to keep track of it all, but I have never been more hopeful. Many things seem to be converging like trains all headed for the same spot, a point in time just ahead of us.
Something has definitely shifted, and I think it's all about to get real.
Odd experience right? This is the calmest I have been since falling down the rabbit hole. Reminds me of what people describe when they have a near death experience. No fear at all in the actual moment. Just peace.
Don't think so... Francis leader.substack.com royalty is not the crown ...America's constitution signed by members of inner temple of city of London so not worth anything....
Francis goes all through it in rule of law...it's the pope that controls everything
Heard a lot about it in Trump's first year as president, but I can no longer remember the details or where I socked away the information about it. That was alleged to have happened during that first world tour. They said he went around with volumes of hard evidence of the crimes of world leaders (including the pope), and forced them to capitulate to his demands. I think the Vatican was the last stop, and it would have been then that he took their keys, so to speak. In pictures of that particular visit, the pope does look particularly unhappy, but an expression is no proof. He might have been constipated that day or just unhappy that Trump was in the same building. (Trump, on the other hand looked like he was at a party.)
If all this is true, it lends more credence to the idea that we are indeed watching a scripted movie that is meant to awaken the people who are still hypnotized. Q said, "You have to show them," and as time went on, I saw the wisdom of that.
First rule is that the parties must be identified. In the case of the Declaration the presumption is that ALL who signed were esquires. Then it is assumed that these esquires were not properly authorized.
A declaration is not a contract. It is, what we call: a missive. Just to give closure on certain matters.
The oath within the declaration only binds those ascending to it initially only the signers and those in whose name they sign if and when properly authorized.
In the case of the Paris Peace treaty the same hold true, as the esquires, as representatives of the United States of America signed the treaty. There is a lie in there: as it says: plenipotentiary.
They are not, as they cannot conclude a deal. The deal has to be ratified by the senate.
That Britain payed money to support the effort of Congress for the .gov operation can very well be part of the deal of the final settlement.
Francis went on a tangent there and the limb broke off.
Ok, here' s a contract to be signed by representatives of two parties. The representatives are all members of the same club. However, when the contract is concluded, the process of ratification comes into view, and only after ratification, the contract goes into effect. In international law, an instrument is send to all related parties to inform them ratification of the contract has cleared positively.
Does that invalidate the contract? Because if your answer is yes, then no one, having studied at the same place, can conclude business together.
It would also mean that Britain would be incapable of making contracts with say: the Republic of the 7 Provinces, or With China in them days.
Check the signatories ..... and remember ... the temple bar existed since the 1200....
Although, I think that Frances has a point when he recounts how such a system could easily lead to conflicts of interests .... it is the authorization of the representatives by means of letters by an authorizing body and the ratification that puts things into effect.
With this in mind, read again the Paris Peace Treaty. What Frances did not see, but I did, is a last paragraph ..... about the debts!
And it is through the banking system that Britain wields tremendous power.
My son came to the same conclusion thinking about the wording of this truth. Could it be that the crown's contract with the U.S. corporation terminated with the queen's death?
So much is going on that it's hard to keep track of it all, but I have never been more hopeful. Many things seem to be converging like trains all headed for the same spot, a point in time just ahead of us.
Something has definitely shifted, and I think it's all about to get real.
Odd experience right? This is the calmest I have been since falling down the rabbit hole. Reminds me of what people describe when they have a near death experience. No fear at all in the actual moment. Just peace.
No fear here, either. WWG1WWA
Don't think so... Francis leader.substack.com royalty is not the crown ...America's constitution signed by members of inner temple of city of London so not worth anything....
Francis goes all through it in rule of law...it's the pope that controls everything
Interesting. What about the contention that Trump became the exchequer of the global finance system of the Vatican in his first year as president?
I know nothing about that..would be fantastic if true...
Heard a lot about it in Trump's first year as president, but I can no longer remember the details or where I socked away the information about it. That was alleged to have happened during that first world tour. They said he went around with volumes of hard evidence of the crimes of world leaders (including the pope), and forced them to capitulate to his demands. I think the Vatican was the last stop, and it would have been then that he took their keys, so to speak. In pictures of that particular visit, the pope does look particularly unhappy, but an expression is no proof. He might have been constipated that day or just unhappy that Trump was in the same building. (Trump, on the other hand looked like he was at a party.)
If all this is true, it lends more credence to the idea that we are indeed watching a scripted movie that is meant to awaken the people who are still hypnotized. Q said, "You have to show them," and as time went on, I saw the wisdom of that.
Exchequer of the world, DJT.... https://www.bitchute.com/video/AEJ8GviWjpur/
Eh ... not quite.
First rule is that the parties must be identified. In the case of the Declaration the presumption is that ALL who signed were esquires. Then it is assumed that these esquires were not properly authorized.
A declaration is not a contract. It is, what we call: a missive. Just to give closure on certain matters.
The oath within the declaration only binds those ascending to it initially only the signers and those in whose name they sign if and when properly authorized.
In the case of the Paris Peace treaty the same hold true, as the esquires, as representatives of the United States of America signed the treaty. There is a lie in there: as it says: plenipotentiary.
They are not, as they cannot conclude a deal. The deal has to be ratified by the senate.
That Britain payed money to support the effort of Congress for the .gov operation can very well be part of the deal of the final settlement.
Francis went on a tangent there and the limb broke off.
Can you simplify that for me please....are you saying it's all ok? It was fixed with Britain's aid?
Ok, here' s a contract to be signed by representatives of two parties. The representatives are all members of the same club. However, when the contract is concluded, the process of ratification comes into view, and only after ratification, the contract goes into effect. In international law, an instrument is send to all related parties to inform them ratification of the contract has cleared positively.
Does that invalidate the contract? Because if your answer is yes, then no one, having studied at the same place, can conclude business together.
It would also mean that Britain would be incapable of making contracts with say: the Republic of the 7 Provinces, or With China in them days.
I would recommend to look up on archive.org: https://archive.org/details/europeantreatie00paulgoog: European treaties bearing on the history of the United States and its dependencies.
Check the signatories ..... and remember ... the temple bar existed since the 1200....
Although, I think that Frances has a point when he recounts how such a system could easily lead to conflicts of interests .... it is the authorization of the representatives by means of letters by an authorizing body and the ratification that puts things into effect.
With this in mind, read again the Paris Peace Treaty. What Frances did not see, but I did, is a last paragraph ..... about the debts!
And it is through the banking system that Britain wields tremendous power.