Wonders Abound
We got to thinking a while back that, well, if "the" President isn't occupying the actual intended presidential office, and if the military is being used as a mercenary force, what else doesn't smell right?
We decided to look and apply the same methods of historical research and public record deduction to other institutions, offices, and subjects.
We were shocked, but not too shocked, to discover that both King Charles III and King Charles of Scotland are acting out of school and neither one of them have been crowned in the crucial jurisdiction necessary to actually be and act with the powers of a king.
Hmmmm.
So what have they been up to?
Essentially they are acting as glorified business executives, one in the jurisdiction of the air (His Imperial Majesty, King Charles III) and one in international jurisdiction (His Royal Majesty, King Charles of Scotland) and absolutely nobody is sitting at home on either the English or Scottish throne --- perhaps this denouement is even a shock to them, as it has been this way for a long time, long before either of these men were born.
Queen Anne started the practice as of 1707 with the settlement of The War of the Spanish Succession. She ascended the throne of Great Britain, which is not the same as and exists in a different jurisdiction than the Throne of England.
Other Monarchs returned to the normal course and sat on the Thrones of England and Scotland after that, but in the middle of the Nineteenth Century, Queen Victoria went a bit balmy after her husband's death, and not only vacated the English Throne in favor of the "throne" of Great Britain, but fancied herself as Empress of India, too.
All her various children ensconced in various Royal Households throughout Europe went on to play the same games.
It is an eternal truth that you can't really sit on two chairs at the same time, so that gives you the gist of the current dilemma: Charles III is covering the bases in the jurisdiction of the air, Charles of Scotland is covering the Chair of the Estates in international jurisdiction, and nobody is at home covering the soil jurisdiction of the homelands.
Charles III hasn't ever occupied the Throne of England and King Charles of Scotland hasn't actually occupied the Throne of Scotland. Both have been too busy shuffling business deals and managing assets to do the good old hum-drum -- with the inevitable result that both "Kings" are legless.
If you don't stand on the soil of your own country, you have no standing at all.
Even the faithful Hereditary Lord High Steward, Ivan Talbot, who instinctively moved to cover the empty throne with his claims back in the 1990's, was confused by it and didn't fully realize the magnitude of the situation.
The facts -- that the soil jurisdiction could have been lost to foreign creditors except for Talbot's action, and that the Queen didn't occupy the soil jurisdiction of England during her seventy-year reign -- are still sinking in.
** continued in comments **
** continued **
Wonders Abound By Anna Von Reitz](http://www.paulstramer.net/2023/12/wonders-abound.html)
Elizabeth II went through the motions of the Coronation. She kissed the Bible, said the words, and then, within three days, she reneged on her public and social contract with the people of England, as proven in the High Court case Regina v JAH (John Anthony Hill).
Elizabeth II may have sat on the English Throne for two and half days, but she didn't stay there, and as she reneged on the contract that allowed her to sit on the English Throne in the first place, it's unlikely that she or her progeny could claim any benefit at all from her thwarted coronation, with or without the Stone of Scone.
So, it's all been more Royal fun and games, kiddies, with everything (to use the English vernacular) bollixed up and beyond recognition, but still clunking along as if all this was normal and acceptable.
The fact remains that without the soil firmly underfoot, no office of kingship exists, which is where the Windsors left England, and the Kings of Scotland left Scotland, too.
The British Royals have been absent from the realm of life and love and playing around in the kingdoms of the dead for the last 160-plus years.
Everyone just kept calm and carried on with a vacated throne; no doubt some of the earlier witnesses to this circumstance hoped that the Kings and Queens would someday return, and went to their own graves still wishing, similar to the situation that has left the Americans waiting for their President.
So, bottom line, there is no King of England nor any King of Scotland at present. Without first populating the soil jurisdiction there is no basis to occupy the land, the sea, or the air: you are looking, rather, at two Business Executives tatted up and called "kings" --- but they're not really.
Just like the "President" of the United States, Inc., bears no relation to The Office of The President of The United States, the "King" of Great Britain is a different beastie and operating in a different jurisdiction than the King of England.
So, no actual President, no actual King, let's go three for three.
No actual Pope, either?
