Civil Law Versus Divine Common Law
The Fascinating Process of Self Liberation under Common Law
By Arend Lammertink.
In the past months, David Wilcock posted an epic work on Financial Tyranny. One of the most interesting parts of that story is a lawsuit against the central banking system that has been filed by Neil Keenan and Keith Scott, a story that had been covered by Benjamin Fulford for quite some time already.
When I investigated this story further, I found out that current International Civil law and thus all the nations operating under this jurisdiction (including the corporate US government) ultimately are legally nothing but vassals of the Vatican. In other words: (virtually) all nations are legally operated as (de-facto) corporations under the jurisdiction of the Vatican. And as we will see, that gives some very interesting possibilities that may offer some solutions to the problems we are facing.
The story starts with the Keenan lawsuit, which uses a powerful commercial lien process under Common Law. One of the advisors in that process is Winston Shrout, who is considered to be an expert in this field. In an interview with Wilcock, Shrout referred to the Bible as his source for the legal processes he was using, but Shrout was not aware of any books people may read for more information.
So, I went looking on the internet what I could find, and I found the book “Pied Pipers of Babylon” (pdf) by Verl K. Speer, which goes into the history and fundamental principles of Common Law, the law system used by the Anglo-Saxons in England. He claims that this system originates from the Israelites, which migrated to Northern Europe and that it is the same system one can find in the Bible.
Another part of this story, is the process talked about by a fellow named Drake. He talks about returning the US to common law before Law Enforcement agencies in the US will perform mass arrests of the bankers in the US. In this process, juries are formed (an important feature of common law) in various states, which file some paperwork by which the states declare their independence of the corporate Washington government and return to their original constitution and bill of rights.
Because of the intriguing nature of this process, I started studying the history of our own constitution and found out that the 1798 constitution of the Batavian Republic is the only Dutch constitution that has been lawfully ratified by the people under common law. All later ones, including the 1801 version underNapoleon, were either illegal or not ratified under the authority of the people but under the authority of someone else. Interestingly, the constitution OF the Batavian Republic and the 1801 one were the only constitutions OF The Netherlands. ALL the later constitutions are constitutions FOR The Netherlands and thus OF someone else….
Further investigations revealed that the authority the current Kingdom of The Netherlands, as well as the rest of Europe and (most of) the World, legally operates under up to this day is none less than the Vatican, which gives us some very interesting possibilities to liberate the people of this planet from literally ages of (financial) tyranny under jurisdiction, authority, sovereignty and responsibility of the Vatican.
What this says is basically that the French and thus Dutch and United States revolutions are a direct and severe threat to the Vatican’s objectives and therefore a blessing to all freedom loving people on this planet, even though the whole French revolution may (initially) have been a kind of false flag operation along the lines set out by Prof. Veith. Either way, here is why these revolutions actually ARE a deadly weapon against the dark Cabal:
The essential trick for a nation to liberate itself, is to declare a bill of rights and a republican constitution by referendum under common law and under the authority of the people themselves, after the example that has been set in the late 1700s by all three mentioned republics. As far as I am aware, the US did not use a referendum, but the Dutch Batavian Republic definitely did. It may be possible to use some other process, but with a constitution ratified by the people of a nation by referendum there is no question about the legal validity nor authority of said constitution. In other words: NO ONE can legally prevent the people of a nation to declare their independence under common law.
What this does is that it establishes a new legal entity, a free and really independent Republic, under the jurisdiction of Common Law instead of under the jurisdiction of international civil law, which up to this day still operates under authority and sovereignty of the Vatican. In other words: you now have two DIFFERENT legal entities governing over one and the same country, of which only one is really free and independent and operates under the authority of the People now actually OWNING their land instead of legally STILL being a vassal of the Vatican. The latter STILL being the case for at least all previous colonies of the United Kingdom, France, The Netherlands and Spain as well as ALL of Europe and Russia.
The other side of this is that the legal entity that still exists as a vassal of the Vatican no longer has any subjects nor any possessions within the now liberated country, BUT it is still burdened with ALL of its obligations and liabilities established under the authority and responsibility of the Vatican. So, these are NOT the problem of the now liberated people, which were after all just subjects ruled under the sovereignty of the Vatican.
In other words: we now have not only a nice trick to liberate a nation, but also a convenient way to get rid of the problem of nation’s debt, which is now the problem of the Vatican and not of the nation’s self-liberated people.
