So Disney's owned by the crown?. King Charles tells DeSantis he's not going to do that to Disney are you kidding me right now
(twitter.com)
🧐 Research Wanted 🤔
Comments (48)
sorted by:
Just want to make a comment that I think need clarification re: "The Crown"
The Crown in Britain is not the person who wears the crown. Rather, the "crown" is the authority established and embodied by the body of law in British history, including the Magna Carta, the 1689 Bill of Rights, all the common law, etc.
While it is obvious to many that the British Monarchy became an instrument of the Cabal, it's also true that the Monarch's themselves are not that instrument, but are rather the subjects or instruments of the Crown.
From a legal perspective, the British Monarch cannot just do whatever they want. They are bound by law, just as much as any citizen of Britain or subject of the Crown. The fact that behind the scenes, the law has been violated over and over and over does not contradict this fact, but enforces it.
The real problem here is unlawful and illegal behavior, NOT the Crown itself. Rather, the Crown itself needs to be returned to lawfulness, just as much as the US government needs to be brought back under the control of the People and returned to lawfulness.
FYI, that's something I didn't know until recent years, but its important to understand. The British Monarch is lawfully and legally able to reign because their authority rests in the Law and by the consent of their People, represented by Parliament.
I’m sorry but you are incorrect in your assessment of the crown’s legal authority being limited. The concept of an “unwritten” constitution is a legal fallacy and is just an excuse used by legal academics in the uk to attempt to justify what is technically absolute authority held by the crown. The only real limitation on the crown is a historical one. By this I mean that the monarchy’s only limitation is how much the public is willing to take. If you were to ask any law professor in the uk about this they will foolishly tell you that the monarch is the final protection the British people have against abuse by government (a laughable proposition). I hold a UK law degree and I’m also a practicing barrister.
I read that the Crown actually refers to the 2 square miles within the city of London where the western globalist bankers reside. Apparently this approx 2 miles within London is much like the vatican within the nation of Italy but established as an independent state.
I'm curious if as Brit and in the legal system you have any info on the truth of above statement.
I'm a Brit but not a lawyer but I think the square mile is owned by the "City of London Corporation", there a bunch of nasty cunts. Goes back to before the Magna Carta. Some say it was a leftover from the old Roman empire.
I listened to an Oxford Uni lecture years ago that Oliver Cromwell wanted revenge on the Irish after the 1641 genocide of the Northern Protestants but needed to raise money for the New Army. So he went to the 'City' and they asked for 1/3rd of the land for themselves.
Cromwell went on his war and ran out of money and requested for more their response was for another 1/3rd, this happened once more until the 'City' owned the whole Island, where they then enacted the 'Penal Laws'. One of the laws was a catholic Irishman was not allowed within 5 miles of a town or city that the 'City' had an office.
Interesting stuff. The more you dig it seems the more bizarre it gets. Only a criminal mind would think up this stuff. That's probably why it's taken the rest of us soooo long to figure out what's going on. Marvin Gaye tried to tell us.
Thanks for your input. I'm still a novice in this area. The knowledge I have is rooted essentially in the Australian context, with regards to the law as it refers to Australians under the Australian Constitution Act of 1901, as passed by the British Parliament.
Obviously, in the field of law and legality, etc, there are widely varying opinions.
By the way, did I say that the Crown's legal authority is limited? I meant to state that the authority of the individual who is the Monarch is limited, and to draw a distinction between the "Crown" and that individual.
I look forward to any further input you might have. BTW, how long have you been practicing? And what brought you to the Great Awakening?
I would say the monarch’s power is absolute and any safe guards against this are easily circumvented.
This describes some of the ramifications. Basically, George III swapped his stuff for a guaranteed income which used to be called the Civil List. Some people think that UK citizens are forced to finance the monarch from taxes but they usually forget about the initial agreement.
Well, it seems like it is time to remind all of them of the original agreement.
Wow. Thanks. Earmarked for reading.
I asked this above but maybe you have some insight?