What else can you deduce?
The Jesuits bind themselves as foot soldiers for the Pope, vowing to do whatever the Pope needs them to do.
Jorge Bergolio was a Jesuit.
So, Pope Benedict XVI decides to distance the Church from the troublesome Office of the Roman Pontiff and dissolves it (2011) and next he decides to retain the sacred "ministerial office" of the Pope for himself -- he said so in his good-bye letter -- which leaves the loyal Jesuit in the "secular office" doing the dirty work.
The Pope has been similarly reduced to being a Business Executive.
There has been no conclave to decide what to do about Benedict XVI's vacant ministerial office since his death and no tradition that we can find that allows his ministerial office to simply migrate to an "acting" Pope upon his death.
So, there is nobody actually occupying the traditional and intended ministerial office of the Pope, either.
That makes it a trifecta. Pope, King, and President all operating under False Pretenses, and acting as Business Executives.
The "acting" Pope has lost his sacred office.
The King has lost his kingdom, or rather, never gained it.
The "acting" President is an Executive in charge of a foreign Municipal Corporation headquartered in the District of Columbia.
They might as well all wear pin-stripes and move to New York.
Except for the recent upheaval of the Pope's offices, these conditions have existed for a long time.
Knowing this may not be comforting, but it helps make sense of the roiling madness.
These men have no sacred or truly public duties.
They are all functioning in a private capacity as business executives, seeking to maximize profits.
Profit has clearly become their "god" and master, not the God of Nature, and certainly, they have little time and less respect for the fools who expect them to provide spiritual guidance or depend on them to look out for the Public Good.
If they are sentient themselves and fully aware of their circumstance, they must wonder about the rest of us.
They must wake up at night and pinch themselves wondering when the rest of us are going to realize that our public and even our religious institutions have been overtaken and bamboozled by commercial interests?
We have no actual President, no actual King, and to top it off, no actual Pope.
It's all for show -- a massive pretense to keep the masses sedated -- and to keep themselves seemingly in office, wielding authorities that they don't actually have, wearing crowns and tiaras and titles that aren't actually theirs, because they aren't in their intended (and advertised) office and aren't performing the actual job.
Standing here flat-footed, the very least of the crimes we could charge them all with, are false advertising, fraud, and obstruction of trade.
This daunting Christmas Eve, I have only this advice: make the True God, our Creator, your King; realize that the governments and institutions of Mankind have been reduced to commercialized sideshows; and know that you are the answer you've been waiting for.
It's all up to you now.
George Washington is dead. There's no English King, so there's no British Monarch, either. The Office of The President of The United States of America has been vacant since 1872. And the Pope is a Jesuit doing his duty to perform.
No wonder the entire world is in chaos. Nobody knows who anybody is anymore, nor in what office and jurisdiction they are acting.
The Presidents aren't Presidents. The Kings aren't Kings. And now, even the Pope isn't technically the Pope.
The ministerial office of the Pope has been separated from the secular office, and now the ministerial office has been vacated by Pope Benedict XVI's death with no official replacement process evident, and no official acceptance of the ministerial office by "Pope" Francis, either.
He's a goat without a rope. Fancy free. Wheeling and dealing without the constraints of a Christian ministry.
All you've got left are the humble and unexpected offices -- the Hereditary Lord High Steward, the Hereditary Head of State, and, we must guess, there will be a Hereditary Head of the Church next, if the pattern of heroic last-minute saves plays out.
If so, he will be just as unlikely, just as humble as Ivan Talbot and James Clinton Belcher have been, someone you would never expect at all. Maybe a Reiki Master from New Zealand.
Whatever happens, be ready.
The insidious corruption of the commercial world has seeped into everything like ink spilled on a blotter. By a process of lies and deceits, it has made its bid to rule us by its rules. It hasn't succeeded.
We, Americans, are here to restore our lawful government vested in our States of the Union. No doubt after reading this, many Brits will be motivated to get to the bottom of their dog pile, too. The world's Catholics have been restive the last ten years, sensing that something is afoot.
We all have to deal with "evil in high places" and muckle our share.