What’s even more interesting, is that this process could in principle also be done at a global level by the UN. If the general assembly would make a statement in which they declare the whole planet to be free and independent under Common Law by declaring a bill of rights and a global constitution after the example set by the US and the Dutch Batavian Republic, then all people would be free from suppression by the Dark Cabal. And the burden of ALL global debts established under the authority and responsibility of the Vatican would no longer be the problem of the people of this planet.
Now THAT would be something I would love to see. 🙂
This P2 lodge can indeed be linked to the Vatican as well as various (international) crimes, as you can readin this paragraph.
The Pied Pipers of Babylon
It is very fascinating to see the legal battle currently being fought (by Neil Keenan a.o.) essentially deals about restoring common law, Biblical Anglo-Saxon law, which law can be summarized in one sentence:
“Love your neighbor like yourself”.
Since common law is described in the Bible, it is interesting to take a look at this video by prof. Walter Veith, in which he gives an excellent analysis of the French revolution based on the bible. And he also shows how astonishingly accurate the Bible predicted the French revolution:
Now the essential difference between common law and civil law is the *authority* under which the legal system operates. With common law AND trial by jury, the government is under control of the people, because a proper jury cannot only sentence according to the law, it can ALSO judge the law itself. VERY important detail. See Speer for all the details.
In other words: we are looking at a war between the peoples authority and centralized authority, with the Vatican, the Holy See, at the ultimate control, hiding behind the scenes. The woman (a church) that rides the beast (a kingdom) in Biblical symbolism. Interestingly, this can be (legally) confirmed based on a/o the 1815 treaties of Paris and Vienna, as you can read in this section.
Now in the symbolism of the pyramid with the capstone with all seeing eye floating above the pyramid, you have the symbol for the hidden force behind the scenes, the Vatican.
All right. Now according to Veith, the Huguenots were the true followers of the word of God, the Bible. Translated into law terms this means: the Huguenots were the proponents of Common Law, whileNapoleon, probably a Freemason who apparently actually worked for the Vatican and the Jesuits, was a proponent of Civil Law.
In other words: accordingly, the Feemasons setup the French revolution as agents of the Vatican in order to hide and regroup, because the printing and widespread availability of the (Gutenberg) Bible blew their cover. The idea that the Freemasons were involved in the French Revolution is further substantiated by Albert Pike’s book, as you can read in this paragraph.
Either way, the protestants identified the anti-christ very clearly to be none other than the Vatican, as is clearly witnessed by the statue at the Nurnberg city hall:
In this image, you clearly see the beast at the right side of the statue to be identified with the Roman Empire, which is in accordance with the so-called protestant historicist interpretation of the Bible:
The Protestant reformation was born of the rediscovery of Christ’s salvation and identifying the papacy as the Antichrist. Protestant historicists saw prophecy fulfilled down through the centuries and into the modern era. Rather than expecting a single Antichrist to rule the earth during a future Tribulation period, Martin Luther, John Calvin and other Protestant Reformers saw the Antichrist as a present feature in the world of their time, fulfilled in the papacy. They were unanimous in this interpretation lending emphasis to their reformation. It led them to protest against Rome and it became their rally and battle cry.
So, now that their cover was blown, the Roman Empire had to use another strategy in order to suppress the Divine Common law and the vehicle they chose was the French declaration of human rights, whereby the people were to be governed by civil law instead of Biblical common law:
Take special notice of the symbolism. As Veith pointed out, you got the Jacobin or Phrygian cap, an ancient symbol of Mithraism, which is why the Pope’s hat is called a mitre. In the Roman Empire the deity Mithras was honoured as the patron of loyalty to the emperor. And you got fasces or fascii, the symbol of the Roman absolute dictatorship:
At some point, of course the Huguenots had to be dealth with. And so they did:
Now Veith states that the Huguenots ended up mainly in South Africa and not much more, BUT that is not entirely accurate:
There are a few remarkable differences in the wordings compared to the French one and also the symbolism is totally different. Even though at first glance the symbolism appears to be very similar, in reality the details are VERY, VERY different. There is no Jacobinian hat and thera are no fascii.
Also, the declaration itself is significantly different in a few key points compared with the French Masonic/Cabal version.
The first article of the Dutch version reads:
The French version:
Note the difference. The French version basically says that the people are subjugated to the higher good, while the Dutch (Huguenot) version declares the natural rights (as given in the Bible of course) to be inalienable.