So I understand what he is saying but wouldn't Florida land owned by The Crown go against the Treaty of Paris? In that treaty all land in the US was under jurisdiction of America while seas and navigable waterways were kept under the jurisdiction of England or The Crown.
hey, tstr. Sorry, but I'm not knowledgeable about that stuff at all. Hope you find some answers!
https://www.disneydining.com/how-the-united-kingdom-helped-save-the-magic-kingdom-the-king-charles-clause-explained-jb1/
Love it when a conspiracy is prover right by the enemy.
Article's from April 1, 2023.
I did find a Yahoo article from April 2 with the same info.
https://news.yahoo.com/royal-lives-clause-king-charles-114024650.html
Lots to unpack...
So I understand what he is saying but wouldn't Florida land owned by The Crown go against the Treaty of Paris? In that treaty all land in the US was under jurisdiction of America while seas and navigable waterways were kept under the jurisdiction of England or The Crown. Which is why I always thought they used Admiralty or Maritime on the land here since 1913.
I wonder who really owns Area 51.
Ok now do my house…😂. Just might have to make that claim for my mortgage
...excellent question
ET......he's gonna drag in a little house and retire there. 🛸🤣🛸🍹
There is an Island in Arizona at Lake Havasu that is also owned by the Crown that is a Disney like theme park. The Cabal use the island for pedo activity and can't be prosecuted for it under US law. The actual London bridge was brought over to link the main land to the island.
That answers my suspicion that Disney supplies child sex trafficking
There are a few hotels and rv parks that connect via the London Bridge in AZ.
Did you find the link to the document that claims all territory belongs to the Crown until last descendant of King Charlese the III dies ?
He said it was the magna carta
And does the legal motion mention how that becomes legally relevant starting from the Declaration of Independance?
Pardon my aging brain...is this just Disney Florida? Or might it extend to Disney Anaheim as well?
This idea I like.
The king doesn't own Disney, the king doesn't have any control over Disney, there's no foreign ownership going on here.
What's going on here is that there is a legal principle called the "Rule against perpetuties" which basically says that some legal arrangements have to have a sunset date, and that sunset date has to be related to someone who is currently alive, plus some fixed number of years. King Charles and his descendants are just convenient currently alive people, not parties to the legal structure in any way. Disney could have picked a random name of out the phone book instead, but the royal family is easier to keep track of and has a lot of members who are likely to live for a long time.
Wouldn't a legal "arrangement" have to have agreement of both parties? I mean, I could write an "agreement" that says I don't owe taxes until there are no longer heirs of Charles either, but that doesn't mean the government is going to let me get away with it!
Both parties are in agreement here. The two parties are Disney and the Reedy Creek Improvement Board, and they have agreed to a deal that will last as long as Charles and his current descendants live plus 21 years.
I doubt that the government would sign onto a deal that lets you not pay taxes until Charles and his current descendants are alive... but if you get them to agree to that.... You are golden.
I seem to recall the documents referenced was an 11th hour attempt by Disney to avoid regulation by Florida Government and was already thrown out by U.S courts months ago.
But maybe they tried it again. IDK. I stopped keeping track of that dumpster fire.
I have never heard of this. How exactly did that work? How would the governor not know that land was owned by a foreign country? I feel really dumb right now cuz I'm just not following this. We take our country back, we need to do something about all these foreign countries owning our land.
Will Zoll's Prussiagate Substack explains it thoroughly:
https://substack.com/@prussiagate
Thank you EDIT: any particular one or ones? There are quite a few articles in this substance.
IIRC, the 1871 batch covers this. Really need to watch all of them from the beginning. Keep scrolling until you come to the earliest dated. Yes, it took me over a week to listen to them all. I used the browser read aloud function.
Thanks
Nah this is bullshit, they just picked that as a method of maintaining their power in perpetuity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_lives_clause
Right. Nowhere does it say The Crown owns the land either.
exactly, it's just about how long the contract remains in effect, I suppose because they can't just make it "in perpetuity"
Seems relevant; How Britain turned America into a passive tax farm
https://patriots4truth.org/2021/01/22/how-britain-turned-america-into-a-passive-tax-farm/
Different types of ownership probably. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allodial_title