We all have to realize that evil is not vested in one man or even a group of men; evil exists in-and-of-itself, and it lurks within earshot of all of us every day that we live.
Rather, the struggle is always to recognize evil for what it is, one-on-one, to know when something or someone has gone off the rails, and to get them (or it) back on track again if possible.
At some point, we also have to realize that, "You can't fix evil."
Evil is just evil, unto itself. The only way to ultimately deal with evil is to give it the heave-ho, out of your life and out of your world.
If someone is in the thrall of evil, and they refuse to turn away from it, you have to let them go.
It's the same way with governments and institutions.
When they stop serving in good faith, you stop paying them and stop supporting them.
You don't go to war, you send them a pink slip and take away their credit cards.
Yeshuah said we would know evil by its fruits, and it's plain to see the dystopian nightmare that corporatism and commercial self-interest are bent on creating.
Whatever else you do this winter, commit to ending the threat posed by Corporate Feudalism.
Just say no and demand what you are owed -- from the government, from the churches, and from the business community, too.
Make the effort to envision and then, take action to create the world you want to see -- a world that is sane and solid and at peace.
May that safe and pleasant world prevail for you, dear Reader, and for your family, too.
Wonders Abound By Anna Von Reitz
It's some fascinating stuff but I'm not ever quite sure what to do with title fagging.
Is the idea that we can just stop following certain laws and edicts because they don't have legal standing, and if we know our title fagging in full the courts will respect it?
This seems to be implied but we never see any title fags come back from their journeys full of riches and power.
I used to watch Midnight Mass at the Vatican every year.
But I refuse to see that corrupt anti-pope going through the motions of legitimacy any longer.
As for the pope, Pope Benedict did not renounce his "munus."
"What are the requirements for a valid Papal resignation? — These are found in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, Canon 332 §2;
§ 2. Si contingat ut Romanus Pontifex muneri suo renuntiet, ad validitatem requiritur ut renuntiatio libere fiat et rite manifestetur, non vero ut a quopiam acceptetur.
What is the first condition or requirement, then, according to Canon 332 §2 for a valid papal resignation? — That it happens that the Roman Pontiff renounce his munus (muneri suo renuntiet).
Does the text of Pope Benedict renounce the munus? — No, it says clearly declaro me ministerio … renuntiare.
If the renunciation does not regard the munus, does canon 332 §2 even apply? — Yes and no. Yes, because since it does not fulfill the condition of a resignation within the term (in this case, munus) of Canon 332 §2, its not valid. And no, inasmuch as being a juridic act which is outside the terms of Canon 332 §2 it does not regard a papal resignation, but merely a retirement from active ministry."
"If both the text of the Code of Canon Law and canonical tradition require the mention of munus in a papal resignation, then in virtue of Canon 17, do those who claim Benedict’s renunciation of ministerium is valid, have any ground to stand upon? — No, none at all.
Then, must all Catholics recognize that in virtue of the law itself, the resignation is invalid? — Yes.
Does not the fact that the Cardinals all act as if it were valid, mean anything? — No, because according to canon 332 §2, even if the whole world held it to be valid, if it does not meet the conditions of Canon 332 §2, it is not valid. There is no wiggle room here.
But does not the very fact a Conclave was held in March of 2013 to elect a new pope make the resignation of Benedict XVI valid? Does not his tacit consent to this make it valid? — No on both accounts. First of all, because nothing makes a resignation valid except its conformity to canon 332 §2. Second, because by Divine Institution, the Petrine Munus cannot be shared by more than one individual. Ergo, if Benedict did not renounce it, he retains it. If he retains it, its contrary to divine law to elect another pope so long as he lives. And in his act of renunciation he never ordered a Conclave to be called in his lifetime. That he consented to such a thing may be either because of fear or of substantial error as regards what is necessary to resign his office. If it is fear, it does not make it valid. If he is in substantial error, then in accord with Canon 188, its expressly invalid by the law itself."
https://vericatholici.wordpress.com/2018/12/19/how-and-why-pope-benedict-xvis-resignation-is-invalid-by-the-law-itself/
Therefore, Pope Francis is not a valid pope.
No wonder why Julie Green says, "Charles will not wear the crown."
You can't be king of a corporation.