Then the definiton of liberty:
The French version:
Note the differences. In the French versions, limits to freedom can be determined by (civil, Roman type) law. In other words: freedom can (and WILL) be limited by the government in the French version, where in de Dutch version it is defined along the Biblical concept of “love thy neighbor like thyself”.
Then the article about the freedom of religion:
The French version:
Once again, totally different. In the Dutch version, one is essentially bound to God’s highest command, which is: “love thy neighbor like thyself”, while the French version is once again conditional. It can be limited by law, the law determined by the government of course.
Interestingly, in the flag of the Batavian Republic, we do find fasces:
However, these Arms were adopted at May 4th 1796:
So, during the first year of the Republic, the Arms of the United Provinces was used:
The chosen design was a gold lion on a red field. Its symbolism meant a blend of the coat of arms of the provinces of Brabant, Gelderland (from these two the golden lion was taken) and Holland (whose coat of arms was the opposite) and those of Burgundy and Nassau.
An interesting detail is that declaration of human rights was established by the independent Provinces, particularly Holland who announced it officially, while the Arms and constitution were crafted later by a (central) parliament. The constitution was adopted after a coup on january 22nd 1798 by a group of radical Batavians under leadership of Pieter Vreede (1750-1837) and Wijbo Fijnje (1750-1809) with the support of French troups. So, it is clear that French influence increased rapidly.
Albert Pike, Freemasonry and the Jesuits
The idea that the Freemasons were involved with the French revolution is further substantiated by Albert Pike, in his book Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. Right from the horse’s mouth:
A Lodge inaugurated under the auspices of Rousseau, the fanatic of Geneva, became the centre of the revolutionary movement in France, and a Prince of the blood-royal went thither to swear the destruction of the successors of Philippe le Bel [King of France 1285-1314] on the tomb ofJacques de Molai. The registers of the Order of Templars attest that the Regent, the Duc d’Orleans, was Grand Master of that formidable Secret Society, and that his successors were the Duc de Maine, the Prince of Bourbon-Condé, and the Duc de Cossé-Brissac.
Note the peculiarities: “Royalty was regenerated” and “the Church triumphed in the captivity of Pius VI”. Apparently, in the eyes of Albert Pike, Royalty was restored by overturning the power of the Pope, while this was a positive thing for “the Church”.
In his book, one can find lots of information about the World’s history, symbolism and the inner workings of freemasonry from the perspective of a 33-degree freemason, like:
Civil and religious Freedom must go hand in hand; and Persecution matures them both. A people content with the thoughts made for them by the priests of a church will be content with Royalty by Divine Right,—the Church and the Throne mutually sustaining each other. They will smother schism and reap infidelity and indifference; and while the battle for freedom goes on around them, they will only sink the more apathetically into servitude and a deep trance, perhaps occasionally interrupted by furious fits of frenzy, followed by helpless exhaustion.
So, is Masonry on our side, or on the side of the Pontiff?
Is there a difference between Masonry and Freemasonry?
Are there different factions within Masonry?
An excerpt from “PROOFS OF A CONSPIRACY” by George Forman, 1798:
German Masonry appeared a very serious concern, and to be implicated with other subjects with which I had never suspected it to have any connection. I saw it much connected with many occurrences and schisms in the Christian church; I saw that the Jesuits had several times interfered in it; and that most of the exceptionable innovations and dissentions had arisen about the time that the order of Loyola was suppressed; so that it should seem, that these intriguing brethren hadattempted to maintain their influence by the help of Free Masonry.
And what about connections between the Vatican and the Jesuits? On this page, a/o the following is claimed:
These are intriguing questions that are not easy to answer, but the links just above may give you some clues.
More books on the Jesuits here.
This (masonic) P2 Lodge mentioned by Fulford is an interesting entity:
And these are/were powerfull people:
And this Roberto Calvi is connected to the Vatican:
Italian investigative magistrate Palermo, during his own investigations of P-2, found that, in addition to Billy Carter, Michele Papa’s Libya dealings had involved another P-2-linked financier, Giovanni Mario Ricci, of the Seychelles.
Note: Another most interesting and shocking report (pdf) by EIR deals about how the African continent is allegedly being “managed” under the guise of “environmental protection” in the name of the WWF.
Note that the Freemasons are in this case rumored to be linked to the death of a Pope, which is not the first time Freemasons have been involved with “special treatment” of a Pope. According to Albert Pike, Pope Pius VI also made himself not too popular with the Freemasons and was treated accordingly.
So, while one can find many links to the Vatican as an institution being involved in various crimes, this does not mean one can draw conclusions on particular members of neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Freemasons. It appears that within these organizations different opposing factions exist, which makes researching this subject pretty confusing. And the ordinary “uninitiated” followers/members of these organizations have absolutely no idea about the crimes that are being perpetrated in the name of these organizations.
The Chief Pontiff and the treaties of Paris and Vienna
In the Treaty of Paris of 1815, we find a remarkable preample:
In other words: we here have a treaty that says that the “Royal Authority” has been “happily re-established” in France in 1815, in the Name of the “Most Holy and Undivided Trinity”.
The “Final Act of the Congress of Vienna/General Treaty” is signed in the name of the same legal entity:
So, what we are looking at, are two legal contracts between several parties under the authority of some legal entity, identified by the name “Most Holy and Undivided Trinity”, because these treaties have 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 (and it’s colonies) appointing certain rulers (kings) over parts of it’s supposed territory. Today, this legal entity appears to have actually split itself into the so-called Trinity of the City:
Anyhow, because the “Royal Authority” was re-established in France in 1815 by means of the treaties of Paris and Vienna, and both treaties were signed in the Name of the “Most Holy and Undivided Trinity“, we can legally identify this “Most Holy and Undivided Trinity” by going back further in history. All we have to do is find out under which name/authority the “Royal Authority” was issued before 1815. After all, the Paris Treaty says this was “re-established”. In other words: in 1815, the “Royal Authority”returned to it’s pervious owner. And we can find out who that was in a document from 1213:
Medieval Sourcebook: John I: Concession Of England To The Pope.
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 1815 treaties of Vienna and Paris were 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:
1 In the beginning God created the Heauen, and 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.
If it cannot, then of course all people and all nations have the right to declare their independenceand to claim ownership of the lands they are living in under Common Law, the laws of the people, the laws of conscience, the law of loving thy neighbor.
I would say one can safely assume that there is no such document on this planet…
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.
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:
3. by making the spiritual and political dominion of the Church supreme in the lands thus “let” to friendly nations.
On the website of the Fordham University, the Jesuit University of New York, Manhatten’s claim about theDonation of Constantine being a forgery is confirmed:
In this article, we found some fascinating links between Biblical prophecy and real, hard evidence about the nature of the Vatican as an institute, linking it not only to the legal framework the nations of the world currently operate under, but also to secret societies like the Jesuits and the Freemasons. While it is unclear what the influence of these secret societies is, it is clear that the Vatican up to this day claims to own the whole world and that (most) nations up to this day operate under it’s jurisdiction as vassal states, including the United States of America with their corporate Washington government.
However, the history of the United States and the two republics that preceded it, the French and Dutch Batavian Republics, reveal that there is a way nations can liberate themselves from the legal system operating under the jurisdiction and sovereignty of the Vatican, which comes down to declaring their independence under common law, the law system that operates directly under the authority and sovereignty of free people.
That way, a new legal entity is created, which does not only liberate the people of a nation, but also gets rid of the debt of such a nation, because that debt consists of liabilities by ANOTHER legal entity, ANOTHER legal entity operating under the responsibility of the Vatican.
And that gives us a solution of not only the problem of people basically being enslaved by their own government, but also gives us an opportunity to make a transition to a new, free and above all peacefulsociety. There is no doubt in my mind that Drake and Bill Brockbrader (who has been arrested, btw) know what they are talking about when they say that the wars they have been fighting in, were fought for no other reason than for making someone large profits:
We also have very good reasons to believe Auschwitz was an uranium enrichtment facility, without which the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would not have been possible, and we know who profited from this all the way up to the “highest circles” in The Netherlands (have been interviewed (mp3) by John Loftus on this matter). And we know how the Muslim Brotherhood, the Nazis and Al-Qaeda fit into the picture. And once again, there appear to be connections to the Vatican both in Vietnam as well as in WW-II. And of course, it is well known that the Vatican operated the so called ratlines after WW-II.
You see, the problem is not that we, the people of this planet are not capable of producing enough food and stuff for every human being on this planet to live a life of luxury.
We have the technology, we have the knowledge, we know our current science is a mess. But we can do better, we have the manpower to do it. We can turn the deserts green by letting the military and the oil companies use their skills for the people. Our car companies and engineers can convert our cars to run on water by tapping the power from the aether, we can do all that. If only we put our minds to it.
So, logically speaking, there should be no problem deciding who gets what, because there could be more than enough for everyone.
The problem is that just a handful of people are too greedy to let that happen. And those are not the “communists”, “socialists”, “republicans”, “democrats” or whatever on the streets.
And as long as we do net get our acts together and recognize where the problem lies, we are never going to solve it.
So, maybe it’s time to try something else.
My idea: a Republic after the example of the United States, which did work until the “corporation” took it over and created the corporate Washington government and the FED banking cartel.
So, in addition to founding new independence republics, we have to get rid of all corporations and replace them with independent self-governed, democratic controlled cooperatives by the people for the people:
And this has been shown to work, too:
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.
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.
This gives the people a combination with which to control both problems created by the Vatican and their bankers:
- With a Republic under common law, whereby all laws are to be approved by the People using liquid democracy, the People can control the power of the State and the Government.
- With (liquid) democratic controlled cooperatives, the People can control the money and debt system, using self-help, self-governance and self-responsibility.
One of the interesting features of this system is that cooperatives have to be established. And therefore, they are by definition under the jurisdiction of the State, which derives it’s sovereignty from the people. In other words: cooperatives can legally be considered to be subjects of the people. That gives the possibility to create civil-type laws that apply to cooperatives, while the people remain free under common law. And since the membership of a cooperative is on a voluntary basis, people can freely join a cooperative and thus be bound by contract to (a part of) civil laws on a voluntary basis. That way, the State can for example raise taxes trough these cooperatives, without infringing on the freedom of people. (Also see some notes on this.)
As for regulating important issues, such as how to behave in traffic, the people can give the state a mandate to regulate such things, depending on how you define freedom and such in your bill of rights. In the 1795 Dutch bill of rights, limited provisions to freedom can be made:
I. All Humans are born with equal Righs and these Natural Rights cannot be taken away from them [i.e. are inalienable].
II. These rights exist in Equality, Freedom, Security, Property and Resistance to Oppression.
VIII. The objective of all Civil Societies must be, to insure the People the peaceful enjoyment of their Natural Rights.
IX. The Natural Freedom of being allowed to do anything which does not disturb others in their Rights, can never be prevented, except when absolutely required for the objective of the Civil Society.
In other words: under the 1795 Dutch bill of rights, the People would (probably) be allowed to give the State a mandate to make a traffic law, when they think this is absolutely required for their security.
And if you have trial by jury, whereby a jury has to decide unanimously, the jury can decide not to convict someone for breaking the law, either because they think the law is unreasonable or works out unreasonably in a particular case.
So, what are we waiting for??
Arend Lammertink, MSc.
Update June 30, 2012:
Now if the people have been granted certain rights under the Magna Carta, and it is the Vatican under which authority and sovereignty this right was given by to a nation, then common law demands that all be treated equal in equal matters. And therefore, the whole planet has the right, eigher in part or as a whole, to publicly file the same kind of notion for all mankind at once. The concession Of England To The Pope was in 1213, the Magna Carta is from 1215, and therefore the Magna Carta applies to all nations currently operating under international civil law since it has been established under the jurisdiction of the Vatican.
And that means this document can be extrapolated from and turned into a document whereby the people of the planet Serve Notice, under Common Law, to all politicians of all countries on the planet, that failure to take action to restore the people’s Sovereignty, and to overturn the treason and criminality that has occurred and is occurring at the highest levels on this planet, will lead to charges of being personally complicit in this treason and criminality and therefore liable to prosecution under Common Law.
Update 2 June 30, 2012:
There appears to be some interesting action going on in Canada against the Vatican by Kevin Annett. A recent blog post, Ending the Reign of Terror: We Will Name and Detain the Guilty, contains the following statement and an interview by Alfred Lambremont Webre:
On the homepage of The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS), there is an article Historic Lawsuit to be Filed in Federal Court Against Church and Crown:
A joint media release by The Association of Citizen Prosecutors (ACP) and The International Tribunal into Crimes of Church and State (ITCCS) is to be released on “Canada Day”, July 1, 2012.
It announces the first class action lawsuit in Canadian history to name as co-defendants the Vatican, the Crown of England, Canada and its churches, and big pharmaceutical companies, all of which are accused of crimes against humanity and criminal conspiracy.
The lawsuit is brought by Jason Bowman of the ACP and Rev. Kevin Annett of the ITCCS, on behalf of a group of many others.
I don’t know anything further about this lawsuit nor the people involved in this, but it may be significant. So, use your own judgment. I will watch this video later. From: http://www.tuks.nl/wiki/index.php/Main/TheFascinatingHistoryOfCivilLawVersusDivineCommonLaw